Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Korunks on May 06, 2009, 02:22:33 PM

Title: Captain of the Host
Post by: Korunks on May 06, 2009, 02:22:33 PM
I am unsure if this the correct forum to ask this question, but who is the Captain of the Host, both the Redemption card and The one in Joshua 5:14.  Having searched the web a bit I have come across several theories and I would like some of the opinions of you guys.  Who was he?  Was he Jesus preincarnate(he accepted reverance from Joshua), Is he Michael the Archangel(He leads the army of the LORD), or was just "A" captain of the Host?




Also an interesting article here about whether Jesus *is* Michael the Archangel, I don't think he is but it is interesting:
 http://www.remnantofgod.org/Michael.htm (http://www.remnantofgod.org/Michael.htm)
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 04:15:29 PM
I am unsure if this the correct forum to ask this question, but who is the Captain of the Host, both the Redemption card and The one in Joshua 5:14.  Having searched the web a bit I have come across several theories and I would like some of the opinions of you guys.  Who was he?  Was he Jesus preincarnate(he accepted reverance from Joshua), Is he Michael the Archangel(He leads the army of the LORD), or was just "A" captain of the Host?




Also an interesting article here about whether Jesus *is* Michael the Archangel, I don't think he is but it is interesting:
 http://www.remnantofgod.org/Michael.htm (http://www.remnantofgod.org/Michael.htm)
I've seen the "Jesus is Michael" thing before.

I personally think Jesus is lucifer, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2009, 04:36:03 PM
I don't want to start a whole argument... but why?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 05:37:50 PM
I don't want to start a whole argument... but why?
The word lucifer is a Latin word used in the vulgate to describe Nebeccadnezzer once and Jesus the rest of the time.

Examine the Roman Rite, for example:
Quote
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum,
Christus Filius tuus qui,
regressus ab inferis,
humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
Quote
May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2009, 05:38:47 PM
And the Roman Rite is the Bible how?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 05:57:38 PM
And the Roman Rite is the Bible how?
It's a part of Christian tradition which shows the philological use of the word "lucifer".
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2009, 06:01:43 PM
What language is that in?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 06:04:36 PM
What language is that in?
Latin. I've done a much more comprehensive word study on it, that's not the only use of the word "lucifer" to describe Jesus, it's just the most convenient. There's several instances in the Bible, I just don't feel like browsing through the Vulgate.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Rrulez on May 06, 2009, 06:38:54 PM
What language is that in?
Latin. I've done a much more comprehensive word study on it, that's not the only use of the word "lucifer" to describe Jesus, it's just the most convenient. There's several instances in the Bible, I just don't feel like browsing through the Vulgate.
The new testament is Greek. ???
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 06:49:49 PM
What language is that in?
Latin. I've done a much more comprehensive word study on it, that's not the only use of the word "lucifer" to describe Jesus, it's just the most convenient. There's several instances in the Bible, I just don't feel like browsing through the Vulgate.
The new testament is Greek. ???

Originally, yes; however, it was translated from the Greek into the Latin Vulgate. When this translation occurred, the words lucifer/luciferum and stella matutina were used in place of the Greek words φωσφόρος and ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ πρωϊνός which each translate "morning star". The word "Lucifer" was left in the English translation of the Bible untranslated from the Vulgate (for reasons unknown) in a certain passage of Isaiah. Because English was originally a Germanic language, the word "Lucifer" was capitalised, and was later assumed to be a proper noun or a name. The connection was then drawn between Lucifer and a certain Parasitical myth of the fall.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2009, 06:54:15 PM
What about the scripture in Isaiah(don't remember the verse), and it says "Oh Lucifer, the morning star, you who laid low the nations." Then it talks about how he sinned and fell, the one who was once perfect was now stained with win, I believe it says, or something close... Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Rrulez on May 06, 2009, 07:49:44 PM
What about the scripture in Isaiah(don't remember the verse), and it says "Oh Lucifer, the morning star, you who laid low the nations." Then it talks about how he sinned and fell, the one who was once perfect was now stained with win, I believe it says, or something close... Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
You mean the king of tyrus?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2009, 08:39:17 PM
No... I don't mean the King of Tyrus at all. It actually says Lucifer in the verse.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 09:20:26 PM
What about the scripture in Isaiah(don't remember the verse), and it says "Oh Lucifer, the morning star, you who laid low the nations." Then it talks about how he sinned and fell, the one who was once perfect was now stained with win, I believe it says, or something close... Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
No, that verse compares Nebuchadnezzar to the morning star. That is the only instance in the Vulgate where the word "lucifer" is not used for Jesus.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 07, 2009, 12:45:28 AM
i would like to here more about this
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 07, 2009, 12:47:25 AM
hear:p
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 12:50:43 AM
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=130499918&blogId=480048440 (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=130499918&blogId=480048440)
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Korunks on May 07, 2009, 08:01:31 AM
But what about Captain of the Host, who is he supposed to be?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 10:30:35 AM
But what about Captain of the Host, who is he supposed to be?
Could be Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael, or none of these. We don't know exactly what time period Joshua was written in so we don't know what beliefs the Jews held at that time.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Master KChief on May 07, 2009, 11:43:12 AM
But what about Captain of the Host, who is he supposed to be?

Jesus preincarnate. angels cannot accept reverence.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
But what about Captain of the Host, who is he supposed to be?

Jesus preincarnate. angels cannot accept reverence.
I think that's jumping to conclusions pretty far.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Rrulez on May 07, 2009, 08:50:39 PM
But what about Captain of the Host, who is he supposed to be?

Jesus preincarnate. angels cannot accept reverence.
I think that's jumping to conclusions pretty far.
I agree.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 07, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Isaiah 14:12 is actually the only appearance of "heylel", or Lucifer, in the Bible, and it refers to the Babylonian king.  But it basically amounts to name-calling, much like when Jesus told Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"  To whit, there are often strong correlations drawn between evil kings in the Bible and the idea that their actions reflected Satan or were guided by him (see also: the whole Tyre thing in Ezekiel 28).  The only appearance of the Greek equivalent, "phosphoros", is in 2 Peter 1:19.  That passage is in reference to Jesus, but the different time periods, languages, contexts (particularly prophecy) makes the argument that they refer to the same person less than convincing.

The name Lucifer was equated with Satan for much the same reason that we equate "King of Tyrus" with Satan; we took a metaphorical name from prophecy and applied it to the angel who himself was once the brightest star in the heavens.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 09:37:49 PM
Isaiah 14:12 is actually the only appearance of "heylel", or Lucifer, in the Bible, and it refers to the Babylonian king.  But it basically amounts to name-calling, much like when Jesus told Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"  To whit, there are often strong correlations drawn between evil kings in the Bible and the idea that their actions reflected Satan or were guided by him (see also: the whole Tyre thing in Ezekiel 28).  The only appearance of the Greek equivalent, "phosphoros", is in 2 Peter 1:19.  That passage is in reference to Jesus, but the different time periods, languages, contexts (particularly prophecy) makes the argument that they refer to the same person less than convincing.

The name Lucifer was equated with Satan for much the same reason that we equate "King of Tyrus" with Satan; we took a metaphorical name from prophecy and applied it to the angel who himself was once the brightest star in the heavens.
There's nothing to suggest that "heylel" is a name or a proper noun. To use it to refer to Satan is far more ambiguous.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Jack Skellington on May 07, 2009, 10:54:02 PM
well personally,
i believe that God did not put certain things in the Bible for a purpose.......the sub-stories and details that could have been included are not nearly as important as the story and ancestry of Jesus and the redemptive aspect of his death on the cross.  If He truely wanted us to know EVERYTHING he would not have let us "fall" or, better yet, he would have made us direct incarnations of Himself.  Ideas formulated on things unstated or unknown is conjecture.  Also due to the many translation errors....it is almost impossible to directly understand subtleties in the original languages.  Also many documetns that contain "factual information" of Biblical identities, despite possibly being accepted due to relegious concerns, contain rather absurd and peculiar accounts of the lives of the topic person/character.......

read the Bible and don't worry about the tiny details of the unknown........

well that's my two cents
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: wk4c on May 07, 2009, 10:57:29 PM
well personally,
i believe that God did not put certain things in the Bible for a purpose.......the sub-stories and details that could have been included are not nearly as important as the story and ancestry of Jesus and the redemptive aspect of his death on the cross.  If He truely wanted us to know EVERYTHING he would not have let us "fall" or, better yet, he would have made us direct incarnations of Himself.  Ideas formulated on things unstated or unknown is conjecture.  Also due to the many translation errors....it is almost impossible to directly understand subtleties in the original languages.  Also many documetns that contain "factual information" of Biblical identities, despite possibly being accepted due to relegious concerns, contain rather absurd and peculiar accounts of the lives of the topic person/character.......

read the Bible and don't worry about the tiny details of the unknown........

well that's my two cents
What can I say, really, that conveys my emotion towards that better than...

+1
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 11:00:52 PM
I obviously don't think God "put" anything in the Bible, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 07, 2009, 11:03:06 PM
There's nothing to suggest that "heylel" is a name or a proper noun. To use it to refer to Satan is far more ambiguous.

So you're saying it's makes more sense to say Lucifer refers to Jesus than Lucifer refers to anybody at all?  How does that work?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Jack Skellington on May 07, 2009, 11:04:18 PM
I obviously don't think God "put" anything in the Bible, but that's just me.

would you agree that the writings included in, perhaps, a cornerstone of our faith were, at least, devinely inspired?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
There's nothing to suggest that "heylel" is a name or a proper noun. To use it to refer to Satan is far more ambiguous.

So you're saying it's makes more sense to say Lucifer refers to Jesus than Lucifer refers to anybody at all?  How does that work?
No, it makes more sense to say that it was an allusion to Venus.

I obviously don't think God "put" anything in the Bible, but that's just me.

would you agree that the writings included in, perhaps, a cornerstone of our faith were, at least, devinely inspired?
In the same way that Phaedo was inspired by Socrates and the Matrix was inspired by Descartes, yeah.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 07, 2009, 11:07:45 PM
No, it makes more sense to say that it was an allusion to Venus.

Not in the context I laid out.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Jack Skellington on May 07, 2009, 11:15:44 PM
In the same way that Phaedo was inspired by Socrates and the Matrix was inspired by Descartes, yeah.

so do you think that God had absolutely nothing to with the writting of the  "WORD OF GOD"?
 :D
just wondering
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 07, 2009, 11:17:37 PM
No, it makes more sense to say that it was an allusion to Venus.

Not in the context I laid out.
The word "Lucifer" isn't a name, at least, unless it's in reference to Jesus.
As for the word "heylel", it doesn't make contextual or linguistic sense to assume that it is Satan. In fact, we don't even know what the word "heylel" means; etymologically it comes from halal, translated:Praise, Glory, Boast, Mad, Shine(d), Foolish, Fools, Commended, Rage, Celebrate, Give, Marriage, Renowned.

In the same way that Phaedo was inspired by Socrates and the Matrix was inspired by Descartes, yeah.

so do you think that God had absolutely nothing to with the writting of the  "WORD OF GOD"?
 :D
just wondering
I don't think the Bible is the word of God so you're essentially begging the same question.

I personally think that abandoning your reliance on scripture opens your eyes to the reality of Christianity and the gospel. Otherwise, your faith is just full of contradictions, errors, and choosing verses to reinforce what you've already been taught to believe.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Jack Skellington on May 07, 2009, 11:39:15 PM
hah

i walked away from God by doing that.

everyone believes what they're taught, including you

     however i am curious as to the fundamentals of your beliefs......   feel free to post them here or message me
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 12:08:33 AM
The word "Lucifer" isn't a name, at least, unless it's in reference to Jesus.

And the one time it actually appears in the Bible   ::)

Quote
In fact, we don't even know what the word "heylel" means.

You don't know what the word heylel means.  I went to Strong's Concordance before posting this information.

I personally think that abandoning your reliance on scripture opens your eyes to the reality of Christianity and the gospel.

It'd kind of hard to open one's eyes to the gospel by discarding the gospel.  It just sounds silly even to say it.  You also make the mistake that just because whatever you were taught is not sufficient for you, that everyone else is similarly mired about and blindly accepts contradictory information.  Your discussions will go a lot better when you stop transferring your experience onto everyone else's theology.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Prof Underwood on May 08, 2009, 12:54:37 AM
I personally think that abandoning your reliance on scripture opens your eyes to the reality of Christianity and the gospel. Otherwise, your faith is just full of contradictions, errors, and choosing verses to reinforce what you've already been taught to believe.
And I think abandoning you reliance on Word of God opens your mind to be swayed by the words of man.  And your faith becomes a house built on the sand.

There are no contradictions in the Bible, only paradoxes that can be understood simply by knowing the Bible better.  And relying on the Word of God means that you don't get to "choose verses" to reinforce your beliefs.  You just have to believe it all.  It is the people who determine for themselves which parts of the Bible are true, that are doing the "picking and choosing".
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 02:22:24 AM
Shaef, Strong's simply lists how each word is translated throughout, not the actual definition. The actual definition is unknown.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 07:53:10 AM
Suit yourself.  I'm content to trust that there are smart people in the world, who don't just make stuff up.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 09:39:59 AM
Suit yourself.  I'm content to trust that there are smart people in the world, who don't just make stuff up.
So you're just going to ignore that there's a random, capitalised Latin word in the middle of your Bible and label it "Satan"?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
No, I'm going to accept centuries of scholarship on the word until you give me a better reason to shift my paradigm.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
No, I'm going to accept centuries of scholarship on the word until you give me a better reason to shift my paradigm.
The NRSV (which is considered by scholars to be the most accurate translation of the Bible and Apocrypha) and most other new translations (including the NIV, strangely enough) drop lucifer for "O Day Star, son of Dawn" (NRSV) or "O morning star, son of the dawn!" (NIV).
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 10:51:18 AM
And?
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 10:52:15 AM
And?
Perhaps I'm making assumptions about your paradigm.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
You must be, if you think that phrasing the metaphorical name any differently was supposed to radically change my viewpoint.  Jesus has like a hundred different names in prophecy, many of which are allusions, so I don't really see this as significant.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 11:00:16 AM
Jesus has like a hundred different names in prophecy,
One of which ironically is Luficer.

I'm not trying to debunk the belief that the story of the fall of Nebbacadnezzer represents the fall of an angel: that was a popular view even in the Maccabean period during the circulation of the Book of Enoch. I'm simply pointing out that "Lucifer", and the use of such as a name to describe anyone besides Jesus, is a philiological accident.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 11:08:35 AM
And I'm pointing out to you that, despite your claims, this is the only place the name appears in Scripture.  So the whole notion of "other than Jesus" actually encompasses all references.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 11:16:18 AM
And I'm pointing out to you that, despite your claims, this is the only place the name appears in Scripture.  So the whole notion of "other than Jesus" actually encompasses all references.
By that you mean in the English translation of scripture. In the Vulgate, the first appearance of the word in the Bible, it is left uncapitalised.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: The Schaef on May 08, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
By that you mean in the English translation of scripture. In the Vulgate, the first appearance of the word in the Bible, it is left uncapitalised.

No, I mean it's the only place the word appears in Scripture.
Title: Re: Captain of the Host
Post by: Colin Michael on May 08, 2009, 11:36:10 AM
By that you mean in the English translation of scripture. In the Vulgate, the first appearance of the word in the Bible, it is left uncapitalised.

No, I mean it's the only place the word appears in Scripture.
Oh, Heylel. Right.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal