Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God!

I did not mean to suggest that they were the same across the board. I did not mean that at all. I agree with your assessment of differences. I was merely pointing out (without providing actual evidence) Luciferian influences within the Bible, or perhaps rather, influences from the same source that influenced Luciferianism.

Here is something I wrote in another post on this topic. It shows these potential influences in the RELIGION we call Christianity (something completely separate from the TEACHINGS of Jesus).

The Nicene convention (NC) three centuries after Jesus' death was the final editor of the Bible most people ascribe as "complete". It was overseen by the Editor in Chief, Emperor Constantine, a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (Lucifer). Was it based on previous works? Almost certainly. There is no dispute of that coming from me. But based on previous works and "final edit" means changes were made, or decided upon, or whatever.

The bible describes itself as "complete".

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19)

Who ordered that? Who decided that little sentence? Was it in fact the apostle John as many wish to believe (but for which there is much debate)? Did he maybe write it slightly different, but a few word changes made it into a closed circle that would forestall any future questions of the Christian Religion created at the NC? How could such a sentence make sense Prior to when the conventioneers decided on which books to include and which to leave out?

How do you know there weren't many other previous revisions or edits to create the Religion between the time of the original author and the NC? I mean, that is exactly what the NC did: formalize the tenets of the Religion, creating a formal work of dogma which was thereafter used as a means of social control of several continents for almost two millennia.

The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.

It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..

"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Moloch?

Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those "chosen people" were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...

What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?

Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".

Where else have we seen such statements?