EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
There is no evidence that Lucifer is Satan, Lucifer has no place in the Abrahamic religions and misinterpreted into the Christian bible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Satan Ruling the World?
- Thread starter rusra02
- Start date
Thana
Lady
Erm..
I don't really see how one can misinterpret that.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Easily, you just did.Erm..
I don't really see how one can misinterpret that.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
What does it mean that Satan masquerades as an angel of light?
Thana
Lady
Okay then.
Luke 10:18
And he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole worldhe was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Matthew 16:23
But he turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.
I can provide more if you like
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I don't read anywhere where it states Lucifer and Satan are one and same. Because they are not. It is a common misinterpretation.Okay then.
Luke 10:18
And he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole worldhe was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Romans 16:20
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Matthew 16:23
But he turned and said to Peter, Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.
I can provide more if you like
Thana
Lady
Isiah 14:12-15
The Fall of Lucifer
12 How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Read this carefully and you will be enlightened . . .
Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil.
As already stated numerously by members, the word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Christian bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?" The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "Lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. The association is clearly in regards to King Nebuchadnezzar and is in reference to the Morning Star which is a title that Jesus uses for himself as well.*
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."*
Lucifer is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", and the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 BCE. He is a Roman deity and in my opinion shouldn't be involved in the Abrahamic paradigm.*
In Greek mythology, Hesperus, the Evening Star is the son of the dawn goddess Eos (Roman equivalent: Aurora) and brother of Eosphorus the Morning Star (Eosphoros "dawn-bearer"; also Phosphorus, Lucifer "light-bearer"), further demonstrates that Lucifer is not a Satan or a fallen angel (which comes from the Book of Enoch).
If the word Lucifer is treated as morning star in Isa 14:12, then this is a denial of the deity of Christ. As in*
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."*
The Vulgate uses the same word in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning").
The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as Lucifer. This word occurs only in the "Hebrew" Old Testament. They simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל.*
In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows: "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." Lucifer in this context is not a proper name but the Latin word for morning star.
Morning Star literally refers to Venus, but metaphorically it is being associated with earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter uses this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. In Isaiah 14:12 it references the Babylonian king as the morning star and predicts his fall.
To associate the Morning Star with Lucifer (a Roman pagan deity) and thus with Satan/Devil *is then calling Jesus (2 Peter 1:19) the devil, and we don't want that!*
Thana
Lady
Read this carefully and you will be enlightened . . .
Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil.
As already stated numerously by members, the word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Christian bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?" The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "Lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. The association is clearly in regards to King Nebuchadnezzar and is in reference to the Morning Star which is a title that Jesus uses for himself as well.*
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."*
Lucifer is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", and the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 BCE. He is a Roman deity and in my opinion shouldn't be involved in the Abrahamic paradigm.*
In Greek mythology, Hesperus, the Evening Star is the son of the dawn goddess Eos (Roman equivalent: Aurora) and brother of Eosphorus the Morning Star (Eosphoros "dawn-bearer"; also Phosphorus, Lucifer "light-bearer"), further demonstrates that Lucifer is not a Satan or a fallen angel (which comes from the Book of Enoch).
If the word Lucifer is treated as morning star in Isa 14:12, then this is a denial of the deity of Christ. As in*
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."*
The Vulgate uses the same word in contexts where it clearly has no reference to a fallen angel: 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star"), Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning").
The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word ‏הילל as Lucifer. This word occurs only in the "Hebrew" Old Testament. They simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated ‏הילל.*
In the Vulgate, Isa 14:12 reads as follows: "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." Lucifer in this context is not a proper name but the Latin word for morning star.
Morning Star literally refers to Venus, but metaphorically it is being associated with earthly kings, emperors, and pagan deities. Peter uses this word to show that the real morning star was Jesus, not Caesar. In Isaiah 14:12 it references the Babylonian king as the morning star and predicts his fall.
To associate the Morning Star with Lucifer (a Roman pagan deity) and thus with Satan/Devil *is then calling Jesus (2 Peter 1:19) the devil, and we don't want that!*
I don't particuarly know why you oppose the fact that Lucifer is Satan,
I suppose it has something to do with your beliefs.
However, And in light of the information you provided,
I still see nothing that is definitive.
The meaning of the name lucifer varies, But generally is about something involving light or stars/bright.
And the bible constantly refers to light and stars/bright with Satan.
But if you prefer to see it as a misinterpretation, Then that's cool
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I have nothing against Christians using Satan as their Opposition to God, Satan is a Hebrew word "ha sata" and fits nicely in the story. But lucifer on the other hand does not and being a Luciferian I make it a point to expose the misunderstanding.I don't particuarly know why you oppose the fact that Lucifer is Satan,
I suppose it has something to do with your beliefs.
However, And in light of the information you provided,
I still see nothing that is definitive.
The meaning of the name lucifer varies, But generally is about something involving light or stars/bright.
And the bible constantly refers to light and stars/bright with Satan.
But if you prefer to see it as a misinterpretation, Then that's cool
Thana
Lady
Fair enough, I assume in your faith, Lucifer must be pretty important.
But with mine, The distinction between Lucifer and Satan is pretty irrelevant if not insignificant.
So carry on
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Being a Luciferian, I would think soFair enough, I assume in your faith, Lucifer must be pretty important.
But with mine, The distinction between Lucifer and Satan is pretty irrelevant if not insignificant.
So carry on
Lucifer and Satan being irrelevant and insignificant in your religion is my exact point here. Lucifer was never meant to be included in Christian thought, through various media starting with the misinterpretation of the Vulgate and through Milton's Paradise Lost, Lucifer has been brainwashed into the Christian mind to coincide with Satan.
McBell
Unbound
But with mine, The distinction between Lucifer and Satan is pretty irrelevant if not insignificant.
So carry on
So why are you presenting a demonstrated falsehood as a "fact"?
Thana
Lady
Being a Luciferian, I would think so
Lucifer and Satan being irrelevant and insignificant in your religion is my exact point here. Lucifer was never meant to be included in Christian thought, through various media starting with the misinterpretation of the Vulgate and through Milton's Paradise Lost, Lucifer has been brainwashed into the Christian mind to coincide with Satan.
Personally, I tend to avoid any form of Satanism, As I believe in the reality of the Devil, Demons and dark magic.
But I'm a curious person by nature, And I especially like to learn about 'unusual' religions, And the psychological attraction to them.
From my quick view of luciferianism on wikipedia, It says that they generally don't worship a deity?
So who is Lucifer?
Thana
Lady
McBell
Unbound
Because I didn't see anything resembling a 'demonstrated falsehood'
I understand that.
but your refusing to see it, does not make it go away.
In fairness to you, Thana, some of the modern Bible commentators and preachers sell Lucifer as Satan, but some don't. In fairness though he was not considered to be Satan until Milton wrote his fictions Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. After that it became popular to refer to the Satan as 'Lucifer', but people didn't start to take it seriously right away. I think the Christian commentators treat it as an idea with potential in a 'Midrashic' sense but not as an actual doctrine. Matthew Henry's commentary (three volumes) goes into detail about how the whole passage of Isaiah 14:3-23 is about the king of Babylon. (Matthew Henry published his commentary in 1710 and was a favorite of Charles Spurgeon. More current additions have been printed by Nelson bible publishers.) He devotes many paragraphs to Isaiah 14:3-23 but here is a sentence from him:
Mathew Henry Commentary said:
Last edited:
Thana
Lady
Really?
I thought denial made problems go away.
Thank you, Captain Obvious
Or, Dare I say it, The argument just wasn't convincing.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
yes, your posting history does indicate you believe that.Really?
I thought denial made problems go away.
Thank you, Captain Obvious
Thank you for furthering my point.
Thana
Lady
Oh dear, My blatant sarcasm seems to have no effect on you.
Oh well, Since you show no interest in real debate (ever), Instead you're just a pot stirrer, So I don't mind all that much.
McBell
Unbound
Oh dear, My blatant sarcasm seems to have no effect on you.
Oh well, Since you show no interest in real debate (ever), Instead you're just a pot stirrer, So I don't mind all that much.
Perhaps later I will get bored enough to continue our exchange of petty insults or perhaps i will not.
Either way, have a nice day.