Satan and Lucifer

[Sum1sGruj]

I wanted to post this thread to see what people make of Lucifer, Satan, serpent, adversary, etc.
It would seem to me that there is a a lot of debate about Lucifer and Satan being two different beings. Some say they have to be, because the bible makes a split.

But does it?

It's something that I have been looking up on, and have found no 100% conclusion. They seem to be completely interchangeable.
Anyways, there are two possibilities that come to mind:

- Satan is the serpent and the adversary, and Lucifer is the keeper of Earth.
or
-Lucifer is the serpent, the adversary, the keeper of Earth, and Satan.

I have looked into sources and have found some to differ Lucifer from Satan and some to not have Satan period.
Some say Lucifer was of the Seraphim, and some say he was of the Cherubs.

Passion of the Christ movie- Is that Satan holding Lucifer or is it Lucifer with just some fallen Cherub? (cherubs-baby angels). Maybe I should ask Mel Gibson lol

I'm just shooting stuff out there. I figure this may enlighten myself as well as other if it were more thoroughly discussed

 

[ImmortalPhoenix]

Personally, I don't believe in an actual Satan figure. I do believe fallen angels that manipulate the will of man exist, but as far as Satan, no.
Muhammad said that Satan can reach into a person's body the same as blood reaches it.

In the Bible Satan has many names. But as far as "Satan" goes, he represents the adversary to God, and can rest in all of us if we allow him to.

 

[Rakhel]

Within Judaism, and the Hebrew scriptures, there is no Lucifer. Satan, OR Ha-Satan as we know him, is nothing more than the job of an angel. This job could be assigned to any angel at any time.

The name Lucifer was added later, don't remember when, by Christian scribes. And as I have mentioned on other threads like this, you will find Lucifer listed as a Lesser Roman god

 

[Twig pentagram]

Satan or Ha-satan comes from the Hebrew legends. Lucifer comes from a Roman pantheon. I don't think they are the same for the simple fact that the Hebrew language has no word for lucifer and there's no story about lucifer in the Hebrew legends. Also Satan or Ha-satan is an angel or a title for an angel. Lucifer is a god or a title for a god.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I did some research on this in lieu of these recent posts, and it seems that Lucifer had been influenced by a passage in Isaiah 14:12-17.
In the Kings James Version, it states:
'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!'

The King James version was undoubtedly written well after the Jesus incident, but the verse still implies Lucifer as being the serpent also. Did these early Christian scholars believe that all these things were manifestations of the same being? (Satan, Lucifer, serpent, etc.) and that Lucifer/Satan simply got lost in translation?

Also to note, Lucifer in our definition means 'light-bringer or morning star'. Was this definition in light of this being or is it a literal definition in our wording?

If Satan is a title of an angel, could it be the title given only to the 'revolting angel', and Lucifer has been granted this title?
I have paid attention to the other explanations of Lucifer in the other posts, but I guess my main inquiry is why they would switch the name like so.

 

[Rakhel]

I did some research on this in lieu of these recent posts, and it seems that Lucifer had been influenced by a passage in Isaiah 14:12-17.
In the Kings James Version, it states:
'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!'

The King James version was undoubtedly written well after the Jesus incident, but the verse still implies Lucifer as being the serpent also. Did these early Christian scholars believe that all these things were manifestations of the same being? (Satan, Lucifer, serpent, etc.) and that Lucifer/Satan simply got lost in translation?

Also to note, Lucifer in our definition means 'light-bringer or morning star'. Was this definition in light of this being or is it a literal definition in our wording?

If Satan is a title of an angel, could it be the title given only to the 'revolting angel', and Lucifer has been granted this title?
I have paid attention to the other explanations of Lucifer in the other posts, but I guess my main inquiry is why they would switch the name like so.

There are two problems with claiming that Lucifer is the morning star talked about in Isaiah:
1. That chapter is not talking about a fallen angel. He is talking about the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
And
2. By calling Lucifer the Morning Star, you are saying he is also Jesus(Rev 22:16). Now unless you want to start calling Jesus the Devil, I think you had better do some more research.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

2. By calling Lucifer the Morning Star, you are saying he is also Jesus(Rev 22:16). Now unless you want to start calling Jesus the Devil, I think you had better do some more research.

Let's extend that logic a bit. Only two conclusions could be drawn when reconciling those two verses: Xtian scripture is so FUBAR that it can't remember what it copied and what it threw away, making it fully invalid. G-D is evil. BTW, both conclusions can be accurate.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

There are two problems with claiming that Lucifer is the morning star talked about in Isaiah:
1. That chapter is not talking about a fallen angel. He is talking about the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
And
2. By calling Lucifer the Morning Star, you are saying he is also Jesus(Rev 22:16). Now unless you want to start calling Jesus the Devil, I think you had better do some more research.

So has the King James version mistaken Nebuchadnezzar with Lucifer?
The king was the subject, but this verse in the context seems to bring a poetic justice of it in lieu of how Lucifer cursed man to begin with.
Lucifer-Serpent

As for the other part, Lucifer was supposed to be the grace of man, but Jesus had to step in to replace him. I think this is why Revelations makes this connection. Jesus becomes the Morning Star during Revelations, Earth is purged and begins anew.
Lucifer-Serpent-Keeper of Earth


How did I not connect these dots before?
I think I just found my answer

 

[gnostic]

I also don't think there is no such person as Lucifer, unless you are referring to the Roman myth, of the Roman god.

Lucifer was merely a translation of the Morning Star, by St Jerome, when he was translating the Bible to Latin (the Vulgate Bible). Because of this translation, Christians adopted the name for their Satan or Devil.

But in Judaism, there is no such name as Lucifer.

Also, from the Judaic perspective, and what I can gather from Jewish members here, there is no such thing as "fallen angels". Angels have no free will, so they can't disobey god, and if they can't disobey god, then they cannot possibly "fall".

To the Jews, Satan is not the Devil, because he is one of god's servants, and angel meant to test one's faith. If Satan is evil, then so is God.

And as Rakhel had pointed out, the metaphor of the morning star (or the Son of Morning) in Isaiah 14, points to the king of Babylon (not necessarily Nebuchadnezzar, but to Babylonian kings contemporary to Isaiah's time), not to Satan/Lucifer/Devil. This is mis-interpretation made by Christians (and by Muslims too).

So has the King James version mistaken Nebuchadnezzar with Lucifer?

The mistake originated with Jerome's Vulgate Bible, not with King James' version.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I also don't think there is no such person as Lucifer, unless you are referring to the Roman myth, of the Roman god.

Lucifer was merely a translation of the Morning Star, by St Jerome, when he was translating the Bible to Latin (the Vulgate Bible). Because of this translation, Christians adopted the name for their Satan or Devil.

But in Judaism, there is no such name as Lucifer.

Also, from the Judaic perspective, and what I can gather from Jewish members here, there is no such thing as "fallen angels". Angels have no free will, so they can't disobey god, and if they can't disobey god, then they cannot possibly "fall".

To the Jews, Satan is not the Devil, because he is one of god's servants, and angel meant to test one's faith. If Satan is evil, then so is God.

And as Rakhel had pointed out, the metaphor of the morning star (or the Son of Morning) in Isaiah 14, points to the king of Babylon (not necessarily Nebuchadnezzar, but to Babylonian kings contemporary to Isaiah's time), not to Satan/Lucifer/Devil. This is mis-interpretation made by Christians (and by Muslims too).



The mistake originated with Jerome's Vulgate Bible, not with King James' version.

I'd have to disagree. If the king was called the Morning Star, then they are effectively calling him the keeper of Earth, a title given to Lucifer that they refer to Jesus as being in Revelations when he replaces him. The light-bringer, the morning star meant to maintain grace on Earth.
I figured this out, Satan seems to be a namesake.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I'd have to disagree. If the king was called the Morning Star, then they are effectively calling him the keeper of Earth, a title given to Lucifer that they refer to Jesus as being in Revelations when he replaces him. The light-bringer, the morning star meant to maintain grace on Earth.
I figured this out, Satan seems to be a namesake.

If that is the way you see it then that is the way you see it. I however do not see it that way and not only do I think Satan and Lucifer are different legends I think satan is beneath lucifer. Satan represents opposition and/or carnal desires lucifer represents intellectual evolution and/or enlightment.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If that is the way you see it then that is the way you see it. I however do not see it that way and not only do I think Satan and Lucifer are different legends I think satan is beneath lucifer. Satan represents opposition and/or carnal desires lucifer represents intellectual evolution and/or enlightment.

Admittingly, there are different ways of looking at it. Satan and Lucifer do seem to be interchangeable, the same, or two different beings.

It's something that the Bible is simply just to vague on, and angel/demonology seems to have split concepts as well. I've found some hierarchies/systems to include Lucifer and not Satan, and vice versa. I've also seen them to have both.

Personally, however, I find that the term 'Satan' is more a title than an actual name. Lucifer becomes Satan and the Messiah takes the title of Morning Star in the end.

Because Lucifer was meant to be the Morning Star before falling from grace.
Very fascinating story..

But nonetheless, both views are applicable. When I made the connection, it all seemed to make sense but on the contrary, there are other possibilities. It seems that we are not the only ones with different takes, that's for sure lol.

 

[Rakhel]

Talk about circular logic.
The reason for the adding of the name Lucifer to Isaiah, was the church's way of " guiding" people toward Christianity and away form Roman Mythology. It also started a witch hunt where many people hunted down and killed for not being Christian.

 

[gnostic]

I'd have to disagree. If the king was called the Morning Star, then they are effectively calling him the keeper of Earth, a title given to Lucifer that they refer to Jesus as being in Revelations when he replaces him. The light-bringer, the morning star meant to maintain grace on Earth.
I figured this out, Satan seems to be a namesake.

Believe what you will, Sum1sGruj.

The fact of the matter is that Lucifer was never a name applied to Isaiah 14. In fact, Lucifer was never found anywhere in the bible, PERIOD. There is no Hebrew or even Aramaic Lucifer.

In Isaiah 14, no angels were mentioned, PERIOD. Just the morning star and other stars, all in connection to the king of the Babylonians.

Lucifer was originally a Latin translation for Phosphorus, the Greek god the morning star & the son of Eos (Roman Aurora). Apart from Lucifer/Phosphorus connection to the Eos myth, lucifer have no myth of his own. The meaning "light bringer" or "light bearer" came from Roman mythology, not Judaeo-Christian scriptures.

Now unless you are connecting Roman god to Lucifer/Satan then you are simply mixing 2 totally different myths. And that exactly what Christians have done.

The sad part in all this is that we continually feed on the whole Lucifer/Satan/devil mythos. Taking a single verse completely out of context, misinerpretation, lies and propaganda. You are doing the same thing.

On the one hand, we have one group using Satan/Lucifer to demonize/torment/persecute others, torturing and murdering all in the name of God, Jesus or Muhummad. Or in their delusion thinking that the action they took can be trace to the devil.

And on the other hand, another group(s) that idolize Satan or Lucifer or both.

Why do people do all this?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I would still have to didagree nonetheleless. Though Lucifer has not been broutght up (with the exception of the kingss james version), the Morning Star is the 'doom' and the 'keeper', can you really show otherwise? It seems to me there was one angel. And one only.. why would there need to be 2?

 

[Rakhel]

Christians scholars have come to learn how wrong they were by insinuating Isaiah 14 is a reference to Lucifer. They even went so far as to correct their error.
this is the latest version
Isaiah 14 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version, ©2011 - BibleGateway.com

Isaiah 14
3 On the day the LORD gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

Even they realized that they could not say that both Lucifer and Jesus could be the morning star. It contradicts their own scriptures. Especially where Jesus calls himself the morningstar.
This taunt was made to a man who thought he was greater than G-d. It was not prophetic it was not identifying any angel. It was the Israelites laughing at the King of Babylon. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

See, thats the thing.. If you know of Lucifer, you have to knoe of thr meaning.. he was the original grace of Earth.. before he fell.
The story is not without tragedy.

In other words.. that is what lucifer literally translates to_

Lightbringer.. Morning Star

 

[Rakhel]

There never was..... nevermind. Sometimes one has to know when to walk away. And that is what I am doing.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

There never was..... nevermind. Sometimes one has to know when to walk away. And that is what I am doing.

Sometimes one needs to know translation. And Lucifer does not translate to 'revolt' as Satan does. Satan doen't even seem to have a place in the Bbile with it's given definition, especially with Lucifer being so replaceable, and appropriat nonetheless, as our adversary.

This IS why Lucifer has become a name. I wouldn't start questioning the church. We're not living in the middle ages anymore.

 

[Rakhel]

You win. I bow to your superior knowledge of my scriptures, which never mention Lucifer or a fall of angles. I leave you to walk in your circle