Satan and Lucifer

[Sum1sGruj]

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

The only the thing you need know is that God walks at our side the same we do His. Hope is only for those who do not live in grace, and so He hopes for us.

 

[Rakhel]

Did you really want people's opinion when you started this thread? Because from the looks of things you never wanted answers that contradicted your own.

Oh and by the way. There is more than one angel. Your avatar represents one of the many.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Did you really want people's opinion when you started this thread? Because from the looks of things you never wanted answers that contradicted your own.

Oh and by the way. There is more than one angel. Your avatar represents one of the many.

Oh yes, no doubt. There's many of them. You can't be a believer and think otherwise, really. Maybe I wanted to know, but ended up finding the answer.
So perhaps,, you all gave me the answer without realizing it.

 

[gnostic]

Again, you have mentioned the keeper.

What make you think Lucifer is a keeper of anything?

There is nothing in Isaiah 14 indicating that any keeper, so I am wondering where you got this idea from.

It would seem that you choose to ignore the whole prophecy against Babylon, for just one verse about the morning star. There are also prophecy against Egypt, Cush, Moab and the Philistines (Isaiah 14 - 21).

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Again, you have mentioned the keeper.

What make you think Lucifer is a keeper of anything?

There is nothing in Isaiah 14 indicating that any keeper, so I am wondering where you got this idea from.

It would seem that you choose to ignore the whole prophecy against Babylon, for just one verse about the morning star. There are also prophecy against Egypt, Cush, Moab and the Philistines (Isaiah 14 - 21).

Indeed, you talk about prophesy but obviously cannot seem to bridge the connection between all of them.
The Judaic belief existed before the bible, and is twisted with translation. Satan is simply a man-made title. There is no such angel which bears the name.
To save you the trouble, you will find the idea that Satan is an angel. Real research will tell you otherwise.

 

[gnostic]

To save you the trouble, you will find the idea that Satan is an angel. Real research will tell you otherwise.

I know. I know that Satan is an angel. You are not telling me anything new.

The Judaic belief existed before the bible, and is twisted with translation. Satan is simply a man-made title. There is no such angel which bears the name.

That a strange thing to say, considering that you believe in (fallen) angel called Lucifer, a name invented by the Romans, hence a man-made name.

In any case, I know that Satan is more of title than a name. Again, you are not telling me anything new.

Indeed, you talk about prophesy but obviously cannot seem to bridge the connection between all of them.

If you read the prophecy in Isaiah 13-14, then you will see it is talking about the king of Babylon and the Babylonians. You will also realise that the morning star is a metaphor for the King of Babylon, and not about some angels, called Lucifer.

The interpretation couldn't be clearer. It is about a king that have risen to a great height but who will fall, as all empires throughout history have fallen.

That you accept Christian propaganda and misrepresentation/lies about Lucifer being an angel (who had fallen), when the names never appeared in the original Hebrew texts, is your problem.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The Satan of the bible has a quite odd story. His original name, Lucifer, actually was just trying to prove that mankind doesn't have to serve God, that Lucifer himself fears nothing higher than him.


It is where the bible, with a lot of good morals, turns the good morals to the enemy. I think that Lucifer seems very intelligent, nice, courageous, and fearless.

Not turning against God (though I don't believe in one) or anything, but in my opinion, I'd focus a lot more over Lucifer than Yahweh if I were to choose. Lucifer doesn't ask for worship, just kind of like a big brother in my opinion...

Though, on the other hand, Yahweh killed trillions of people in the bible, the flood, tower of babel, etc.

But moreover, I think Yahweh would deserve some respect for allowing us to live this great life.

Getting back to Lucifer, I think he deserves a lot more respect and honor than Yahweh.

This is just my opinion though.

 

[Twig pentagram]

@ Sum of Awe; Why do you think that Lucifer is Satans original name?

 

[Twig pentagram]

@ Sum 1s Gruj; Why does your religion say agnostic? You don't seem like an agnostic to me.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

If you read the prophecy in Isaiah 13-14, then you will see it is talking about the king of Babylon and the Babylonians. You will also realise that the morning star is a metaphor for the King of Babylon, and not about some angels, called Lucifer.

That simply just is not true. The passage speaks on the king, but that specific verse is poetic justice. I have no idea why anyone would think this is not so. It is so obvious for anyone worth their salt in understanding the Bible.
Satan is simply a title to address the common adversary. The Morning Star, or Light-bringer, is decoded as Lucifer, as Yeshwah is decoded as Jesus.
Jesus takes Lucifer's title as the Morning Star in Revelations, as Lucifer failed to grace man.
But whatever you think is whatever you think. I'm only presenting a more sensible approach. It just fits this way. Any other way just doesn't seem to work. How is the king of Babylon himself, the Adversary, and Jesus all at once?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

@ Sum of Awe; Why do you think that Lucifer is Satans original name?

I was told that it said it was Satan's original name in the bible.


There are many names named Lucifer. There are people named Lucifer, it's an average name IMO. There is the Roman God of Light.

 

[gnostic]

Jesus takes Lucifer's title as the Morning Star in Revelations, as Lucifer failed to grace man.

So you have said already. I have known the connection between the Morning Star with Jesus and Revelation 22:16, as well as 2 Peter 1:19.

There is clear connection between Jesus and the Morning Star in Christian scriptures, however, the only connection of the Morning Star in the Hebrew scriptures, is with the King of Babylonia.

Satan is simply a title to address the common adversary. The Morning Star, or Light-bringer, is decoded as Lucifer, as Yeshwah is decoded as Jesus.

Just because St Jerome translated the morning star into Lucifer in Latin (in the Vulgate Bible, of the 4th century), doesn't mean that Isaiah made the connection of Lucifer to his morning star. Lucifer is a Latin name, and the meaning "Light Bringer" or "Light Bearer", also originally from Roman mythology. Isaiah clearly didn't know Latin, nor the name Lucifer.

But whatever you think is whatever you think. I'm only presenting a more sensible approach. It just fits this way. Any other way just doesn't seem to work. How is the king of Babylon himself, the Adversary, and Jesus all at once?

There is nothing in Isaiah 14 that connect the Adversary or Satan to the Morning Star. Again, I'd ask you to read the entire Isaiah 14, again.

The only connection I see is that the morning star is with the king of Babylon. It is all about Israel and Babylonia, from verse 1 to 23.

It then go on about the Philistines in the rest of the chapter. Other prophecies against other enemy kingdoms of Israel:

Moab (15-16),
Aram or Damascus (17),
Cush (18, 20),
Egypt (19, 20),
Edom (21),
Arabia (21),
Tyre (23).
​

There are 3 chapters about Babylon (13-14, 21). I don't see how you read this chapters, and still think Isaiah 14:12 is about angel.

Are you truly blind that you can't read the similarities between 14 and other chapters?

Until you provide evidence that Isaiah originally and explicitly meant LUCIFER, you are using semantic.

Ask any Jews here, and they will also tell you the same thing.

There is no such angel named Lucifer in any part of Hebrew scriptures, and Isaiah 14:12 doesn't refer to angel or angel that had fallen from grace. Until you demonstrate that Lucifer exist as name in the Hebrew texts, you are basing your interpretation on Christian wrongly dogma that have no place in the Hebrew scriptures.

Ask around. Rakhel have already told you, there were no Lucifer. But you have ignored her.

Ask Levite on the subject of Lucifer. He is far more knowledgeable than any of us with regards to the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh, or your Old Testament).

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So you have said already. I have known the connection between the Morning Star with Jesus and Revelation 22:16, as well as 2 Peter 1:19.

There is clear connection between Jesus and the Morning Star in Christian scriptures, however, the only connection of the Morning Star in the Hebrew scriptures, is with the King of Babylonia.



Just because St Jerome translated the morning star into Lucifer in Latin (in the Vulgate Bible, of the 4th century), doesn't mean that Isaiah made the connection of Lucifer to his morning star. Lucifer is a Latin name, and the meaning "Light Bringer" or "Light Bearer", also originally from Roman mythology. Isaiah clearly didn't know Latin, nor the name Lucifer.

Until you provide evidence that Isaiah originally and explicitly meant LUCIFER, you are using semantic.

Ask any Jews here, and they will also tell you the same thing.

There is no such angel named Lucifer in any part of Hebrew scriptures, and Isaiah 14:12 doesn't refer to angel or angel that had fallen from grace. Until you demonstrate that Lucifer exist as name in the Hebrew texts, you are basing your interpretation on Christian wrongly dogma that have no place in the Hebrew scriptures.

Ask around. Rakhel have already told you, there were no Lucifer. But you have ignored her.

Ask Levite on the subject of Lucifer. He is far more knowledgeable than any of us with regards to the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh, or your Old Testament).

You have to demonstrate that Isaiah is not speaking of the adversary as the Morning Star. It seems nicely done. The only semantic twisting here is you assuming that the verse is not of poetic justice.
As I said before, which you have completely contradicted your own argument in even mentioning, the king cannot be the Morning Star.

And Roman mythology speaks on Apollo as being the god of light and music, which is a remarkable likeness to Lucifer (except the god part). Is this what you are referring to?

 

[gnostic]

You have to demonstrate that Isaiah is not speaking of the adversary as the Morning Star. It seems nicely done. The only semantic twisting here is you assuming that the verse is not of poetic justice.
As I said before, which you have completely contradicted your own argument in even mentioning, the king cannot be the Morning Star.

No, I didn't. I have always made the connection between the Morning Star with the king of Babylonia. I'll dispute and argue and refute YOUR CLAIM that the Morning Star (Isaiah 14:12) being Lucifer.

I have always pointed out to you that the verse in Isaiah 14 doesn't relate to any angel, fallen or otherwise, whom you know as Lucifer.

Does the whole chapter does not speak of enemies of Israel (both Babylonia and the Philistines)?

How in the world do you connect with angel Lucifer and other angels, is staggeringly misleading.

And Roman mythology speaks on Apollo as being the god of light and music, which is a remarkable likeness to Lucifer (except the god part). Is this what you are referring to?

Apparently, you don't know much about Roman mythology as well.

Apollo wasn't the only god of light. The Titan Hyperion (the High One) was the original god of light, as well as that of the sun, as was his son, Helios (Roman Sol), god of the sun. Astraeus ("starry"), son of another Titan, Crius, was the god of the stars, was also god of the light.

Lucifer, or as he is known in Greek mythology (because much of Roman myths was originally derived from Greek myths) as Phosphorus (Light-bringer) or Eosphorus (Dawn-bringer). Phosphorus was the son of Eos (Roman Aurora), goddess of dawn. Eos being the sister of Helios and Selene (Moon), represented light even more than her son.

In any case, all the deities that I have mentioned, excluding Astraeus, have come from direct line of Hyperion.

 

[gnostic]

Can I suggest that you read another thread of mine:

Jews only: Is there or was there a war in heaven?

It is for Jews only, but you should at least, read some of the views from our Jewish members on their view of angels.

The topic delve into Satan/Lucifer, particularly about the supposed war in heaven and the supposed fall of Satan.

To them, Satan is not the archenemy of God, but God's faithful servant, who have specific duty was to test man's faith, as shown in the Book of Job.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Can I suggest that you read another thread of mine:

Jews only: Is there or was there a war in heaven?

It is for Jews only, but you should at least, read some of the views from our Jewish members on their view of angels.

The topic delve into Satan/Lucifer, particularly about the supposed war in heaven and the supposed fall of Satan.

To them, Satan is not the archenemy of God, but God's faithful servant, who have specific duty was to test man's faith, as shown in the Book of Job.

I still see no reason to declare the term Satan as anymore than a title. It fails to bring on or deny the idea that the Morning Star is also a title of sorts, (which is a key factor in my logic that has yet to be dismantled).
But above all, Christians are of Judaic origin despite the remarks that say 'we get it wrong', and yet I can find key elements in their intrigue that could be argued, even with your example above.
There is logic, and there is faith. I can talk about one, not the other in that respect. Jesus' status as the Messiah is not believed by the Jews, so naturally they are going to refuse everything about him and his followers.

NOTE: You may have noticed I went from agnostic to Christian. It happened lol.
I had a serious talk with a church friend of mine and I became convinced.
Again.. but that's talk for another thread I guess.

 

[gnostic]

I still see no reason to declare the term Satan as anymore than a title. It fails to bring on or deny the idea that the Morning Star is also a title of sorts, (which is a key factor in my logic that has yet to be dismantled).

The Jews believed that Satan or Ha-Satan is a title as well, that not in dispute. And I don't dispute that too. To them it is a title (Satan) that is given to more than one angel.

It fails to bring on or deny the idea that the Morning Star is also a title of sorts, (which is a key factor in my logic that has yet to be dismantled).

But you don't get that the Lucifer is nothing more than a borrowing of name from Roman mythology.

When I read Isaiah 14:12, I don't see the morning star as a name or title, but metaphor or more precisely, a motif, and in this case the king of Babylon, and not angel of any sort, fallen or otherwise.

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!

When I read 2 Peter 1:19 or Revelation 22:16, I see the motif again, but this time for Jesus. It is not a title for Jesus.

We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

"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."

You do understand the difference between metaphor/motif and title, don't you?

Here is a simple example of motif:

And his eyes flash like fire.

It doesn't mean eyes are fire.

With the morning star metaphor, usually all the stars will fade with dawn, and the morning star is often the last object to fade with dawn, because it is larger from our perspective on ground level. A metaphor for the rise and fall of a king.

You said that the Morning Star have to do with Lucifer/Satan/Devil in the OT and Jesus in the NT, and not about a unnamed King of Babylonia. But I beg to differ, on one key point. What angel lay low "nations"?

It only make sense if you see the metaphor referring to the King of Babylonia, who lay low other kingdoms, in empire building. We know that the empires of Babylon have risen several time in ancient history, and we know that each time it has fallen. Four times Babylon have gained prominence:

1. Old Babylonian period - Amorite dynasty (the most important king was (Hammurabi),
2. Middle Babylonian period - Kassite dynasty,
3. Middle Babylonian period - Pashe or Isin dynasty (Nebuchadrezzar I),
4. and the Late Babylonian (or Neo-Babylonian) period - Chaldean dynasty (Nebuchadrezzar II).

During the time of Isaiah, the Assyrian emperors ruled Babylonia, Babylon was still considered an important city, like a 2nd capital for the Assyrian empire, next to Nineveh, so in essence, Babylonia still existed.

But what empire has Lucifer build?

It doesn't make sense to read verse 12 in Isaiah 14 without giving due consideration to verse 3 to 27. Do you ignore these 2 verses? (see below)

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:

Do you see the angel Lucifer here?

It is bad form of scholarship I see from you. You are cherry-picking passages without giving due consideration to the context of the whole chapter.

But of course, you are going to ignore what I have written. It is the sort of haphazard propaganda I can expect from a Christian.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The Jews believed that Satan or Ha-Satan is a title as well, that not in dispute. And I don't dispute that too. To them it is a title (Satan) that is given to more than one angel.

But you don't get that the Lucifer is nothing more than a borrowing of name from Roman mythology.

When I read Isaiah 14:12, I don't see the morning star as a name or title, but metaphor or more precisely, a motif, and in this case the king of Babylon, and not angel of any sort, fallen or otherwise.

When I read 2 Peter 1:19 or Revelation 22:16, I see the motif again, but this time for Jesus. It is not a title for Jesus.

You do understand the difference between metaphor/motif and title, don't you?

Here is a simple example of motif:

It doesn't mean eyes are fire.

With the morning star metaphor, usually all the stars will fade with dawn, and the morning star is often the last object to fade with dawn, because it is larger from our perspective on ground level. A metaphor for the rise and fall of a king.

You said that the Morning Star have to do with Lucifer/Satan/Devil in the OT and Jesus in the NT, and not about a unnamed King of Babylonia. But I beg to differ, on one key point. What angel lay low "nations"?

It only make sense if you see the metaphor referring to the King of Babylonia, who lay low other kingdoms, in empire building. We know that the empires of Babylon have risen several time in ancient history, and we know that each time it has fallen. Four times Babylon have gained prominence:

1. Old Babylonian period - Amorite dynasty (the most important king was (Hammurabi),
2. Middle Babylonian period - Kassite dynasty,
3. Middle Babylonian period - Pashe or Isin dynasty (Nebuchadrezzar I),
4. and the Late Babylonian (or Neo-Babylonian) period - Chaldean dynasty (Nebuchadrezzar II).

During the time of Isaiah, the Assyrian emperors ruled Babylonia, Babylon was still considered an important city, like a 2nd capital for the Assyrian empire, next to Nineveh, so in essence, Babylonia still existed.

But what empire has Lucifer build?

It doesn't make sense to read verse 12 in Isaiah 14 without giving due consideration to verse 3 to 27. Do you ignore these 2 verses? (see below)

Do you see the angel Lucifer here?

It is bad form of scholarship I see from you. You are cherry-picking passages without giving due consideration to the context of the whole chapter.

But of course, you are going to ignore what I have written. It is the sort of haphazard propaganda I can expect from a Christian.

I don't like issuing blows to other religions, but you have forced my hand.

Ezekiel 28:17
Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your spendor. So I threw you to the Earth. I made a spectacle of you before kings.

This is of the adversary. He becomes directly connected with the tyranny of kings.
Like I said before, it's poetic justice.

It also shows that there was a revolt in Heaven. A billion followers of Jesus did not just whip this up out of thin air.

I am not 'cherry-picking'. One thing that needs to be realized are the 'constants' in the bible. You see it with things such as this as well as numbers, scenarios, etc.

What Jewish people believe is beyond me. The verse directly implies that angels have free will.
Nonetheless, the Jewish belief of Satan doesn't seem very practical. Why would God need such a being when man so willingly undoes itself? It would seem appropriate that this being have a personal agenda, as the view you are putting up to me of Satan is quite vain.

All this is to enforce my reasoning. I am not specifically trying to start anything with Jews, I just want the aim of why I regard Lucifer as the Morning Star to be fully realized. It seems to be a title that Jesus will take in Revelations, bringing light back unto Earth and beginning anew. It paints a perfect picture that no other explanation seems capable of doing.

 

[Rakhel]

Ezekiel 28 Was about King Hiram of Tyre.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Ezekiel 28 Was about King Hiram of Tyre.

And was Hiram a Cherub? Or in Eden? The adversary was obviously the subject being used in relevance.

And this coincides with the king of Babylon.