Satan and Lucifer

[gnostic]

Another metaphor. This time for the King of Tyre...which rakhel have already pointed out.

Are you saying that the King of Tyre is an angel?

You do understand metaphorical representation or symbol, don't you?

You do realise that for over a millennium, that Babylonian and Assyrian deities, was portrayed with wings...long before Ezekiel he was flourished in the 6th century BCE. I find it strange that angels with wings didn't exist until their stay in Babylon.

In any case, you are taking the writing too literally.

 

[Twig pentagram]

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

I'm no bible schloar but I've never read that in the bible, and I don't think it's in there.

 

[Rakhel]

I'm no bible schloar but I've never read that in the bible, and I don't think it's in there.

the name Lucifer is not in the original manuscripts of the Bible. As stated previously, it was added by St jerome. Lucifer is not necessarily a name but a word which happens to mean "morning star" or "Dawn" in Latin.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

the name Lucifer is not in the original manuscripts of the Bible. As stated previously, it was added by St jerome. Lucifer is not necessarily a name but a word which happens to mean "morning star" or "Dawn" in Latin.

Yes, that is what I've been trying to imply.
Just as Jesus is the translated name of Yeshua.

Ezekiel 28:14-16
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian Cherub, from among the fiery stones.

Take this and integrate it with the idea that he was made a spectacle before kings.
And so the Morning Star is mentioned with Nebuchadnezzar in the same damning fashion as the Cherub.
Jesus is the Morning Star in Revelations.

We see a 'constant' as I mentioned earlier. Satan as you deem it cannot be the Morning Star in this respect, nor the Cherub, and yet the Morning star seems to not necessarily be limited to being a motif. In fact, it seems more likely to be reverse personification.

 

[gnostic]

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

I'm no bible schloar but I've never read that in the bible, and I don't think it's in there.

It is not. The original scriptures (in their original languages) don't mention Lucifer at all. Not even in the NT.

However, the Roman Lucifer have been around since 2nd or 1st century BCE, when the Roman conquered Greece (when exactly did they translate Phosphorus into Lucifer, I don't know), and began adopting Greek religion and myths 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE.

The very first connection made about Lucifer and the morning star in Isaiah 14:12 didn't come until St Jerome translated the bible into Latin, in his Vulgate Bible. I don't know when the 1st connection between Satan and Lucifer (as being one and the same) was made. We don't have a clear record that connection.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, that is what I've been trying to imply.
Just as Jesus is the translated name of Yeshua.

Ezekiel 28:14-16
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, guardian Cherub, from among the fiery stones.

Take this and integrate it with the idea that he was made a spectacle before kings.
And so the Morning Star is mentioned with Nebuchadnezzar in the same damning fashion as the Cherub.
Jesus is the Morning Star in Revelations.

We see a 'constant' as I mentioned earlier. Satan as you deem it cannot be the Morning Star in this respect, nor the Cherub, and yet the Morning star seems to not necessarily be limited to being a motif. In fact, it seems more likely to be reverse personification.

The morning star was never identified with as an angel. Where does say angel in Isaiah 14:12?

Morning star is the fricking morning star, that's all. And it is used as metaphor for the king of Babylonia, not for angel, and certainly not with any damn angel name Lucifer.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The morning star was never identified with as an angel. Where does say angel in Isaiah 14:12?

Morning star is the fricking morning star, that's all. And it is used as metaphor for the king of Babylonia, not for angel, and certainly not with any damn angel name Lucifer.

I'm am stating that a connection was made.

Let me review this:

It has been stated that Satan is an angel commanded by God to test the will of man
This is a Judaic concept.
It has been stated that angels do not have free will.
This is also a Judaic concept.

The verse I posted in Ezekiel intimately speaks of a fallen cherub.
Since angels can fall, angels must have free will.

This means that Satan is quite vain in the idea that he tests the will of man, when it obviously something that happens without living influence.

The fallen cherub in Ezekiel becomes a spectacle of kings. Morning Star cannot be the king, because it refers to Jesus in Revelations, and yet the Morning Star is put into words in lieu of Nebuchadnezzar in the same damning fashion. (As I stated earlier)
So Morning Star has to have some connection.

Satan is not how Jews view him and he is the Adversary, translated in Latin as Lucifer. The reason why he is translated this way is because Christians believe Satan is all these things, and yet none of these things because they don;t believe he is a servant of God.
Or at least that is how I see it.
I never thought about this being a splitting topic between Jews and Christians

Also, the book of Job simply just doesn't seem as friendly as you both claim it to be. I never got a vibe that Satan was serving God.

 

[gnostic]

Also, the book of Job simply just doesn't seem as friendly as you both claim it to be. I never got a vibe that Satan was serving God.

Who said Satan is friendly?

A servant of God doesn't need to be friendly, nor good, because God is not always good. God in the OT, is both good and evil.

To me, God is worse than Satan in Job, because Satan is nothing but God's shadow. God is petty (because of the wager) and braggart, as can be seen in Job 38-41, refusing to even answer a simple question. And lastly, a tyrant.

And the reason why God is not good? In 1 Samuel, he sent Saul evil spirit, to make him paranoid and jealous of David. It is not Satan controlling the evil spirit, but God.

And when God sent the Angel of Death, to kill every 1st-born Egyptian, young and old, just to demonstrate his divine power to the Israelites and the Egyptian king. The angel wasn't hardly friendly.

All Satan was doing is what God wanted - to test Job's faith without killing the man.

Yes, his name is Adversary, but in the Hebrew Scriptures, he is not God's adversary. In Christian Scriptures, Satan is totally different character. They are not the same character.

"Friendly" is hardly the requirement for an angel, Sum1sGruj. It is also not essential requirement of God to being "friendly". Angel have specific duty, they don't need to be good or friendly, as long as they carry out God's order. Who do you think do all the God's dirty works?

Angels. God doesn't need fallen angels.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Who said Satan is friendly?

I was speaking strictly between him and God. To me it was him doing everything in his power to show God that Job was not strong enough to live up to God's expectations.
Such is the role a renegade angel would take.

This is also a split between Jews and Christians. We have a totally different concept of God then they do in that respect.

A lot of Christians fill some gaps with 'God works in mysterious ways', but I see a construct laced throughout the Bible as a whole.
Vanity is the source of all sin. Before the Messiah, every sin you commited or made happen was on your hands, and had to be exacted. Everything He did in Egypt was exaction, as the Egyptians were living with the fruits of slave labor and were generally unjust.
This same idea can go with many other things as well. You name it, I'll break it down.
If God is a tyrant, we would all know it (which is an understatement)

 

[gnostic]

I was speaking strictly between him and God.

Ok.

To me it was him doing everything in his power to show God that Job was not strong enough to live up to God's expectations.
Such is the role a renegade angel would take.

I don't see any hostility between the two in the Book of Job.

In any case, God is supposed to be master, and Satan is servant. Why would they show friendliness towards one another?

As his job as adversary to man, then it was his duty to say what he said, to point out human flaws, even one as pious as Job.

A lot of Christians fill some gaps with 'God works in mysterious ways', but I see a construct laced throughout the Bible as a whole.

Yes, I know...sometimes to the point, the meaning have changed.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

It is simply the split between Jews and Christians. Admittingly, I did not see this coming when I made this thread.
Jesus denounced much Judaic practices and intrigues. Therefore, Christians bridge connections in the Bible to make sense of Jesus altogether.
Jews become angry towards this and reject Jesus as the Messiah.

I can see the frustration on both sides, but it is an incurable thing nonetheless. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rakhel]

It is simply the split between Jews and Christians. Admittingly, I did not see this coming when I made this thread.
Jesus denounced much Judaic practices and intrigues. Therefore, Christians bridge connections in the Bible to make sense of Jesus altogether.
Jews become angry towards this and reject Jesus as the Messiah.

I can see the frustration on both sides, but it is an incurable thing nonetheless. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

No. We did not reject him because he "denounced" Jewish practices and intrigues(what ever that means). There were many rebel Jews in, around and after that time.

We reject the idea that he fulfilled the prophesies that many use to claim he is the messiah(even some that are in no way a prophesy), that he is G-d or that he is even a biological son of G-d.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

No. We did not reject him because he "denounced" Jewish practices and intrigues(what ever that means). There were many rebel Jews in, around and after that time.

We reject the idea that he fulfilled the prophesies that many use to claim he is the messiah(even some that are in no way a prophesy), that he is G-d or that he is even a biological son of G-d.

Jews believe that the Messiah was to fulfill everything immediately, rather than fulfill ages later in a second coming.
Maybe if the Jews did not crucify him, this would have been so, but God saw it coming the whole time and so the prophesies are still true, just not how they expected it.

From what the NT reads, Jesus healed the ill and disabled with witnesses all around. He cast out demons and calmed the seas.
Jews had the seas split for them and still resorted to worshiping a golden calf because they were simply impatient.

By all this I am not trying to insult Judaism, but how is it that everything must be to the Jews liking when God made all man?

 

[Rakhel]

Jews believe that the Messiah was to fulfill everything immediately, rather than fulfill ages later in a second coming.
Maybe if the Jews did not crucify him, this would have been so, but God saw it coming the whole time and so the prophesies are still true, just not how they expected it.

From what the NT reads, Jesus healed the ill and disabled with witnesses all around. He cast out demons and calmed the seas.
Jews had the seas split for them and still resorted to worshiping a golden calf because they were simply impatient.

By all this I am not trying to insult Judaism, but how is it that everything must be to the Jews liking when God made all man?

Okay. This is the direction I, somehow, knew this thread was going in. Your education is not only lacking but very insulting, not only to Jews but to Christians, as well.
He was not crucified by the Jews, because that is a practice Jews have never participated in. That was a Roman practice.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Okay. This is the direction I, somehow, knew this thread was going in. Your education is not only lacking but very insulting, not only to Jews but to Christians, as well.
He was not crucified by the Jews, because that is a practice Jews have never participated in. That was a Roman practice.

Was it not the Jews who rallied against him and put him to the Romans to demand punishment? The Romans had no reason to harm Jesus other than to prevent an uprising.

From what I know of then, Romans had taken over those lands but allowed Jews to do as they pleased except capitol punishment and such.

 

[Rakhel]

First. If, and I do mean IF, Jesus was executed during Passover, there is no way any Jewish court would have carried it out.
Second, if, and this is a big if, he was taken to a Jewish court to be tried, he never would have been executed in the first place because of a simple Jewish law most Christians either don't know about or choose to ignore. A unanimous vote by the judges means the person is acquitted. Your own scriptures state all the judges agreed that he was guilty. That unanimous guilty verdict acquitted him.
We, the Jews, are therefor not responsible for his death.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Btw, there is another metaphorical rise and fall aspect to Venus other then in the context of it as the 'morning star', in that after a period of it being observable in the morning (Phosphorus), it ceases to be seen in the morning but then rises after sunset to be known as the evening star (Hesperus). So it alternates between being the symbolic bringer of the light to that of being bringer of the darkness.

 

[Luminous]

Isn't the keeper of Earth Yaweh? why would an inerent word of God leave out details and be so vague as to seem wrong and contradictory.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

First. If, and I do mean IF, Jesus was executed during Passover, there is no way any Jewish court would have carried it out.
Second, if, and this is a big if, he was taken to a Jewish court to be tried, he never would have been executed in the first place because of a simple Jewish law most Christians either don't know about or choose to ignore. A unanimous vote by the judges means the person is acquitted. Your own scriptures state all the judges agreed that he was guilty. That unanimous guilty verdict acquitted him.
We, the Jews, are therefor not responsible for his death.

And so Jesus was brought to the Romans, among others, to find some reason to punish him. Jesus was tricked into many dangerous questions regarding taxes and other things. He was pinned against Roman law and God's law, and many Jews used this to manipulate the Romans into crucifying him. And even then, they found no cause. It came down to the Romans either doing what many demanded or an uprising stirring.
The Jews didn't have authority to do too much as the Romans had control over much of the land.

By all this, I am not speaking of every single Jew. Of course there were many who felt it unnecessary. Some obviously even believed him to be the Messiah..

 

[Rakhel]

You are going to believe what you want to believe, even if it is some old blood libel that even the Catholic Pope has denounced. I am truly done with you and this thread.