Lucifer is a Christian invention

[sophion]

"Lucifer" came from a Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV

However...

Fact #1: "Lucifer" is a latin word. No such thing in hebrew or judaism...

In Latin, from which the English word is derived, Lucifer means "light-bearer" (from the words lucem ferre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

we have no "Lucifer" whatsoever
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...fer-in-Judaism


Fact #2: Isaiah 14 (christianity's only reference for lucifer) was all about the King of Babylon:

From Jewish Bible...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945

4. And you shall bear this parable against the king of Babylon, and you shall say, "How has the dominator ceased, has ceased the haughty one!

12. How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

16. Those who see you shall look at you; shall gaze earnestly at you, 'Is this the man who caused the earth to quake, who wrought havoc among the kingdoms?

[Zeitgeist699]

Fact #2: Isaiah 14 (christianity's only reference for lucifer) was all about the King of Babylon:

From Jewish Bible...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945

4. And you shall bear this parable against the king of Babylon, and you shall say, "How has the dominator ceased, has ceased the haughty one!

exactly! palibhasa kasi mga jesus freaks puro bible lang kasi ang reference dahil may divine authorship daw.. kaya ayun, nagmumukhang t@nga na lang sila sa mga nakakaalam talaga...

[TLG]

May post nang ganito before, in my post there before I mentioned that lucifer there is a man who dreams of becoming as high as GOD, no angel would dare to even think he can be on equal footing with God.

[Zeitgeist699]

^^christian myths...

[Adamanthivm]

"Lucifer" came from a Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV

The doctrine of Lucifer as Satan the fallen angel is not a Christian invention.

And I would not call the translation of "Lucifer" into Isaiah 14:12 as a mistranslation: I would rather call it an amplified translation.

The Isaiahn passage must be correlated with other Biblical passages alluding to Satan and his activities pre-fall as well as post-fall.

However...

Fact #1: "Lucifer" is a latin word. No such thing in hebrew or judaism...

In Latin, from which the English word is derived, Lucifer means "light-bearer" (from the words lucem ferre)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

we have no "Lucifer" whatsoever
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...fer-in-Judaism

Of course there is no actual "Lucifer" in Hebrew, because "Lucifer" is a Latin word.

But that does not mean that there is no Hebrew word — and Hebrew word in the Holy Bible, for that matter — that does not mean similar to the meaning of the Latin word "Lucifer".

Lucifer is Latin for "light bearer"; and the Latin translators of the Holy Bible created this common noun into a proper noun to exactly refer to Satan in his pre-fallen estate in heaven.

The Isaiahn verse talks about "son of the morning" or "morning star" in referring to the king of Babylon; but the Prophet Isaiah in his writings did not just allude to mortal beings such as the king of Babylon: the prophetic language and ethos always allude not only to mortal happenstances but also to their figurations in supernal events.

And these intertwining allusions can be weaved in just one passage, such as in this case.

And the theology is that Satan was once an Angel of authority in God's presence.

Hence, Satan was once a bright star of the morning.

Christian theologians in the West called this pre-fallen existence of Satan as Lucifer.

Satan is his post-fallen name; Lucifer is his pre-fallen name.

There is nothing wrong with the latter appellation, for it conforms with both Hebraic as well as Christian theologies regarding the pre-fallen estate of Satan.

As such, the Isaiahn translation is perfectly valid, and is an amplified translation of the Hebraic passage.

Fact #2: Isaiah 14 (christianity's only reference for lucifer) was all about the King of Babylon:

From Jewish Bible...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945

4. And you shall bear this parable against the king of Babylon, and you shall say, "How has the dominator ceased, has ceased the haughty one!

12. How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

16. Those who see you shall look at you; shall gaze earnestly at you, 'Is this the man who caused the earth to quake, who wrought havoc among the kingdoms?

Like I said above, prophecies in the Holy Bible refer to both simultaneous Earthly events and mortal beings as well as supernal events and supernatural beings, all intertwined in one prophetic passage.

The Isaiahn passage above refers to the king of Babylon, yes.

But it surely does not end there: the totality of the passage simply can not just refer to a mere mortal being.

Hence, it is clear that the passage that refer to the king of Babylon must also refer to a non mortal being who was once powerful but who is now fallen.

That being is Lucifer, the erst while Archangel of God who is now Satan, the Archenemy of all righteousness.

[Adamanthivm]

^^christian myths...

You are the myth.

The doctrine of Satan as Lucifer before his fall is not a myth.

[Zeitgeist699]

You are the myth.

The doctrine of Satan as Lucifer before his fall is not a myth.

no stupid, the name Lucifer being the devil came from a certain interpretaion of the passage of Isaiah 14:3–20. in reality, that passage does not speak of any demons/seducers/fallen angels but it actually refers to a defeat of the babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II. he was considered an enemy of the jews when he conquered their territory. he is also the guy responsible for the hanging gardens of babylon. and the title of King nebuchadnezzar II in ancient times was "morning star" or Lucifer. a star profoundly visible at dawn sky which we now call and know as Venus.

its all a christian myth baby. the word, satan on the other hand was originally coined in jewish (Satan or Ha-satan) which literally means: an enemy, one who oppose, an adversary, an accuser or a prosecutor. it does not imply to a certain entity or person or a malevolent creature but that it applies to everything that is againts a person/nation/group of people concerned. (e.g. israel/jews/jesus/yourself). which is exactly why the bible does not have any consistency againts Satan. one second he is the traitor of god, then as a member of a divine council to challenge humanity in the next (as in the book of job) and then still, an inner tempter/demon in the next hour (as in the NT, remember when jesus shouted at another disciple, "i rebuke you satan!" surely, you wouldnt think that satan was posessed inside the apostles body do you? because you jesus freaks have gotten it to mean in a literal context. as if, satan was there. but jesus actually meant it to say that this kind of "temptation" has to be rebuked).so if you take the word Satan from the original jewsih context, the exact literal meaning in modern terms would simply be "someone who is againts you". you jesus freaks just got it all f@cked up in the last 2,000 years. as always.

[Ischaramoochie]

^ grabe, isa kang alamat!

[ascorbicacid31]

Satan is merely one of the many names of that fallen angel. Dragon, Serpent, Snake, father of lies are just a few. The Jews refer to Satan as Rephan also known as Molech.

[Adamanthivm]

no stupid, the name Lucifer being the devil came from a certain interpretaion of the passage of Isaiah 14:3–20. in reality, that passage does not speak of any demons/seducers/fallen angels but it actually refers to a defeat of the babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II. he was considered an enemy of the jews when he conquered their territory. he is also the guy responsible for the hanging gardens of babylon. and the title of King nebuchadnezzar II in ancient times was "morning star" or Lucifer. a star profoundly visible at dawn sky which we, modern humans now refer to as the planet venus.

No, you idiot.

Your words illustrate your utter ignorance of Biblical prophecies and of Biblical prophesyings.

Yes, that passage did refer to the king of Babylon during that time.

But that is not the end of it.

The Prophets of the Lord were not primarily concerned with Earthly events: they are rather more concerned with Earthly events in direct connexion with supernatural situations and events also.

And the Prophet Isaiah is one example of these prophets par excellence.

An examination of the totality of the passage tells us that the passage can hardly just apply to a mere mortal being, no matter how powerful that mortal being is.

And other Prophets in the Holy Bible did already use earthly beings and events to describe and to allude to heavenly beings and events.

Both Christian and Jewish theologies and theophanies agree that the being described in the Isaiahn passage also refers to that great angelic being who, because of his intelligence and beauty, became so proud as to try to usurp the power and authority of God.

This being is Lucifer, the great Archangel of God who has now become a fallen spirit being and is now named Satan.

Hence, Lucifer and other spirit beings described in the Holy Bible are not myths, but are real beings and persons who did — and do now — participate in the ongoing march of human history.

its all a christian myth baby. the word, satan on the other hand was originally coined in jewish (Satan or Ha-satan) which literally means: an enemy, one who oppose, an adversary, an accuser or a prosecutor. it does not imply to a certain entity or person or a malevolent creature but that it applies to everything that is againts a person/nation/group of people concerned. (e.g. israel/jews/jesus/yourself). which is exactly why the bible does not have any consistency againts Satan. one second he is the traitor of god, then as a member of a divine council to challenge humanity in the next (as in the book of job) and then still, an inner tempter/demon in the next hour (as in the NT, remember when jesus shouted at another disciple, "i rebuke you satan!" surely, you wouldnt think that satan was posessed inside the apostles body do you? because you jesus freaks have gotten it to mean in a literal context. as if, satan was there. but jesus actually meant it to say that this kind of "temptation" has to be rebuked).so if you take the word Satan from the original jewsih context, the exact literal meaning in modern terms would simply be "someone who is againts you". you jesus freaks just got it all f@cked up in the last 2,000 years. as always.

False, idiot.

All these things are not Christian myths.

You are of course referring to the legal adversarial personage in the Old Testament, particularly in the Discourses of Job, who opposes any thing that God proposes, and who some Jewish theologians posit to be not actually Satan the enemy of all righteousness but one who is merely a legal oppositor, much like our devil's advocate to day.

But this interpretation of the Job passages are erroneous, and already rejected by the Churches and by mainstream Jewish theology.

Rather, the Satan that is in the Discourses of Job is not actually just a legal oppositor, but is the real and actual Devil who is the enemy of God and of all righteousness.

And Christian theology affirms this, and amplifies this by stating and teaching that Satan is the name of the Devil after his fall from the grace of God, and adds the doctrine that Lucifer is his name before such fall.

There is no doubt that satan is a Hebraic term meaning "adversary, enemy".

But whether a passage in the Sacred Writ refers to a common noun satan (= adversary, enemy) or to the proper noun/name Satan (the Devil, the Serpent, Lucifer) is now a matter of contextual interpretation of such passage.

And countless Christian as well as Jewish exegeses and hermeneuses do point to the theological doctrine and truth that Satan and Lucifer are indeed one and the same being as referred to the Holy Bible, and that the Isaiahn passage above does refer not just to a king of Babylon in ancient times, but also to Lucifer the Devil in his pre-fallen estate.

You are the freak.

[Adamanthivm]

^ grabe, isa kang alamat!

Pardon, but your slip is showing.

(How your bias against Christianity doth show, despite how hard thou triest to hide it!)

And why are you now not banning him (Zeitgeist699) in the speed of light when he just called me stupid and freak in his post above mine?

Like you ban us Christian defenders here for the slightest of imagined Forum rules infraction?

[Pyros]

"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"

Di ba si Pedro ang ang unang Pope daw ng Catolicks at siyang tinawag ni Jesus na "Satanas"? Hay katakot pala ang Vatican pinamumunuan ni Taning....

[ascorbicacid31]

Oh oh.. this thread is turning to a personal attack. This is Sparta!

[Adamanthivm]

Oh oh.. this thread is turning to a personal attack. This is Sparta!

Zeitgeist started the name calling.

And the pseudo Moderator Ischaramoochie just smiles at his name calling post, even approving it and the poster above, thus:

^ grabe, isa kang alamat!

If it was a Christian defender who posted those name calling, that poster would already have been banned by the pseudo Moderator in the speed of light.

This is the injustice and unfairness of this Forum and of its current pseudo Moderator.

[Ischaramoochie]

Pardon, but your slip is showing.

(How your bias against Christianity doth show, despite how hard thou triest to hide it!)

And why are you now not banning him (Zeitgeist699) in the speed of light when he just called me stupid and freak in his post above mine?

Like you ban us Christian defenders here for the slightest of imagined Forum infraction?

well calling others out minor expletives like stupid and freak are still ok, but major expletives such as demonic or satanic is not. besides, it's not like i haven't let you get away with a handful of the same yourself.

[Adamanthivm]

well calling others out minor expletives like stupid and freak are still ok, but major expletives such as demonic or satanic is not. besides, it's not like i haven't let you get away with a handful of the same yourself.

So, you are also a walking dictionary?

So, for you, describing some thing as "Satanic" or "demonic" is an expletive?

While calling some one here "Stupid" or "Freak" are only minor expletives?

How distorted and perverse can you still further go?

Pseudo peoples like you who are given positions of responsibility and accountability are one of the main reasons why human society is to day dismal and deteriorated.

[Ischaramoochie]

^ why, yes. or would you rather we use your definitions, then?

[Stonyclub]

no stupid, the name Lucifer being the devil came from a certain interpretaion of the passage of Isaiah 14:3–20. in reality, that passage does not speak of any demons/seducers/fallen angels but it actually refers to a defeat of the babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II. he was considered an enemy of the jews when he conquered their territory. he is also the guy responsible for the hanging gardens of babylon. and the title of King nebuchadnezzar II in ancient times was "morning star" or Lucifer. a star profoundly visible at dawn sky which we now call and know as Venus.

its all a christian myth baby. the word, satan on the other hand was originally coined in jewish (Satan or Ha-satan) which literally means: an enemy, one who oppose, an adversary, an accuser or a prosecutor. it does not imply to a certain entity or person or a malevolent creature but that it applies to everything that is againts a person/nation/group of people concerned. (e.g. israel/jews/jesus/yourself). which is exactly why the bible does not have any consistency againts Satan. one second he is the traitor of god, then as a member of a divine council to challenge humanity in the next (as in the book of job) and then still, an inner tempter/demon in the next hour (as in the NT, remember when jesus shouted at another disciple, "i rebuke you satan!" surely, you wouldnt think that satan was posessed inside the apostles body do you? because you jesus freaks have gotten it to mean in a literal context. as if, satan was there. but jesus actually meant it to say that this kind of "temptation" has to be rebuked).so if you take the word Satan from the original jewsih context, the exact literal meaning in modern terms would simply be "someone who is againts you". you jesus freaks just got it all f@cked up in the last 2,000 years. as always.

Right. According only to definition, explanations and self-serving interpretations of Mr. Zeitgeist. Wherein we must agree with his human explanations as the center of the truth regarding Satan the devil and not plain revelations coming directly from the pages of the Christian Scriptures. The paradox is, he do not believe the Bible in the first place but was passionately using it as the premise of his arguments, wherein he do not believe it, nor God of the Bible in the first place.

At kung nagbasa man ay kulang na Kulang sa matinong pagsusuri ang ipinahihiwatig ng kanyang isinulat sa itaas tungkol sa maliwang na ipinapahayag msmo ng Scriptures. tsk....tsk...tsk....

Job 1:6'' One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” 8 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” 9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 12 The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:1 ''On another day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them to present himself before him. 2 ''And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” 3 ''Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” 6 ''The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.” 7''So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.

Jude 1:8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Revelation 12:7 ''Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

You Zeitgeist kind of freaks just got it all f@cked up by his own definition of truth being the alternative center of it, as always, and for as long as Zeitgeist physically exist. Ngek!

[SmartDessa]

well calling others out minor expletives like stupid and freak are still ok, but major expletives such as demonic or satanic is not. besides, it's not like i haven't let you get away with a handful of the same yourself.

wow, so that just made Jesus a thrower of major expletives, for instance He called Peter Satan!


so human, the Lord is.

[Pyros]

^Mr. Stony the All Knowing

Puwede ba ask ko sa iyo ito! Si Pedro (the apostle) ba ang tinutukoy na "Satanas" sa aklat ng Job na iyong sinipi?