 |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/22/2004 10:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Is Lucifer  really Biblical or was he erroneously deduced from Isaiah 14:12-15, morning star bringer of light? The text could be referring to Nebuchadnezzar, Satan or both. The chapter definitely speaks about the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar... Hmmmmmm Lucifer?
Isaiah 14:12-15 (NIV)
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit.
The following is a synopsis of Lucifer; the question is what part of it if any, is true?
Lucifer was God's first Creation. God made Lucifer long before He created humans, long before plants or animals, and even before He created the Earth, or stars, or a universe.
Lucifer was God's masterpiece the perfect living being. The name Lucifer meant the "Shining One," or the "Light Bearer." He was so wonderfully beautiful that he lit the skies before the sun had been molded into a universal lamp. And God loved him and admired him. "Lucifer, you are full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."
Lucifer had beauty in song, too. He epitomized musical genius. He was a literal music machine, created with flutes and strings for vocal cords. Each and every word proceeding from his mouth was a melodious wonder to behold. All the angels hence created by God would surround Lucifer just to hear the symphonic miracles of his voice.
God greatly loved Lucifer. They were together, side-by-side in all endeavors, be it in music, in play, in strolls through Paradise, or in Holy solitude on God's highest of the high thrones. God shared everything with Lucifer and withheld nothing from him. There was only one simple catch: Lucifer had to give God the Glory and to lead all the angels in Praise and Worship to God the Father.
Lucifer's pride corrupted his thoughts. He hungered for self-adoration. He nurtured a lust for power. He hated performing wondrous signs and miracles to heavenly crowds who continuously gathered around him, only to give all the credit and glory to God. It was embarrassing and it was not fair. He despised everyone's adoration of God. As God's Archangel, Lucifer wanted others to worship him, as well as God. Eventually he thought of himself as God's equal.
He rebelled. He corrupted one-third of all the angels into joining him, then launched a horrendous military coup in a wicked attempt at overthrowing God from His throne. But he lost, and was expelled by Michael through the powers granted him by God. God then appointed Michael as his new Archangel, which angered Lucifer even more and made a mortal enemy of Michael.
Lucifer became known as Satan, which means "Adversary." He was banished to his new Kingdom of the Dark World. There he hid in darkness, ashamed to show his face because God had changed him into a beastly dragon. Never did there exist a more repulsive looking monster; not at any time, in any world. He was so hideous to cast eyes upon that he cloaked himself in solitude, unable to cope with his lost pride. To this day, he resides in his dark kingdom, scheming with the rebels he rules about how to get even.
Satan vowed to destroy God's most prized possession: Earth, and every inhabitant. He vowed to destroy all the Good Things. He vowed to destroy Archangel Michael. And he vowed to destroy God, Himself. Once again, he changed his name: "Apollyon, the Destroyer." Over the mindless millenniums and the countless centuries, he came to have many names: (1) "The Prince of the Power of the Air," who whispered Bad Thoughts to attentive humans; (2) "The Ruler of Darkness," because the Dark World was his kingdom; (3) "Leviathan (the one who dwells in a sea of humanity)," because of his desire to control the human population. He was also called Leviathan for his obsession to exchange his beastly body, for a beautiful human one. And many other names, none kind, all evil.
At the time of his banishment to the Dark World, Satan vowed to return in triumph over God. He, himself, would then become God.
Satan issued five ominous threats known as the great I Will's:
• "I will ascend into Heaven!"
• "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God!"
• "I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north!"
• "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds!"
• "I will be EL-ELYON!" (meaning, "God of Power!")
Blessings
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/23/2004 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I guess I've heard most of that stuff about Satan before but not in that much detail. Where exactly is any of that written in the Bible, though? I've read the Bible cover to cover in 4 different translations (LB, NIV, NRSV, TEV - I read the TEV twice and I'm currently reading through the King Jimmy) and I don't recall ever reading such a thorough description of Satan anywhere. So, where did your description of Satan come from?
Hello Tigress,
Check out your "King Jimmy" Version of Isaiah 14:12
Isaiah 14:12-19 (KJV)
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! [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. [16] They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; [17] That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? [18] All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. [19] But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
I took the synopsis of Lucifer from Michael Mullen, author of War of the Angels.
http://www.waroftheangels.com/who-is-satan.html
Supposedly this is what the White House had to say about Mr. Mullen:
"Dear Mr. Mullen:
"You are an example of what can be achieved through hard work and determination. Congratulations on your success, and I hope that you'll continue to share your story and to encourage others.
"Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
Sincerely,
George Bush
Eastons Bible Dictionary:
Lucifer - brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to denote his glory.
Blessings,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/23/2004 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
I guess I've heard most of that stuff about Satan before but not in that much detail. Where exactly is any of that written in the Bible, though? I've read the Bible cover to cover in 4 different translations (LB, NIV, NRSV, TEV - I read the TEV twice and I'm currently reading through the King Jimmy) and I don't recall ever reading such a thorough description of Satan anywhere. So, where did your description of Satan come from?
Hello Tigress,
Check out your "King Jimmy" Version of Isaiah 14:12
Isaiah 14:12-19 (KJV)
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! [13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. [15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. [16] They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; [17] That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? [18] All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. [19] But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
I took the synopsis of Lucifer from Michael Mullen, author of War of the Angels.
http://www.waroftheangels.com/who-is-satan.html
Supposedly this is what the White House had to say about Mr. Mullen:
"Dear Mr. Mullen:
"You are an example of what can be achieved through hard work and determination. Congratulations on your success, and I hope that you'll continue to share your story and to encourage others.
"Keep up the good work, and God bless you."
Sincerely,
George Bush
Eastons Bible Dictionary:
Lucifer - brilliant star, a title given to the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:12) to denote his glory.
Blessings,
Mark
Yes Spark, I read this, but this does not show the history that you wrote in your first post. Where did that info. come from? Where did Michael Mullen get it from?
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/23/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Yes Spark, I read this, but this does not show the history that you wrote in your first post. Where did that info. come from? Where did Michael Mullen get it from?
I don't know where Mullen got his info, maybe we could get Spenlake to research the scriptural support of Mullen's book.
Who is Lucifer , that is the million dollar question , and the reason I posted this topic. I don't know much about the truth and myth of Lucifer, I was hoping to get some feedback about the historical stories of Lucifer and how they evolved.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/23/2004 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/26/2004 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Okay I looked at the website and read about how the author was "inspired" to write this book. But, I tend to doubt it's truthfulness because God already said what He needed to say in the Bible. I don't believe He would command His angels to tell a human to write something like this. This book puts the focus on angels and demons and not on God who is the One who should get the sole attention. It's just another one of the many books that focus on the end-times instead of on doing what Jesus commanded us to do until the end-times which is to continue spreading God's Kingdom.
I agree with you Tigress, we should call into question the validity of Mullen’s so called “inspired” book. Considering that the origins of “Lucifer” come from Greek Mythology along with an early coined phrase of the Devil by St. Jerome. I find Lucifer to be more myth then scripturally supported truth. So with that being the case, I find Mullen’s visions not scripturally supported and should not be taken seriously.
Here is some info on Lucifer's Origins:
Lucifer is the Latin for "light-bearer" - lux-ferre - and thus from its very root a most deceptive sort of devil. In fact, he misappropriated a beautiful ancient description of the morning star. He sneaked into the world of religion and the occult when the Fathers of the Church took a powerful metaphor too literally.
To call the most evil force by such a beautiful name, however, had yet another, self-protecting, reason. Lucifer was used as a euphemism for Satan with the purpose not to offend or, by uttering his real name, to summon this most diabolic of creatures.
Actually, Lucifer recalled the famous passage of the Hebrew prophet Isaiah, originally applied to the Babylonian king who, like all tyrants after him, in his megalomania proudly boasted his invincibility. In powerfully dramatic language, Isaiah compared him to a power-drunk potentate who bragged that he would ascend to heaven to make himself equal to God. But, instead, he was plunged into the uttermost recesses of the pit, to be eaten by worms. In poetical grandeur, the prophet likened his apparent invincible glory to that of Venus, the morning star. It could shine brightly for only a brief period, then quickly disappeared before the rising sun. "Take up this proverb against the King of Babylon, and say . . . How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Is. 14,12). The prophet's imagery might have been inspired as well by a meteor streaking from the sky to vanish from sight.
Going back even further, it can be assumed that Isaiah, if not actually aware of, was influenced by an ancient Babylonian astral myth which reappeared later in a different form in Greek legend. This told of the expulsion of the morning star from its heavenly sphere as punishment for its insolence and overbearing pride. At the time, Babylonians saw the stars not as inanimate spatial bodies but as living celestial beings. In spite of their heavenly status, they were very much like men and were possessed by lust, envy, ambitions, and aspirations for power.
By its brilliance most of all, the morning star asserted that it was entitled and destined to take precedence over all others and to be given the loftiest seat among the star-gods. But the supreme power ruling the Babylonian pantheon resented its arrogant demand and hurled the star down from heaven into the dark abyss.
The Greeks, on the other hand, had Phaëthon. He was one of the sons of Helios, the sun god. For a long time, however, he had been kept ignorant of this fact. When learning who his father was, he had approached him at once, to ask some special favor which, after all, was due to him. Helios could not deny his paternity and granted his son's request. He did so rather generously by leaving the choice of gift to Phaëthon himself.
Phaëthon had asked permission to guide his father's chariot across the skies - for just one day. As promised in advance, his wish was granted. However, he proved himself far too inexperienced and weak to master the fiery horses which pulled the sun god's chariot. Boisterously enjoying their newly-gained freedom under so unskilled a driver, the horses (now completely out of control) threatened to set the world (and Olympus) on fire. To avoid such catastrophe, Zeus had immediately taken drastic steps, and with a thunderbolt, killed Phaëthon who blazing thus fell into the Eridanus river.
When the Hebrew text of the Bible was translated into Latin (the Vulgate), Isaiah's "morning star" was rendered "Lucifer, son of the morning." And the Authorized (English) Version adopted this translation. That is how Lucifer first saw the light of day, in mistaken identity taken not as a figure of speech - as it was originally intended - but as a figure cast out from heaven.
A passage in the Gospels then (mis)led St Jerome, to change the original epithet that described the pride and vain-glory of a Babylonian king, into a synonym for the devil.
St Luke (10,18) tells of seventy men who - after the twelve disciples - had in their turn gone out into the world to preach Jesus' message of the kingdom of God. On their return to the master, they informed him with great joy that with his name they had been able to subdue not only humans but the demons.
Jesus, in reply, then is said to have stated that he himself had watched Satan falling out of the sky "like lightning." And it was this juxtaposition of Satan and lightning that prompted the Fathers of the Church (and among them most prominently, St Jerome) to identify this lightning from heaven with Satan, the arch rebel, and thereby to complete the birth of Lucifer as one of Satan's identities.
The view that Satan indeed had "come down" (in every sense of the word) from his celestial abode, as punishment for his diabolical pride, predestined Lucifer for the new application. Lucifer thus came to stay and to haunt man, and to lead him into many types of confusion. The very vanity said to have been the cause of his downfall became so generally accepted that an English proverb (first documented in Political Poems published in 1394) could speak of men "as proud as Lucifer."
It is a matter of conjecture how Lucifer's name came to experience an odd kind of revival in modern times. He who was seen as the power of darkness was then used actually to light it up! Was it a temporary decline of his power in the minds of men, rebellion against the arch rebel, or a symbol of the new "enlightenment" that prompted the manufacturer of the newly invented phosphorous (friction) light in 1831 to market his novel match as Lucifer? He took from the devil a name that the devil himself had stolen from the morning star.
In this case of the phosphorous Lucifer match, etymologists have tried to rescue the situation by cutting out the devil altogether. The match, they say, received its name (as the true light-bringer) straight from the original morning star and in total disregard of Lucifer "in-between."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 4/27/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Is Lucifer really Biblical or was he erroneously deduced from Isaiah 14:12-15, morning star bringer of light? The text could be referring to Nebuchadnezzar, Satan or both. The chapter definitely speaks about the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar... Hmmmmmm Lucifer?
Without any comment on Mullen, let me suggest that Isaiah 14 in its context is plainly referring exclusively to the king of Babylon, in the form of an ironic prophetic lament. Isaiah 14:4-11 open the lament (NRSV):
(4) You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has ceased! How his insolence has ceased!
(5) The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers,
(6) that struck down the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, that ruled the nations in anger with unrelenting persecution.
(7) The whole earth is at rest and quiet; they break forth into singing.
(8) The cypresses exult over you, the cedars of Lebanon, saying, 'Since you were laid low, no one comes to cut us down.'
(9) Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations.
(10) All of them will speak and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!'
(11) Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.
Verse 4 clearly establishes the lament is directed to the king of Bablyon. Verse 8 introduces the second-person pronoun ("you") in clear referent to the king (whose armies plundered the forests of Lebanon - the greatest forests available in the ancient near East - for wood). That this "you", this king of Babylon, is mere man is further made clear in verses 9-11, in which the "shades" (NRSV) of the leaders of past earthly nations exult in how the king has become as weak as they are.
This leads immediately and without transition into the famous verses 12-15, which you quoted. In fact, "Lucifer" is more literally translated "Day Star" (as NRSV has it) or "Morning Star" (as NIV has it) - and both these expressions, as well as "Son of the Dawn", referred in ancient Babylon to astral deities identified with the king. Given his absolute supremacy and the extent of his realm, it is easy to see how the king of Babylon might be so full of himself as to accurately be described, metaphorically, by Isaiah as having aspired in his heart to God's throne - and how the king of Babylon's overthrow would thus, metaphorically, be like a fall from heaven to earth. This is especially so, given the non-literal nature of the prophecy and lament genres in which Isaiah (and the other prophets) write.
After verse 15, the passage continues, again without transition, with verses 16-17 (NRSV):
(16) Those who see you will stare at you, and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms,
(17) who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who would not let his prisoners go home?'
In verse 16 we again see in the clearest way possible that "you" refers to a mere man - "the man who made the earth tremble", to be sure, but a man nonetheless. And not just any man, but the king of Babylon, the captor of the Israelites "who would not let his prisoners go" (again, a clear and exclusive reference to Babylon's king).
And etc. We could go on studying the passage, but I believe the point is made that there is nothing present historically or grammatically which justifies exegeting Isaiah 14:12-15 in terms of Satan, either exclusively, or jointly with the king of Babylon. To interpret otherwise is to completely ignore the plain context and read into the passage a future (to Isaiah) theology.
Some might say it is OK to do this; after all, numerous New Testament writers themselves appropriate Old Testament passages and re-interpret them outside of their literal context, too (especially Matthew, as in his use of "out of Egypt I called my son", which Matthew applies to Jesus, while in its Old Testament context it literally refers to the Hebrews of the exodus). But the New Testament writers in these cases, I believe, are often not so much claiming to have discovered the "real interpretation" of such passages, as they are consciously imbuing them with new, external meaning in the light of Jesus. This is not what those who read Satan into Isaiah 14:12-15 say they are doing; they say they are exegeting the real meaning (or at least the real double-meaning) of the passage, not investing it with new meaning, appropriating it as a type or foreshadowing of something still (to Isaiah) to come, or etc. And furthermore, in such cases of Matthew, we have New Testament justification to see certain Old Testament passages in a light beyond their literal historical-grammatical contexts. Yet no New Testament author lends his support to a reading of Satan in Isaiah 14:12-15.
I think the popular Christian perception of Isaiah 14:12-15 is therefore simply mistaken.
Scott
PS. For more on Isaiah 14:12-15 and "Lucifer", here is a good popular yet scholarly article: http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/10/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Scott,
I enjoyed your insightful and informative contribution that further exposed Lucifer as being non-Biblical.
I think we can safely dispel the myth of Lucifer. I now consider Lucifer a fictional anti-event, forever erased from my reality and historical memory. Just kidding!
Some people question the Scriptural support that Satan was really a Rebel and Fallen Angel.
www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/rebelangel.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/11/2004 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Thanks Scott,
I enjoyed your insightful and informative contribution that further exposed Lucifer as being non-Biblical.
I think we can safely dispel the myth of Lucifer. I now consider Lucifer a fictional anti-event, forever erased from my reality and historical memory. Just kidding!
The question now turns to, what Scriptural support is there, that Satan was really a Rebel and Fallen Angel?
...
You're welcome.
For the record, I would like to make clear (in case there are those who haven't come to know me through my previous postings) that I am a Christian, a believer in the historical life, death, and literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was in some way uniquely both God and human, and by whose self-sacrifice we are in some way saved. I am not, however, a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christian, since I have come to conclude over the years that many of the distinctive doctrines of those Christian sub-cultures lack sufficient biblical warrant in the final analysis. For example, I do not believe in the necessity or reality of total biblical inerrancy and full verbal plenary inspiration; I am a theistic evolutionist; an inclusivist; and an eschatological idealist and amillenialist. But neither am I a genuine Christian liberal and I reject such characteristic liberal views as universalism, religious pluralism, and denial of the literal resurrection; nor am I a philosophical "skeptic", agnostic, materialist or what-have-you.
Thus while I often take exception to the (IMO) overly literal and inerrantist biblical interpretations, and numerous "traditions of men", common among my more conservative friends, I don't want anyone to doubt in whose house I stand. Accordingly, while I also agree that there is a good deal of extrabiblical tradition bound up with much conservative Christian understanding of Satan, I am certainly not "debunking" Christianity, or willing to be associated with such an effort, when I voice my opinion on this.
Not that such debunking is necessarily what "sparknheart" is up to, but just in case anyone gains the impression,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/12/2004 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by scott_jorgenson
You're welcome.
For the record, I would like to make clear (in case there are those who haven't come to know me through my previous postings) that I am a Christian, a believer in the historical life, death, and literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was in some way uniquely both God and human, and by whose self-sacrifice we are in some way saved. I am not, however, a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christian, since I have come to conclude over the years that many of the distinctive doctrines of those Christian sub-cultures lack sufficient biblical warrant in the final analysis. For example, I do not believe in the necessity or reality of total biblical inerrancy and full verbal plenary inspiration; I am a theistic evolutionist; an inclusivist; and an eschatological idealist and amillenialist. But neither am I a genuine Christian liberal and I reject such characteristic liberal views as universalism, religious pluralism, and denial of the literal resurrection; nor am I a philosophical "skeptic", agnostic, materialist or what-have-you.
Thus while I often take exception to the (IMO) overly literal and inerrantist biblical interpretations, and numerous "traditions of men", common among my more conservative friends, I don't want anyone to doubt in whose house I stand. Accordingly, while I also agree that there is a good deal of extrabiblical tradition bound up with much conservative Christian understanding of Satan, I am certainly not "debunking" Christianity, or willing to be associated with such an effort, when I voice my opinion on this.
Not that such debunking is necessarily what "sparknheart" is up to, but just in case anyone gains the impression,
Scott
Hello Scott,
Thanks for sharing your Christian beliefs. Maybe it would be helpful if you could include some of it in your profile.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to have read some of your other post. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed your refreshing contributions and perspective.
As far as “what I’m up to”, I’m just trying to gain a better understanding of the enemy. To sort out the truth from the myth in order to be better equipped in this spiritual warfare we are caught in the middle of. Some people believe God sends evil, I have a hard time reconciling the love of God to the evil of this world. The quotes I posted about Satan were just meant to stir up the pot and get some feedback from fellow Christians. I’m trying to formulate an accurate picture of Satan in order to defend against critics and to point out Biblical truths vs. myths.
Today I heard Greg Laurie on the radio refer to Lucifer and he quoted Isaiah 14 to back up his point. So I find it rewarding to have done some research on the topic in order to sift through sermons using Biblical knowledge and understanding of its true context. Again, thank you for your help.
Blessings,
Mark
P.S.
Jesus was also refered to as the morning star.
Rev 22:16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 5/13/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a link POW posted on another topic:LINK.
It appears that the Orthodox Church believes Lucifer was a fallen angel.
quote:
Satan (which means literally the enemy or the adversary) is one proper name for the devil, the leader of the evil spirits. He is identified in the serpent symbol of Gen 3 and as the tempter of both Job and Jesus (Job 1:6; Mk 1:33). He is labelled by Christ as a deceiver and liar, the "father of lies" (Jn 8:44) and the "prince of this world" (Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). He has "fallen from heaven" together with his evil angels to do battle with God and his servants (Lk 10:18; Isa 14:12). It is this same Satan who "entered Judas" to effect the betrayal and destruction of Christ (Lk 22:3).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/9/2004 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | I have reconsidered the scriptural support for Lucifer as Satan. When we read Isaiah 14 as the King of Babylon we have to consider all other text in Scripture that refers to the Spiritual Babylon. I’m somewhat surprised that others at this site did not point this out | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/9/2004 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
I have reconsidered the scriptural support for Lucifer as Satan. When we read Isaiah 14 as the King of Babylon we have to consider all other text in Scripture that refers to the Spiritual Babylon. I’m somewhat surprised that others at this site did not point this out
Well...
First: I'm not aware of any location where the figure of Babylon is, under principles of historical-grammatical interpretation, reasonably associated with Satan rather than, say, "powers of this world" in their most extreme development. In Revelation, for example, Babylon is not the Satan figure - that would be the dragon - but evil societal system(s) at their pinnacle of power.
But second, and more importantly: I'm not aware of any convincing reason supporting the idea that "interpreting Scripture by Scripture" means always being able to directly connect references made to the same word or two (eg "Babylon") by different authors in different cultures, times, and situations hundreds of years apart - especially when we think that by "connecting the dots" in this way we can discern doctrinal minutiae, nowhere directly taught, such as the exact origin and history of Satan. The Bible is an organic anthology of documents springing from a common but progressing and evolving spiritual tradition over hundreds or even thousands of years. That is the evidence and the data before us. It is presupposition to say it is nonetheless a valid hermeneutic to match up this-and-that one- or two-word reference from, say, Romans with thus-and-such similar reference from, say, Genesis, and then derive some specific detail nowhere plainly taught, simply because they share use of the same word or two. In order to match-up references like this we need far better warrant than a shared word or two - we need a whole shared array of images - and even then we should be cautious about how far beyond the literal meaning of the texts we should go in making inferences and deriving conclusions.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/24/2004 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laplace
However, whether or not his name was "Lucifer" is debatable. Of course, the common perception is that it is (Which I find reasonable and the passages in Isaiah regarding his sin of pride which led to his downfall seems consistent with his actions), but I agree with Scott that it could well not be (and it isn't dogmatic heresy to have either view).
Hello Laplace,
Is Babylon a synonym for evil of some kind? Is there a spiritual Babylon noted in Scripture that could be used to support the notion of Lucifer being Satan, the king of an evil kingdom, the god of this age? Is there a spiritual Babylon that can be considered the equal counterpart of the spiritual Israel?
Shalom,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/24/2004 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laplace
Tigress,
I do not think Scott is saying that Satan is not a real persona or does not exist (I did not see anything in the post saying so). I believe he is simply saying that the passage in Isaiah (a person named Lucifer) is not meant to refer to him.
Correct. Specifically, I see Satan as the Bible presents him: a spiritual being, an angel of sorts, probably created rather than co-eternal with God, but whose identity emerges only gradually, mostly relatively late in Hebrew history, and evolves as time goes on. Initially he is seen in the Old Testament as doing God's bidding, albeit in a somewhat roguish and maverick manner; later (ie by New Testament times) he is seen as an active opponent of God.
I personally take this all as progressive revelation, to generally mean that Satan is a real spiritual force for evil, probably best understood as a created spiritual being in rebellion against God and with some form of limited power over the physical world.
However:
quote:
Passages in the New Testament (Gospels mainly) clearly use the word "Satan" or "Devil" and is described as a real, individual being. And it is clear that he was once in glory and fell from it. Jesus Himself said He saw Satan fall from Heaven.
However, whether or not his name was "Lucifer" is debatable. Of course, the common perception is that it is...
I think most of the popular "biography" of Satan is not especially well-supported by the Bible. You know: that he was an angel named Lucifer, that he was originally glorious, greatest of the beings created by God, that he (before or at the time the world began) succumbed to pride, that he led a rebellion of 1/3 of the angels against God, that as a result they were cast out of heaven to earth, becoming Satan and the demons, and etc. Most biblical references used to support this "biography" of Satan are, I think, strained. The Isaiah passage we were discussing here in this thread (when used as support for the Lucifer and sin-of-pride bits of the biography) is a case-in-point.
Another case-in-point is the Luke 10:18 quote of Jesus saying, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." It's sometimes said that this is a remembrance from Jesus about Satan's fall - you know, the fall that the standard biography of Satan places at the beginning of the world (if not before then). But seen in context that is clearly not what Jesus is referring to (Luke 10:17-19, NRSV):
quote:
The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’ He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’
Jesus' disciples have just returned to him with a favorable report regarding their mission - a mission which has advanced the kingdom of God in this world. The disciples are joyful and Jesus is encouraging and pleased. In this context, his comment about Satan's fall is clearly not a reference to something Jesus remembers having seen at the beginning of time. It is a reference to what he visualized during the time of the disciples' mission.
So does that mean Satan literally fell from heaven at that time in 30-some A.D. - ie he was welcome in heaven before then, and since then he has been banished? I don't think that biographical data of this sort can be extracted from Luke 10:18. The context is one of rejoicing and exultation - snakes and scorpions are to be tread upon, for example, something which doesn't make much literal sense to do if understood as literal instruction for animal abuse. But when "snakes and scorpions" are understood non-literally, as symbols for evil, then the meaning is obvious and fits well into the exultation of the passage. So, too, Satan falling like lightning fits well with the passage if understood as another such non-literal, colorful expression of Satan's defeat and the advancement of the kingdom.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/24/2004 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
Is Babylon a synonym for evil of some kind? Is there a spiritual Babylon noted in Scripture that could be used to support the notion of Lucifer being Satan, the king of an evil kingdom, the god of this age? Is there a spiritual Babylon that can be considered the equal counterpart of the spiritual Israel?
Although the question was not addressed to me: Yes, certainly by the time of Revelation (sometime in the latter half of the 1st century A.D.), "Babylon" appears to be understood by John at least as a metaphor for the evil of the world's ungodly power systems. Revelation rather plainly uses Babylon in this spiritual sense.
But that doesn't mean that, because 1st century A.D. Christians understood "Babylon" in this way, that therefore the words of Isaiah from 600 or more years before then can also be understood that way. We can read a spiritual Babylon back into the Isaiah passage, sure (like Matthew read Christ back into the Old Testament prophets in many cases), but we shouldn't pretend that in doing so we are proving or exegeting "the real meaning" of Isaiah in any objective sense. Rather we are investing old scripture with new meaning for us, appropriating its words to mean a new thing for us which they did not originally mean in plain context. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing to do - all long-lived traditions eventually do this, and it was good enough a hermeneutic for Matthew, after all. But it seems to me we should be very cautious and self-aware about doing it - doing it only in cases of numerous repeated patterns and types in earlier scripture which allude again and again to the same thing (as in Matthew's use of the Old Testament), and even then understanding that we are giving fresh reading in doing so, not exegeting original meaning. Seeing this Isaiah passage as a reference to Satan, I think, does not qualify.
I believe I wrote about this before, a few postings up-thread from here.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 6/26/2004 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
Hey, whoever he is, God loves him and so do I.  Of course everyone else may think he's an...
Tel ya what Brandon,
If I happen to run into him , I'll  be sure to let him know that you send your love.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/29/2004 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/13/2004 6:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|