Jump to content


Lucifer = The Devil..why?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:29 AM

Reading something on another post where a member equated Lucifer to the Devil, I had to stop and wonder why there is this misconception.

As many of you know, I'm a budding author who writes in the Supernatural genre, and as part of my on going research I've been studying both the canon and non-canon Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic texts.

Lucifer is a Latin word which translates as 'Light Bearer' and more loosly 'Morning Star' (Venus).

Nowhere in the NT is The Devil/Satan/The Advesary refered to as Lucifer.

Even in the OT references to Lucifer refer to Babylonian or foreign Kings (Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:11-19).

Although the word Lucifer as translated from the Hebrew הילל (Hêlēl), the phrase is normally used in relation to the constelations, or someone who lights the way for their people (Kings etc..).

So my question for my Christian friends is, How is it that Lucifer was to become equted to The Devil when there in no canonicity for such usage in either the OT or NT?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:47 AM

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!

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;

1) Who has fallen from Heaven?
2) Son of the morning is a position in Heaven.
3) Cut down to the ground.
eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
4) Who has the power to weaken nations?
5) Satan rebelled against God. He was cast out of heaven for wanting to take God's place.
6) And who is also in hell?
7) And Lucifer is now a man because he lost his angel position in Heaven.

Man was created a little lower than the angels:

ps 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Even Christ was made man so that he could be the sin atonement for all of mankind. So becoming man for lucifer was a demotion. But because he was created by God directly, he is still consider one of the "sons of God" (lower case).

gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Sons of God have a trinity.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjMS3OT0-a8&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjMS3OT0-a8&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

#3 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:02 AM

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!


Is refering to a Babylonian King, not the Devil, when read in context in the original Hebrew הילל. In this context a 'Light Bearer' is traditionally used to refer to a leader such as a King.

Also other than that, nowhere else in either the NT or OT is the Devil specifically named as Lucifer.

I have no problem with the Judeo.Christian concept of The Devil or Satan, I was just curious how an non-canonical name (Lucifer) became equated to the Devil, when the name is not used in that context in either the Torah (OT) or Gospel (NT).

#4 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:07 AM

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!

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;

1) Who has fallen from Heaven?
2) Son of the morning is a position in Heaven.
3) Cut down to the ground.
eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
4) Who has the power to weaken nations?
5) Satan rebelled against God. He was cast out of heaven for wanting to take God's place.
6) And who is also in hell?
7) And Lucifer is now a man because he lost his angel position in Heaven.

Man was created a little lower than the angels:

ps 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Even Christ was made man so that he could be the sin atonement for all of mankind. So becoming man for lucifer was a demotion. But because he was created by God directly, he is still consider one of the "sons of God" (lower case).

gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Sons of God have a trinity.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjMS3OT0-a8&hl=en&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KjMS3OT0-a8&hl=en&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

View Post

*
Yay Ike the consensus for this among all believers through the centuries is amazing, And Antichrist will be his appearance on earth as a man and will literally ascend the seat of God in the temple proclaiming himself as God. The angry atheists are his forerunners and announcers of his soon coming.

#5 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:18 AM

I'm neither arguing for NOR against the concept of Satan/Devil or whatever.

What I am wondering is WHY, when there is no canonical reaso, Lucifer is equated with the Devil/Satan.

The Devil is never refered to in any OT or NT texts as Lucifer or Hêlēl (The Romanised Hebrew/Arameic translation of the Latin Lucifer), nor Phospheros (The Romanised Hellenic translation of Lucifer). {I think that covers the three languages for the Bible}

So why has this non-canonical name (Lucifer) come to be used as though it is canon?

That's all I'm asking. :rolleyes:

#6 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:25 AM

Is refering to a Babylonian King, not the Devil, when read in context in the original Hebrew הילל. In this context a 'Light Bearer' is traditionally used to refer to a leader such as a King.

Also other than that, nowhere else in either the NT or OT is the Devil specifically named as Lucifer.

I have no problem with the Judeo.Christian concept of The Devil or Satan, I was just curious how an non-canonical name (Lucifer) became equated to the Devil, when the name is not used in that context in either the Torah (OT) or Gospel (NT).

View Post

*
Evil kings and tyrants ARE a picture of the coming Antichrist, a pale picture, he will rise to world power in a time of trouble by flattery and charisma but once in power he will set about the extermination of all who oppose him, all religions, all philosophies. Hitler is a pale shadow of him who proclaimed that the Third Reich would last a thousand years and set out to destroy the Jews to whom those thousand years belong.

Antichrist is not Satan but his human manifestation and will come, is coming, with all deception and people who have always spurned the truth will follow him.

#7 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:30 AM

But that still doesn't answer the question as to why people equate the word Lucifer to Satan without a canonical basis.

The theology behind Christian beliefs of Satan and/or The Anti-Christ are moot to me on this thread, I'm simply curious as how the Latin Lucifer or the Hellenic Phospheros, or the Hebrew Hêlēl came to be equated to Satan or The Devil.

(Edited for spelling).

#8 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:45 AM

But that still doesn't answer the question as to why people equate the word Lucifer to Satan without a canonical basis.

The theology behind Christian beliefs of Satan and/or The Anti-Christ are moot to me on this thread, I'm simply curious as how the Latin Lucifer or the Hellenic Phospheros, or the Hebrew Hêlēl came to be equated to  Satan or The Devil.

(Edited for spelling).

View Post

*
Paul says of those who were bringing a false gospel that we should not be surprised for Satan is able to transform himself into an angel of light or light-bringer, that's what he does, he doesn't come to you and tell you he wants to destroy you, he comes with a pretty philosophy, he leads you away from God, step by step he does it and all the time he is gaining control of you.

The thief cometh not but to steal and kill and destroy you, but I am come that ye might have life and that ye might have it more abundantly.

#9 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:52 AM

Yes, but that still doesn't equate to Lucifer being The Devil. Paul does not refer to The Devil as Lucifer, does he?

As I've said, I'm not interested in the Theology, only the Etymology.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:57 AM

Is refering to a Babylonian King, not the Devil, when read in context in the original Hebrew הילל. In this context a 'Light Bearer' is traditionally used to refer to a leader such as a King.

Also other than that, nowhere else in either the NT or OT is the Devil specifically named as Lucifer.

I have no problem with the Judeo.Christian concept of The Devil or Satan, I was just curious how an non-canonical name (Lucifer) became equated to the Devil, when the name is not used in that context in either the Torah (OT) or Gospel (NT).

View Post


2cor 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

You argue to much on semantics. The Bible has to be taken in as a whole for full understanding. That is why there is always a argument going on for taking things out of context to make a certain doctrine work.

#11 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:59 AM

Once again, no mention of Lucifer. Satan, yes, but not Lucifer as a name.

And again I'm primarily interested in the etymology as opposed to the theology.

What I'm getting at is; the word 'lucifer' has been transformed into a proper noun 'Lucifer' with no canonical basis.

#12 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:02 AM

Yes, but that still doesn't equate to Lucifer being The Devil. Paul does not refer to The Devil as Lucifer, does he?

As I've said, I'm not interested in the Theology, only the Etymology.

View Post

*
My dog used to get etymology, we used to powder his coat :P just looked it up in the dictionary, meaning of words.

Well Ike has given the scripture that both Jewish and Christian believers have always taken as a direct reference to Satan, looking in it beyond the words addressed to the king of Tyre. Is it correct? well the consensus is pretty overwhelming and for my money it is.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:09 AM

Once again, no mention of Lucifer. Satan, yes, but not Lucifer as a name.

And again I'm primarily interested in the etymology as opposed to the theology.

What I'm getting at is; the word 'lucifer' has been transformed into a proper noun 'Lucifer' with no canonical basis.

View Post


If you want to disagree and be right, then you are right. I have no ego to bruise here. You can believe what ever you like, it's your choice.

If you cannot comprehend that an angel of light also bears light, not my problem. But if you publish this in your book, any well educated theology person will see that you are wrong. And may disgard the rest of your book.

So it's not a matter of right and wrong when writting, it's a matter of accuracy. I'd research this a little more if I were you to make sure. If you prove me wrong, unlike you, I'm happy. You know why? In my book, Truth is more important than being right. But I will have to disagree with your accessment until you have better proof and interpretation.

#14 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:18 AM

Ike,

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. As I've said in my previous two posts I'm interested in the etymology of Lucifer as a proper noun.

Lucifer is used as a name equated to the Devil by many.

The word lucifer means Light Bearer when translated from Latin, but no-where in either the OT NOR the NT is Lucifer used as a proper noun name for the Devil.

The word lucifer is used, but never as a name.

That's the point I'm trying to discover. When and why did lucifer become Lucifer against the canonicity of the OT and NT?

Where in the OT or NT is Satan specifically refered to as Lucifer as a proper noun?

#15 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:39 AM

*
My dog used to get etymology, we used to powder his coat  :P  just looked it up in the dictionary, meaning of words.

Well Ike has given the scripture that both Jewish and Christian believers have always taken as a direct reference to Satan, looking in it beyond the words addressed to the king of Tyre. Is it correct? well the consensus is pretty overwhelming and for my money it is.

View Post


Well, etymology is more the origin of words and their usage as opposed just their meaning. :P :P

I don't disagree that the concensus is that Lucifer = Satan, I'm just wondering how that concensus came to be when nowhere in the Bible is Satan directly nor indirectly refered to as Lucifer (capital L. Proper Noun. A name).

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:48 AM

Ike,

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. As I've said in my previous two posts I'm interested in the etymology of Lucifer as a proper noun.

Lucifer is used as a name equated to the Devil by many.

The word lucifer means Light Bearer when translated from Latin, but no-where in either the OT NOR the NT is Lucifer used as a proper noun name for the Devil.

The word lucifer is used, but never as a name.

That's the point I'm trying to discover. When and why did lucifer become Lucifer against the canonicity of the OT and NT?

Where in the OT or NT is Satan specifically refered to as Lucifer as a proper noun?

View Post


When a position in the high archy of heaven changes, the person whom holds that position name changes as well. In Heaven Satan was known as Lucifer. When he was cast out his name was changed.

When a person on earth, who does God's will, makes it to a certain level in the spiritual walk. God also changes their name. Abram was change to Abraham. Because names have meaning, and God was giving a name and a blessing to Abraham.

#17 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:55 AM

When a position in the high archy of heaven changes, the person whom holds that position name changes as well. In Heaven Satan was known as Lucifer. When he was cast out his name was changed.


View Post


Now I'm getting somewhere. Where in the Bible is Satan refered to as Lucifer before The Fall whilst in heaven?

#18 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:10 AM

Now I'm getting somewhere. Where in the Bible is Satan refered to as Lucifer before The Fall whilst in heaven?

View Post


Lucifer fell on day one of creation. Here's why even though it is not said clearly.

The first light of creation did not come from a physical source for a reason. It is because it came directly from God. In the spiritual dimension, light and darkness have meaning. So if a being is creating the boundaries between good and evil, what light does the being need to set the boundaries with? Spiritual light of good and evil.

This is also why the first light had to be divided. Spiritual light does not heed to physical laws of light photons. Which means it can shine through physical objects.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


No darkness means God's light cast no shadows. So when God divided the light it did 2 things.

1) It set up the boundaries between good and evil on the spiritual side.
2) It set up the separation between night and day on the physical side.

This is because it shined in 2 dimension at one time. This is more confirmed in this verse.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Verse 23 is the exact situation of the first day of creation. There was no sun or moon, but yet light still existed.
Verse 24 shows that this light can support life.
Verse 25 shows there are no shadows, so there is no night.

This is more confirmed during creation as the word heaven stays singular.

gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Then becomes plural once creation is finished:

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.


Genesis 2:1 is the whole key to when the heavens were created. When Lucifer fell.

1) Heavens? How many heavens?
2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2) What are the three heavens?

heaven 1: Physical (good and evil), where we are.
heaven 2 Spiritual darkness (from light separation). Where Satan and the fallen angels are.
heaven 3: Spiritual light. Where God, the Son, and the angels are.

3) Then notice the word host. It not only says the heavens and earth were finished, but all the "host" of them. Which means all three heaven had beings (host) in them. So if hell has Satan and the fallen angels, it means that Satan fell during creation (before Genesis 2:1). Which gives him time to take possession of the snake to tempt Eve.

So Satan fell in Genesis 1. And that is the reason his former name is only mentioned once or twice. And when it is mentioned, there is a reference to heaven (where he was known as Lucifer) not hell (when he name was changed).

Heaven = Lucifer's name.
Cast out of heaven = Satan devil etc....

#19 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 05 November 2009 - 12:03 PM

Alcatraz,

I'm not sure why you are resisting recognizing that in Isaiah 14:12 Satan is clearly identified as Lucifer -- Capital L, proper name.

The Bible contains more than 100 different types of figures of speech. Among them is a propensity for changing names, and ascribing different names to the same person.

For example, there are some 22 different names for Christ in the Old and New Testaments. Since he is the "Alpha and Omega" does that mean he can't also be known as the Christ?

I'm sure you've already checked out Strong's Concordance for the word Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12:

Lucifer = "light-bearer"

1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

Elsewhere in God's word, as has already been pointed out in this thread, He clearly identifies Satan as the "shining one," etc. So, if a=b and b=c then a=c. Right?

As to sub a and the reference to the king of Babylon, Satan's seat for much of the Old Testament times was at Babylon. He was indeed the actual King of Babylon. Oftentimes, references to kings in God's word speak of the spirit beings who are the true holders of those offices.

Sort of like Obama being the antichrist, you know? :blink:

The antichrist starts out as a real man, heavily influenced by Satan, and then halfway through the tribulation he is killed, and then resurrected as the real embodiment of Satan himself ... which is a type and a play on Jesus' resurrection. Again, a figure of speech.

I hope this helps.

Dave

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 November 2009 - 05:26 AM

I'm beginning to think Alcatraz was more into making a point that I was wrong. And anyone who agreed with me was wrong also.

Just so you know. I don't adhere to any one denomination, or doctrine. I let the word guide me. Which means I do a lot of research concerning the word. That is why I can go indepth in explaining things I have researched.

Most Christians, including me at one time, rely more on existing doctrines and interpretations of others. So when asked why they believe what they believe, they have no answer. I did not like not being able to explain something, so I started testing and researching things. I still listen to people preach, but I test most everything with the word. This kind of research engrains the word of God into your head because it requires you to comprehend it. Not just take another persons word for it.

So what you see in my posts are not copy and paste stuff. I looked up the verses, and explained them from what I comprehend, and can confirm through out the Bible. I don't think you were expecting someone who actually does the research.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users