Lucifer the "fallen angel from heaven" (moral, Earth)

[Vjkingjr]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Not an angel. "Lucifer" is translated from latin into English as "morning star." In 2 Peter, "lucifer" is a metaphor for . . . Jesus Christ . . .

I dont understand how latin vulgate can mean anything, when the whole of the OT was written in Hebrew. So all you guys are saying it was Jesus that fell from heaven (morning star) and Jesus is now Satan or something??? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can't say im sure - but i didn't think Jesus was the "king of babylon" at any point in time was he?

cheers!
james

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Vjkingjr

I dont understand how latin vulgate can mean anything, when the whole of the OT was written in Hebrew. So all you guys are saying it was Jesus that fell from heaven (morning star) and Jesus is now Satan or something??? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can't say im sure - but i didn't think Jesus was the "king of babylon" at any point in time was he?

cheers!
james

Not quite. The word "lucifer" doesn't enter the scene until there's a latin translation. In other words, it isn't a proper name. It's just a metaphor. In the Old Testament it's a metaphor applied to the King of Babylon and in the NT it's a metaphor applied to Jesus. Nowhere in either is it a proper name for "Satan." That's a tradition started centuries later, when the curious tradition of translating Isaiah as "Lucifer" (a proper name) into European languages remained even though the same word used in reference to Jesus remained in its metaphorical sense (i.e. "day star", "light bringer" or "morning star").

What I'm pointing out is "Lucifer" as a proper name for a person or being (as opposed to a planet also regarded in ancient cultures as the "morning star" - probably Venus) is much more recent than anything in the Bible.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by vjkingjr

Well to me it seems pretty simple. It doesn't matter about what the Jews were heavily influenced by - and really, none of this has nothing to do with the fall of Babylon.

It has everything to do with exile and post-exile periods.

The name "Satan" didn't appear until the Exile period or more likely later. The name Lucifer didn't appear until even later. I think when the names appeared mean a lot. It matters a lot, to have the proper context of when it was written.

Peter (in 2 Peter 1:19) and others disciples of Jesus was heavily influenced by writings of the post-Exile, including that of Apocrypha and Psedepigrapha.

Anyway, my main point of my 1st reply to you is to correct you in regarding to Isaiah's passage as to the identity of the "king of Babylonia". There was no Nebuchedezzar living during Isaiah's time. I think it was written about the present Babylon, which was largely subject of Assyria at the time of Isaiah, because the Assyrian rulers were also named kings of Babylonia at that time.

Have you read the Enochic literature (1 Enoch and 2 Enoch)? You will see that gospels and other NT writings are heavily influenced by the way of writings found in the Enochic literature - that of good and evil, angels vs Satan.

The name Lucifer didn't appear until the Vulgate Bible became available.

Originally Posted by vjkingjr

p.s I do appologise if I came across a bit to harsh - just trying to set some things straight

Actually I preferred to hear it straight. I like to hear people being frank, even if it meant the person being blunt or sounding harsh. I hate beating around the bush, and I dislike when others do so.

So no apologies are needed.

[Jeremiah]

Ok, been giving it some thought. I have a theory.
-

God created Satan to absolve sin, so we could have peace of mind.

-

Was that suggested? Still having problems with Bible talk.

--

Another look at it.

Satan is a Sin-eater

The term sin-eater refers to a person who, through ritual means, would take on by means of food and drink the sins of a deceased person, thus absolving his or her soul and allowing that person to rest in peace.