• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer. One in the same or Not?

Dell

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
Mindmaster said:
From the point of view of Theistic Satanism, probably there is no difference.

Classical understandings:

Lucifer = The king of hell in classical magic texts, King Nebuchadnezzar, or a Roman god symbolic of Venus as the morning star. Modern Luciferians would probably try to make him into something of a Promethean figure rather than directly equate any of these understandings.

Satan = Archangel Samael's title, or those working under him directly. There are more than one.

The Devil = Equivalent to either of the previous, but also the spiritual boogeyman of Christianity. Largely a pejorative statement in reference to the Satan/Lucifer hybrid.


Spiritually, for me, they're synonymous. The medieval texts equated Lucifer functionally but did so in the context of obfuscation in a time where doing a rite to Satan would probably get you killed. If you could put two and two together you'd figure it out anyway by definition. So, I guess it's about what time in history you'd like to go with. I like the Lucifer/Satan equivalency, but I am interested in the old occult. :D
Click to expand...
Theistic Satanist? So... do you just study Satanism and/or is it your faith or religion similar like Christianity or Islam? I've only met one who claimed to be one back in the 80s while in the military.
 
nPeace

nPeace

Veteran Member
The Ragin Pagan said:
Okay, I wasn't talking about Christians today. I am saying - clearly, I thought - that whoever translated the bible from the Hebrew texts did a ****-poor job of it, and inflicted a mish-mash of cultures and names in a sloppy manner.
Click to expand...
You can thank the apostate Christians for that, and congratulate the "Holy See" foremost.
 
Tazarah

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
In the Bible there are there three supernatural "badies."

The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer.

Luke 4:2 (KJV)
Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Job 2:7 (KJV)
7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Isaiah 14:12 (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!
​

As I ask in my title, what difference, if any, is there between the three? If there isn't any difference then why bothering to use three different names?
Click to expand...

Definitely not... if you continue reading Isaiah 14:12-16, you will see that Lucifer is being referred to as a person/group of people on the earth...

“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!
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:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
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;” [Isaiah 14:12-16]
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Like it or not; Lucifer is an adopted name of satan. In other words; he uses the name lucifer for himself. Many people worship him as lucifer and yes they believe they are worshiping someone separate from satan. But we know it is satan because we know "satan is transformed into an angel of light".

Lucifer is originally just a name for Venus the morning star meaning "light bearer".

That's why when they saw the Hebrew Heylal they translated it lucifer. Just as they would translate Mizraim to Egypt.

The king of Babylon is certainly the primary meaning. But, in metaphor he is being described in terms that indicate a heavenly being. In Job 38:7 we find that it's likely the angels who are called "morning stars" and seeing that the king of Babylon is said to have "fallen from heaven" we must conclude that in the metaphor he is in heaven.

Since we know that many prophecies have double meanings or even more than two meanings. We know that spiritually speaking it is Satan who literally fell from heaven. Not the king of Babylon who only symbolically fell from heaven.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
74x12 said:
Like it or not; Lucifer is an adopted name of satan. In other words; he uses the name lucifer for himself. Many people worship him as lucifer and yes they believe they are worshiping someone separate from satan. But we know it is satan because we know "satan is transformed into an angel of light".
Click to expand...
Where is it said that he adopted the name, and where has he used the name for himself? I assume these admissions are in the Bible.

Lucifer is originally just a name for Venus the morning star meaning "light bearer".
Click to expand...
Again, where does this appear in the Bible?

.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
Where is it said that he adopted the name, and where has he used the name for himself? I assume these admissions are in the Bible.


Again, where does this appear in the Bible?

.
Click to expand...
I threw those facts in free of charge. It doesn't say it in the Bible.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Hadar Judah said:
Definitely not... if you continue reading Isaiah 14:12-16, you will see that Lucifer is being referred to as a person/group of people on the earth...

“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!
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:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
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;” [Isaiah 14:12-16]
Click to expand...
From other sources I've looked into it appears that "Lucifer" is a name for the literal king of Babylon. However, others go on to say that the "king of Babylon" is really an allusion to Satan.

One would think that if the Bible is really the inspired word of god, he would have done a far better job of inspiring. Like making sure there's no room for uncertainty.

.

.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
74x12 said:
I threw those facts in free of charge. It doesn't say it in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Then you can hardly call them facts, but rather your imagination gone amuck. Your credibility is now at ZERO. Congratulations.

.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
Then you can hardly call them facts, but rather your imagination gone amuck. Your credibility is now at ZERO. Congratulations.

.
Click to expand...
According to common modern English usage, yes satan is known as lucifer and yes Venus/the morning star was called lucifer.

Lucifer - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Tazarah

Tazarah

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
From other sources I've looked into it appears that "Lucifer" is a name for the literal king of Babylon. However, others go on to say that the "king of Babylon" is really an allusion to Satan.

One would think that if the Bible is really the inspired word of god, he would have done a far better job of inspiring. Like making sure there's no room for uncertainty.

.

.
Click to expand...

The bible is not meant for everybody to understand completely. There are a lot of “code words” and “hidden messages” behind certain words/phrases or “hidden meanings”.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” [Isaiah 28:9-10]

Believe it or not, Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is being used as a code word for a nation of people on the earth who have behaved and are behaving in the manners described in the context. Those verses are talking about present day, and what it says is going to happen to “Lucifer” is prophecy.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Hadar Judah said:
The bible is not meant for everybody to understand completely. There are a lot of “code words” and “hidden messages” behind certain words/phrases or “hidden meanings”.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:” [Isaiah 28:9-10]

Believe it or not, Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is being used as a code word for a nation of people on the earth who have behaved and are behaving in the manners described in the context. Those verses are talking about present day, and what it says is going to happen to “Lucifer” is prophecy.
Click to expand...
Bull twinkies. What next, Michael Drosnin pap?

.

.
 
Last edited:
Socratic Berean

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
You are citing modern English interpretations of three different writings that were penned by different authors of different backgrounds at different points in history and in different languages. If you want clarity—and don’t just seek to instigate—you need to learn the art and science of textual criticism, to properly exegete the scripture. It’s really not as confusing as you try to make it out once you frame the question in the proper context.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Socratic Berean said:
You are citing modern English interpretations of three different writings that were penned by different authors of different backgrounds at different points in history and in different languages. If you want clarity—and don’t just seek to instigate—you need to learn the art and science of textual criticism, to properly exegete the scripture. It’s really not as confusing as you try to make it out once you frame the question in the proper context.
Click to expand...
In as much as you've obviously looked into it all, what's the answer? The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer. One in the same or Not?

.
 
2

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Skwim said:
In as much as you've obviously looked into it all, what's the answer? The Devil, Satan, and Lucifer. One in the same or Not?

.
Click to expand...

Per Revelation 20:2, the "devil" and "Satan" are the same. According to Isaiah 14, the connection of the "star of the morning" is with "the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4),and "the man" (Isaiah 14:16), whereas he will not be reunited with "all the kings of the nations" in a "tomb". All this will happen "when the LORD will have compassion on Jacob, and again choose Israel" "and settle them in their own land(Isaiah 14:1). At this time, only Judah and Jerusalem have been restored (Joel 3:1). Israel remains "scattered among the nations" (Ezekiel 36:19).
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
2ndpillar said:
Per Revelation 20:2, the "devil" and "Satan" are the same.
Click to expand...

Revelation 20:2
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
​
As the sentence is constructed it could easily mean they are separate beings. Simply substitute.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the RED, and BLUE, and bound him a thousand years,
​
Red and blue are not the same. Ergo the devil and Satan are not necessarily the same. And if the devil and Satan were one-in-the-same why bother to use both terms to identify the dragon. Either term would suffice.


According to Isaiah 14, the connection of the "star of the morning" is with "the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4),
Click to expand...
That's what I've gathered. Lucifer is neither Satan nor the devil.
 
Riders

Riders

Well-Known Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Well, remember the account where Jesus was tempted in the Wilderness? Luke 4 and Matthew 4.

It keeps saying, “the Devil” did this...did that. But after the last test, Jesus said, “Go away, Satan!...”

So they’re the same.

However, Isaiah 14 (where Lucifer is mentioned — not in all Bibles, though) was actually talking about Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar’s empire); it “brought nations low”, as vs.12 says.
Click to expand...

Considering the fact that its not human and or healthy to push your body to stay in the desert 40 days Jesus sinned against his body by pushing himself to the edge of death, it was morally wrong for him to do that.

Besides the fact that he pushed his self to the point that he had to be mentally insane and mentally ill and hallucinating thank you very much when he saw Satan, then Jesus vision of Satan is not reliable!

I am rest assured that Christians will say because he was the son of God his body is not like our or God made his body different, but that would make him not human.

Either he was not human or he hallucinated bottom line.
 
2

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Riders said:
Considering the fact that its not human and or healthy to push your body to stay in the desert 40 days Jesus sinned against his body by pushing himself to the edge of death, it was morally wrong for him to do that.

Besides the fact that he pushed his self to the point that he had to be mentally insane and mentally ill and hallucinating thank you very much when he saw Satan, then Jesus vision of Satan is not reliable!

I am rest assured that Christians will say because he was the son of God his body is not like our or God made his body different, but that would make him not human.

Either he was not human or he hallucinated bottom line.
Click to expand...

You forget that "Man does not live on bread alone" (Matthew 4:4)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top