• 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!

Lucifer & Satan: Same, different, or what?

Are Lucifer and Satan the same?


  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
So are you saying that Jesus was calling Peter a fallen angel, or not, at Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33?
Jesus did not say, peter, such and such.

It is up for interpretation whether Jesus called Peter, satan , at all.
If... you believe that Jesus did call Peter satan it is obvious, that He did not mean, the fallen angel.

Note, 'god' is used for false gods, and is a name of God, at the same time. This is contextual

I personally do not believe that Jesus actually called Peter satan. I believe this was a phrase that meant, and He was addressing everyone, that what He was doing, was of God, and essentially authoritatively stating that He was not going to change his mind, on this.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
2 Peter 1:19 the word is translated as Morning Star or Day-Star in most English versions. Like I mentioned earlier, many, if not most, English translations of the Bible don't even use the word "Lucifer."
They also don't call Jesus, Lucifer. Hence, it doesn't matter to your original argument.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Jesus did not say, peter, such and such.

It is up for interpretation whether Jesus called Peter, satan , at all.
If... you believe that Jesus did call Peter satan it is obvious, that He did not mean, the fallen angel.

Note, 'god' is used for false gods, and is a name of God, at the same time. This is contextual

I personally do not believe that Jesus actually called Peter satan. I believe this was a phrase that meant, and He was addressing everyone, that what He was doing, was of God, and essentially authoritatively stating that He was not going to change his mind, on this.
Matthew 16:23 23 But He turned and told Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns, but man’s.”
Mark 8:32-33
32 He was openly talking about this. So Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.

33 But turning around and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan, because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns, but man’s!”
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Matthew 16:23 23 But He turned and told Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns, but man’s.”
Mark 8:32-33
32 He was openly talking about this. So Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.

33 But turning around and looking at His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan, because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns, but man’s!”
No...
Note that 'get behind me satan', is actually not directly followed by Jesus addressing Peter.

I believe that this is a religious phrase, and then, He addresses Peter.

In other words, a prelude statement.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
No...
Note that 'get behind me satan', is actually not directly followed by Jesus addressing Peter.

I believe that this is a religious phrase, and then, He addresses Peter.

In other words, a prelude statement.
Matthew 16:23 in context:


Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law,and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”​
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Matthew 16:23 in context:


Jesus Predicts His Death
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law,and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”​
The comma after 'get behind me satan', isn't correct. I don't know what Bible you're using, however, even though the comma perhaps could be used, the verse actually has a pause, there, and is not directly followed by what He says to Peter.
Since there is a separation in the sequence, I believe that Jesus did not actually call Peter, Satan.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
The comma after 'get behind me satan', isn't correct. I don't know what Bible you're using, however, even though the comma perhaps could be used, the verse actually has a pause, there, and is not directly followed by what He says to Peter.
Since there is a separation in the sequence, I believe that Jesus did not actually call Peter, Satan.
Here's a link to 4 different translations side by side: NIV, King James, Holman, and Revised Standard version. You can use the drop down arrows to see a different translation.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:21-23&version=NIV;KJV;HCSB;RSV
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
The comma after 'get behind me satan', isn't correct. I don't know what Bible you're using, however, even though the comma perhaps could be used, the verse actually has a pause, there, and is not directly followed by what He says to Peter.
Since there is a separation in the sequence, I believe that Jesus did not actually call Peter, Satan.
Actually, that is the proper punctuation in the English language--quotes are separated by commas. I don't know why you are disputing the phrase Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan!" It's pretty clear and straightforward that Jesus was talking to Peter, and called him Satan.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Actually, that is the proper punctuation in the English language--quotes are separated by commas. I don't know why you are disputing the phrase Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan!" It's pretty clear and straightforward that Jesus was talking to Peter, and called him Satan.
No, quotes in that manner, are not separated, by commas.

You can separate sequences, that have commas, ie quoting a part of a longer sequence, that uses , commas, with quote marks, but you can't go the other direction.

When separating a part from a longer sequence, the quote is used by itself, and doesn't utilize the longer sequence.

In the actual verse, there is a literal separation, in the sequence, which isn't indicated necessarily, by a comma.

You are also contradicting yourself, because you have written an exclamation mark, at one writing, and also written, a comma, in another writing of the same verse.

An exclamation mark, and a comma, are nowhere near, the same thing, with this kind of sequence, or statements.
 
Last edited:

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
No, quotes in that manner, are not separated, by commas.

You can separate sequences, that have commas, ie quoting a part of a longer sequence, that uses , commas, with quote marks, but you can't go the other direction.

When separating a part from a longer sequence, the quote is used by itself, and doesn't utilize the longer sequence.

In the actual verse, there is a literal separation, in the sequence, which isn't indicated necessarily, by a comma.

You are also contradicting yourself, because you have written an exclamation mark, at one writing, and also written, a comma, in another writing of the same verse.

An exclamation mark, and a comma, are nowhere near, the same thing, with this kind of sequence, or statements.
How ridiculous all this is, the bottom line here is that any time the word lucifer, morning star, or day star is used in an English Christian bible, none of these words are referring to the Roman-Greco Lucifer deity and in no way is this deity Lucifer or these words the same as Satan or some fallen angel theory.

The use of these words were common poetic colors used for centuries, hell Jesus refers to himself as the morning star . . . so, I guess He really is Lucifer the fallen angel and not the true messiah or son of God? We'll need to re-examine the entirety of these scriptures then, because now everything is out-of-whack! :confused::eek:o_O
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
How ridiculous all this is, the bottom line here is that any time the word lucifer, morning star, or day star is used in an English Christian bible, none of these words are referring to the Roman-Greco Lucifer deity and in no way is this deity Lucifer or these words the same as Satan or some fallen angel theory.

The use of these words were common poetic colors used for centuries, hell Jesus refers to himself as the morning star . . . so, I guess He really is Lucifer the fallen angel and not the true messiah or son of God? We'll need to re-examine the entirety of these scriptures then, because now everything is out-of-whack! :confused::eek:o_O
Jesus is the fallen angel who rose again. (He had to die first, though. He wasn't just taken up like Enoch.)
 

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Jesus is the fallen angel who rose again. (He had to die first, though. He wasn't just taken up like Enoch.)
Where does this come from? Jesus, in the Christian bible, is the son of god, sometimes elevated to being god himself.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Where does this come from? Jesus, in the Christian bible, is the son of god, sometimes elevated to being god himself.
Yes. He came to earth, and had to die, (just as the son of the morning did in Isaiah) and rose again. Christianity 101.
 

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Yes. He came to earth, and had to die, (just as the son of the morning did in Isaiah) and rose again. Christianity 101.
Not sure I get the Isaiah association. I've never heard of Jesus being an angel that tried to usurp god and was cast out of heaven (that's what a fallen angel is).
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Not sure I get the Isaiah association. I've never heard of Jesus being an angel that tried to usurp god and was cast out of heaven (that's what a fallen angel is).
There wasn't anything about him trying to usurp god. He even refused political power when tempted by Satan in the wilderness after his initiation.
 
Top