-
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!
One simple question
- Thread starter Syphros
- Start date
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Rather a loaded question, isn't it? Who's to say the "God of the Bible" is not the corrupter, while "lucifer" (the "light bringer," whether you apply the word to the character of "Satan" or the character of "Jesus" - it is used for both) is lighting the way back to truth for all those who can perceive that path?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Just had an insight reading your post dopp!
Jesus and Satan both being described as "lightbringer" - one because he shows the "light" end, and the other because he shows the "dark" end so that the "light" can be related to, and compared to the "dark". Without one, the other cannot be perceived.
Does that make sense?
Jesus and Satan both being described as "lightbringer" - one because he shows the "light" end, and the other because he shows the "dark" end so that the "light" can be related to, and compared to the "dark". Without one, the other cannot be perceived.
Does that make sense?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It does to me. Satan and Jesus are twin brothers. Symbolically, neither can be without the other.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Or are they one and the same?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Of course. Have you read I Know This Much is True by Wally Lamb? It's a novel about mythology and identity with a lot of interesting avenues into twin symbology. And it's a great story, fantastically written.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
No, I haven't. Maybe I should check it out.
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
My answer NO. Way you may ask. Satan is not evil or corrupt in the first place(as I see it) unless God is. Satan is an Angel of God, and will be at lest in the eyes of the Jews were the being known as Satan first is seen.
In Judaism there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (שָׂטָן
means "the adversary"[2] or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge).In the book of Job (Iyov), ha-satan is the title, not the proper name, of an angel submitted to God; he is the divine court's chief prosecutor. In Judaism ha-satan does not make evil, rather points out to God the evil inclinations and actions of humankind. In essence ha-satan has no power unless humans do evil things. After God points out Job's piety, ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job. The righteous man is afflicted with loss of family, property, and later, health, but he still stays faithful to God. At the conclusion of this book God appears as a whirlwind, explaining to all that divine justice is inscrutable. In the epilogue Job's possessions are restored and he has a second family to "replace" the one that died.
In the Torah, ha-satan is mentioned several times. The main time is during the incident of the golden calf. As the source of people's evil inclination, or yetser harah, he is responsible for the Israelites building the golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Torah from God. In the book of Chronicles, ha-satan incites David to an unlawful census.
In fact, the Book of Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Deuteronomy all have passages in which God is credited for creating both the good and the evil of this world.(wiki)
Where Satan does appear in the Bible as a member of God's court, he plays the role of the Accuser, much like a prosecuting attorney for God.
According to the article on 'Satan' in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Satan's role as the accuser is found
in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or 'sons of God,' before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: 'From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.' (Job 1:7) Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, lawyer who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering. (ib. ii. 3-5.)
Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. He cannot be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. 3:1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the 'angel of the Lord' who bids him be silent in the name of God.
In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. 21:1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. 24:1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone, (I Sam. 16:14; I Kings 22:22; Isa. 45:7; etc) it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism. (Stave, Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum, pp. 253 et seq.) An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the 'accuser, persecutor, and oppressor' (Schrader, K. A. T. 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible."(wiki)
Now for Lucifer. From what I know Lucifer really doesn't have any roots in Christian, and the name doesn't show in Hebrew at all. But I have heard it was one of many names for a Roman God.
But in the end they can be anything you want them to be, and seen how you want. Depending on what I'm doing really depends at the time how I see them and what they mean it me.
Dr. Nosophoros
Active Member
Satan. Lucifer etc. really isn't mentioned much in the bible, in fact most of it is filled with the evils people do on their own watch and Gods retributions against them or his praises for them or not. I have never given much stock to the primitive Jewish ramblings that became a popular book for it just seems another religion that was influenced by an older one. The Hebrews probably would not have an Idea of a cosmic bad guy had they not first been dominated by the Persians and introduced to their ideas of dualism, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu did battle long before the Hebrews ever conceived of it and passed it on to others through creative stroytelling. Through time, deceptions and political and religious motivations that serve others were capitalized on and the ignorant still praise and fear the phantoms of primitive minds.
Ain't life grand?
Ain't life grand?
Abdon
Member
Yes and he is unredeemably evil.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
According to the Bible, Jesus is also "lucifer". :yes:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
It is so. Perhaps you don't know much about the contents and history of your Bible.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I would also add that, Biblically, while Jesus is identified with "lucifer," Satan is not.
That the character "Satan" is equated with "lucifer" is a tradition that didn't develop until well after the books of the Bible were composed in their current known forms.
That the character "Satan" is equated with "lucifer" is a tradition that didn't develop until well after the books of the Bible were composed in their current known forms.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
2 Peter 1:19
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
Who is referred to by "lucifer" in 2 Peter?
Abdon
Member
doppelgänger;1082515 said:2 Peter 1:19
et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris
Who is referred to by "lucifer" in 2 Peter?
You can't read Latin can you? That sentence isn't referring to anybody, it says:
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
The day star is been used as a metaphor for faith, if it referred to a person it would be capitalised. See Acts 26:18 for a fuller understanding.
You would also do well to take heed of the next passage:
"hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit"
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Yes, I can.
In context it is referring to the awareness of Christ. Read the three verses that precede it. So "lucifer" is a metaphor for Christ (or at least the Gospel of Christ).
As for its metaphorical meaning, that's exactly my point. "Lucifer" is not a proper name ANYWHERE in the Bible. It's a metaphor, and a Latin translation of a metaphor at that. Neither the OT nor the NT were written in Latin, and consequently, neither use "lucifer" as a proper name for anything.
So the traditions about who and who is not "lucifer" are all from the time of Vulgate forward, since this would have been the first time any metaphors in the books of the Bible were translated into Latin.
In sum, there is no person or being identified by the proper name "Lucifer" anywhere in the Bible, though there are a few occasions where "lucifer" is used as a Latin translation of "day star" or "morning star" used as a metaphor. The idea that "Satan" is "Lucifer" is not based on the Bible but on a tradition that emerged long after the books were written.
Contemplate that on the tree of woe.