Who Is Lucifer?

[ThirtyThree]

The following is what I have compiled so far regarding Lucifer. The purpose of this thread is for me to gain greater understanding through discussion and debate of the material below as well as what might be posted by others. Let me also make it perfectly clear I have no interest in Ford's work. I also can not find any books on Luciferianism or even Lucifer, from an academic perspective. That is, nothing which deals into the theistic approach.
~

Venus

Venus is the morning and even star. It appears just prior to sunrise and after sunset. Venus was the brightest star observed by the ancients. To compare Lucifer to Venus is correct, in context. This is because Venus reflects the sun, and the sun best represents God.

The Bible

Isa 14:12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

~
This verse is about a mortal king.
He held great authority but lost it. (Fallen from heaven).
He weakened the nations.
~

For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;

~
The king desired to ascend to the greatest power. (into heaven).

This one part of the verse can not reference the fallen anointed covering Cherub. This is because this Cherub was already in heaven. He would not have said he would ascend into where he already was.

Now the verse explains that the king exalted his throne above God's. The fallen Cherub never had a throne. He would never have exalted his throne. Again, this speaks of a mortal king.

The final two lines in the verse likewise refer to the mortal king. While they could apply to the fallen Cherub, it is unlikely, considering no part of the verse so far has applied to any other than the king.
~

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

~
This verse is still refers to a mortal king.
This king desires to raise himself up as high as he can.
The king desires to be like God.

Notice the verse does not say the king sought to become God? No, he sought to become like God. If this was about a fallen Cherub, would it not have said that the Cherub sought to become God?
~

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

~
A) This is referring to a mortal king. He is not judged to enter Tartarus, (The lowest depths of The Pit within Sheol, the underworld) because mortals do not go there.

B) This is referring to the fallen Cherub. How could this refer to the fallen Cherub though? He was cast to the Earth, not into The Pit. Although that is said to be the Cherub's eventual abode.

C) The entire two lines are metaphorical and refer to the mortal king.
~

“Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,

~
The king never entered Tartarus.
The king died and his body was being looked on by the people he once ruled.
The people mock the body and the memory of the king.
This verse is definitely not about a fallen Cherub.
~

Eze 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:

“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

~
This is about a being.
This person was full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
~

You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

~
This is still about a being.
The being was in Eden, the garden of God.
The verse now goes into symbolism, explaining the splendor of this being, comparing it to precious stones.
This being had something like a modern tambourine. It was a musical instrument called a "timbrel" or "tabret" and was used by the Israelites. The being also had pipes. This means the being was involved in music or worship, which is what the two items would properly symbolize.
These instruments were crafted on the day this being was created.
~

“You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

~
This is about an anointed cherub who covers.
Now it is made clear this verse is not about a mortal king.
This cherub was established and was on the holy mountain of God.
This cherub walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
This verse is absolutely not about a mortal king.
~

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

~
Humans are not perfect the day they are created.
This being was created perfect.
Iniquity was found in this being.
~

“By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.
“Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.

~
This being involved himself in trading.
This being was filled with violence within.
This being sinned. All of that was the iniquity found in him.
God casted this being out of the holy place.
God "destroyed" (ruined) or (lost) the cherub.
Specifically, from the midst of fiery stones.
Specifically, the cherub's station was lost.
The being's heart was lifted up because of his beauty.
The being corrupted his wisdom with the sin of pride.
God cast the cherub to the ground (Earth).
On the Earth, the cherub was there for kings to see.
~

“You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.

~
This cherub defiled his sanctuaries by the multitude of his sins.
Now it becomes clear the verse is comparing the mortal king to the cherub. God burns the mortal king to ashes in the sight of all who saw him. The fire may or may not be literal. I suspect it is not literal.
~

All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”

~
This king and possibly the cherub became a "horror".
This can mean a few things. a) The cherub became hideous, which is not likely. Instead, it seems more logical to believe the cherub was transformed in the eyes of God to a "horror". b) The king is remembered as a horror to the people. Whether burned literally or simply revealed to the people for the monster he is, his memory is forever cursed and an end had been brought to his reign. I am going to suggest b is true. Mainly because "and shall be no more forever" does not fit too tell with the cherub the king is being compared to.
~

Phospheros - Greek Supernal

Phosphorus was the personification of the Morning Star in Greek mythology. He was the son of the goddess of dawn, known as Eos and the male god, Astraios. He also had a half brother who was named Hesperus, The Evening Star. This was back when the morning and evening star were believed to be separate. Another name Phosphorus had was Eosphoros. He also had the name Lucifer in Roman mythology. The name Phosphorus means "light bearer" (phos = light) (phoros = bearer).

To keep in line with history, Venus was then dedicated to the goddess Aphorodite.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The following is what I have compiled so far regarding Lucifer. The purpose of this thread is for me to gain greater understanding through discussion and debate of the material below as well as what might be posted by others. Let me also make it perfectly clear I have no interest in Ford's work. I also can not find any books on Luciferianism or even Lucifer, from an academic perspective. That is, nothing which deals into the theistic approach.
~

Venus

Venus is the morning and even star. It appears just prior to sunrise and after sunset. Venus was the brightest star observed by the ancients. To compare Lucifer to Venus is correct, in context. This is because Venus reflects the sun, and the sun best represents God.

The Bible

Isa 14:12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

~
This verse is about a mortal king.
He held great authority but lost it. (Fallen from heaven).
He weakened the nations.
~

For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;

~
The king desired to ascend to the greatest power. (into heaven).

This one part of the verse can not reference the fallen anointed covering Cherub. This is because this Cherub was already in heaven. He would not have said he would ascend into where he already was.

Now the verse explains that the king exalted his throne above God's. The fallen Cherub never had a throne. He would never have exalted his throne. Again, this speaks of a mortal king.

The final two lines in the verse likewise refer to the mortal king. While they could apply to the fallen Cherub, it is unlikely, considering no part of the verse so far has applied to any other than the king.
~

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

~
This verse is still refers to a mortal king.
This king desires to raise himself up as high as he can.
The king desires to be like God.

Notice the verse does not say the king sought to become God? No, he sought to become like God. If this was about a fallen Cherub, would it not have said that the Cherub sought to become God?
~

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

~
A) This is referring to a mortal king. He is not judged to enter Tartarus, (The lowest depths of The Pit within Sheol, the underworld) because mortals do not go there.

B) This is referring to the fallen Cherub. How could this refer to the fallen Cherub though? He was cast to the Earth, not into The Pit. Although that is said to be the Cherub's eventual abode.

C) The entire two lines are metaphorical and refer to the mortal king.
~

“Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:
‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,

~
The king never entered Tartarus.
The king died and his body was being looked on by the people he once ruled.
The people mock the body and the memory of the king.
This verse is definitely not about a fallen Cherub.
~

Eze 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:

“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

~
This is about a being.
This person was full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
~

You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.

~
This is still about a being.
The being was in Eden, the garden of God.
The verse now goes into symbolism, explaining the splendor of this being, comparing it to precious stones.
This being had something like a modern tambourine. It was a musical instrument called a "timbrel" or "tabret" and was used by the Israelites. The being also had pipes. This means the being was involved in music or worship, which is what the two items would properly symbolize.
These instruments were crafted on the day this being was created.
~

“You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

~
This is about an anointed cherub who covers.
Now it is made clear this verse is not about a mortal king.
This cherub was established and was on the holy mountain of God.
This cherub walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
This verse is absolutely not about a mortal king.
~

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

~
Humans are not perfect the day they are created.
This being was created perfect.
Iniquity was found in this being.
~

“By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.
“Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.

~
This being involved himself in trading.
This being was filled with violence within.
This being sinned. All of that was the iniquity found in him.
God casted this being out of the holy place.
God "destroyed" (ruined) or (lost) the cherub.
Specifically, from the midst of fiery stones.
Specifically, the cherub's station was lost.
The being's heart was lifted up because of his beauty.
The being corrupted his wisdom with the sin of pride.
God cast the cherub to the ground (Earth).
On the Earth, the cherub was there for kings to see.
~

“You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.

~
This cherub defiled his sanctuaries by the multitude of his sins.
Now it becomes clear the verse is comparing the mortal king to the cherub. God burns the mortal king to ashes in the sight of all who saw him. The fire may or may not be literal. I suspect it is not literal.
~

All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”

~
This king and possibly the cherub became a "horror".
This can mean a few things. a) The cherub became hideous, which is not likely. Instead, it seems more logical to believe the cherub was transformed in the eyes of God to a "horror". b) The king is remembered as a horror to the people. Whether burned literally or simply revealed to the people for the monster he is, his memory is forever cursed and an end had been brought to his reign. I am going to suggest b is true. Mainly because "and shall be no more forever" does not fit too tell with the cherub the king is being compared to.
~

Phospheros - Greek Supernal

Phosphorus was the personification of the Morning Star in Greek mythology. He was the son of the goddess of dawn, known as Eos and the male god, Astraios. He also had a half brother who was named Hesperus, The Evening Star. This was back when the morning and evening star were believed to be separate. Another name Phosphorus had was Eosphoros. He also had the name Lucifer in Roman mythology. The name Phosphorus means "light bearer" (phos = light) (phoros = bearer).

To keep in line with history, Venus was then dedicated to the goddess Aphorodite.

I think it is a concept that does not exist as more than that.

 

[outhouse]

Who Is Lucifer?

You mean what, not who.

A 100% product of overactive imaginations.


Its a latin translation of the morning star, the planet Venus. "light-bringing" based on previous Canaanite mythology.

 

[JustWondering]

 

[Jumi]

So, King Nebuchadnesser is Lucifer?

 

[ThirtyThree]

So, King Nebuchadnesser is Lucifer?

No.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I also can not find any books on Luciferianism or even Lucifer, from an academic perspective.

Try The Origins of Satan by Pagels or Wray, T. J., & Mobley, G. (2005). The birth of Satan: tracing the devil's biblical roots. Macmillan. Or simply check out Ovid and the OLD if you want to understand Lucifer as the name was used in Latin.

Isa 14:12
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!

Lucifer here is simply the approximation of the Hebrew helel by the Latin vulgate into the Latin equivalent of phosphoros or helel. It has nothing to do with Lucifer as understood by Jews/Hebrews or Romans or anybody else until after this little translation issue became embodied in Christian tradition as a personified "adversary" (satan).

A) This is referring to a mortal king. He is not judged to enter Tartarus, (The lowest depths of The Pit within Sheol, the underworld) because mortals do not go there.

Tartarus and Sheol were not equivalent, nor does the verse mean this.

B) This is referring to the fallen Cherub. How could this refer to the fallen Cherub though? He was cast to the Earth, not into The Pit. Although that is said to be the Cherub's eventual abode.

It doesn't and couldn't, as it was written before any conception of such an entity existed.

C) The entire two lines are metaphorical and refer to the mortal king.

Yes.

Phosphorus was the personification of the Morning Star in Greek mythology.

Not exactly:
"

φωσφόρ-ος (parox.), ον, poet. φαοσφόρος Lyr.Adesp. in PLit.Lond.51.5, φαεσφόρος Call.Dian.204, etc.:— bringing or giving light, Ἕως E.Ion1157; φ. ἀστήρ, of Dionysus at the mysteries, Ar.Ra.342 (lyr.); φ. πεῦκαι Id.Fr.599; αἴγλη, Ἦμαρ, Orph.A.1246, Εὐχή 24. b. Subst., ὁ φ. (sc. ἀστήρ), the light-bringer, i.e. the morning-star, a name specially given to the planet Venus, Ti.Locr.96e,97a, Arist.Mu.392a27, 399a8, Cic.ND2.20.53, Ph.1.504, cf. Alex.Eph. ap. Theo Sm. p.138H. 2. of the eye, φ. ὄμματα Pl. Ti.45b; φ. κόραι, of the Cyclops, E.Cyc.611 (lyr.). b. name of an eye-salve, Gal.12.747. II. torch-bearing, epith. of certain deities, esp. of Hecate, E.Hel.569, Ar.Th.858, Fr.594a; φ. θεά (sc. Ἄρτεμις) E.IT21, cf. Call.l.c.; νὴ τὴν Φωσφόρον Ar.Lys.443, Antiph. 58.6; of Hephaestus, Orph.H.66.3: pl., ἱερεὺς Φωσφόρων Hesperia 4.49 (Athens, ii A. D.). III. φωσφόρος, ἡ, torch-bearer, title of a priestess, Κλεοπάτρας θεᾶς PRein.10.8, etc. (ii B. C.)."
(LSJ)

He was the son of the goddess of dawn, known as Eos and the male god, Astraios. He also had a half brother who was named Hesperus, The Evening Star.

No.
QUOTE]To keep in line with history, Venus was then dedicated to the goddess Aphorodite.[/QUOTE]
No.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Try The Origins of Satan by Pagels or Wray, T. J., & Mobley, G. (2005). The birth of Satan: tracing the devil's biblical roots. Macmillan. Or simply check out Ovid and the OLD if you want to understand Lucifer as the name was used in Latin.

The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots, the book you recommended me, begins with, "I had actually seen the Devil a few times. Once, just moments after teasing my little sister until she cried, I saw his shadow pass from be-hind the laundry room door in our basement into the family room. I re-member bolting up the stairs and slamming the cellar door, terrified and breathless."

Any book that begins with something that ridiculous, is simply not worth reading.

The author further decimates her credibility with, "On more than one occasion I had seen Satan scurrying through the thin trees beyond our back fence. I was convinced he was spying on me as I slop-pily raked leaves or deposited the trash in the rubbish bin, leaving the lid off out of pure laziness. Indeed, there were days when I was too terrified to venture into my own backyard for fear that the Devil and his minions were lying in wait for me, eager to include yet another bad little girl to their fold."

 

[EtuMalku]

The closest to a deity is the Roman / Gaul Lucifer, a personification of the Morning Star but worshiped as cult status.

 

[outhouse]

No.

There may be metaphorical/allegorical parallels here. Sometimes context is not known in full. It could be both morning star and imply him. We may never know.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hehehe...
From the Vulgate (Latin Bible)

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

A translation of which reads:
"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 verses around this one seem to indicate that "Lucifer" here refers to the Holy Spirit.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Hehehe...
From the Vulgate (Latin Bible)

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

A translation of which reads:
"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 verses around this one seem to indicate that "Lucifer" here refers to the Holy Spirit.

Strange is it not?

 

[ThirtyThree]

Okay, so I found yet another writing and while much of it is questionable, this part is entirely correct to my knowledge.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/story-of-lucifer.htm

Did you notice in this passage all of the "I wills. " He said he would exalt his throne above the stars of God. The word "stars" here does not refer to what we see in the night sky. It refers to the angels of God. In other words, "I will take over heaven, I will be God." That is Lucifer/Satan's sin and that is the iniquity that was found in him. He does not want to be God's servant. He does not want to do what he was created to do. He wants to be served and there are millions who have chosen to do just that; serve him.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I love how your messages, ThirtyThree, say 666 at the time I am posting this.

 

[Riverwolf]

Strange is it not?

I just find it kinda funny.

All it really says to me is that the name "Lucifer" wasn't associated with the devil in early Christianity.

 

[Desert Snake]

Technically, it seems to be a title. So, could be applied to different things /as it is/

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots, the book you recommended me, begins with, "I had actually seen the Devil a few times. Once, just moments after teasing my little sister until she cried, I saw his shadow pass from be-hind the laundry room door in our basement into the family room. I re-member bolting up the stairs and slamming the cellar door, terrified and breathless."

It doesn't begin with that. The authors do explain in the preface how they first encountered the idea of satan as children, filtered and distorted through their upbringings and by being children: "Like most people, our early understanding of Satan was shaped by an amalgamation of (mostly) distorted Christian doctrine, inept Sunday school teachers, superstitious relatives, and popular mythology as portrayed in books, film, and television...
Satan. As children, we feared him; as adolescents, we were intrigued by him; as young adults, we merely dismissed him—but as scholars, we understand him. For anyone who has ever felt a shiver of fear at the mention of his name, spent a sleepless night after viewing one of the many films about him, or just plain wondered about the Devil’s role in the Bible, this book is for you."
The book is not the level of scholarship I generally appreciate (but then any treatment of the bible or antiquity that doesn't require one to be able to read several ancient languages along with at the very least German and French falls into this category). It is, however, scholarly enough for the historical amateur who can't read sources in their original languages and is written by competent scholars:
"Dr. T.J. (Tina J.) Wray is a, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, where she teaches courses in Biblical Studies and World Religions. She has twice received the Presidential award for academic excellence and was voted Professor of the Year in 2004. She is a member of several professional organizations, including The Society of Biblical Literature, The Archaeological Institute of America, and The Tyndale Society"
The other author has two graduate degrees from Harvard: CV.
Is it a biased work? Of course. All works are biased. Elaine Pagels' book, for example, has a sort of anti-Christian, anti-establishment bias. Hence my recommendation of both books, as they approach the matter from different poles yet both are suitable for the amateur.

The author further decimates her credibility with

Accounts of childhood. The book is concerned with history, and stories of the authors' childhood experiences in the preface would not discourage any but the most close-minded.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@ThirtyThree , I've now read the OP three times and continue to find it literally pointless.

Do you suspect that you have something to offer that is not (a) a question, (b) well established and readily available scholarship, or (c) tiresome talk about the Devil? If so, would you briefly share what it is?

 

[Mindmaster]

Lucifer is literally nothing. It is a metaphor of criticism directed to the king of Babylon in Isaiah. Jesus himself is often referred to as that, and there are like 2-3 "Saint Lucifer of Wherever".

If I were to say, "the light bringer in Latin" it would be "lucifer" the word is still used in in catholic masses. Usually as, "luciferi" though.

Also, in Latin there is the problem... Lucifer as an adjective applied to Venus rising in the dawn. Lucifer as a noun applied to the light cast from the moon. That meaning is largely lost on modern folks, but a quick study of Latin would reveal that.

Generally, the Christian understanding of the word Lucifer is not authentic. It is borrowed from Dante's Inferno, etc... It's a revision of the history, and basically inaccurate...

Phosphorus and Lucifer are related, regardless of biblical connotations.

Basically, outside of Greco-Roman revival paganism Lucifer is a phantom outside of a daemon in historical ceremonial magic text.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If I were to say, "the light bringer in Latin" it would be "Lucifer"

No, it wouldn't. Lucifer in Latin can mean anything from "son of Aurora and Cephalus and father of Ceyx" to simply "day".

the word is still used in in catholic masses. Usually as, "luciferi" though.

Which is simply either the plural ("lucifers") or the singular genitive. And it really isn't used in Catholic masses.

Also, in Latin there is the problem... Lucifer as an adjective applied to Venus rising in the dawn

Wrong. Completely wrong. This amounts to saying that as an adjective Lucifer is a noun. As an adjective, it is simply the combination of the lexemes for "light" and "bearing" (with the Greek cognates), and as a nominal lexeme it isn't an adjective and refers to the morning star either as a celestial phenomenon or a mythological entity.

Lucifer as a noun applied to the light cast from the moon. That meaning is largely lost on modern folks

Perhaps because even those of us who studied classics and can read Greek and Latin don't subscribe to nonsense.

but a quick study of Latin would reveal that

You can't read Latin, don't know Latin, and aren't familiar with IE.

Generally, the Christian understanding of the word Lucifer is not authentic. It is borrowed from Dante's Inferno, etc.

It's heavily shaped by Dante and Milton, but not borrowed. The personification of hasatan dates to around the time of Jesus and the Vulgate created the association between Lucifer and this entity.

Phosphorus and Lucifer are related, regardless of biblical connotations.

That's because they are "literal translations" of light-bearer in Latin and Greek.

Basically, outside of Greco-Roman revival paganism Lucifer is a phantom outside of a daemon in historical ceremonial magic text.

I've seldom come across a more inaccurate depiction of daimon/daemon than this.