external solipsism

Okay, I've confronted an assumption that I have had, and the vast majority of people seem to have. This is in regards to Satan, his name and his origins.

I have always been told, and have believed, that Satan was (according to Judeo-Christian beliefs, I do not follow such beliefs) Lucifer, an angel who had fallen in grace becuase he wanted to challenge God. Supposedly, this is explained in the Bible. Well, anyone know where the bible ever mentions the name Lucifer?

My curiosity got sparked on this because I've been learning about Wicca, and a book I'm reading mentions an ancient diety named Lucifer, who was the brother of a Roman moon and hunt goddess. It occurred to me that Christianity would likely learn of this diety, and in an effort to win an argument, claim that this deity was actually a fallen angel, much the same way that many present day Christians suggest that any religion that recognizes any other diety other then the ones they recognize, is being fooled by Satan to worship him. So, if anyone can offer any locations in the Bible (preferably in the Old Testament as this would be a bit more reliable) that mention the name Lucifer and the story of his falling from grace, I'd greately appreciate it because I've been looking and I can't find anything.

Magus55

Isa 14:12 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!

Isa 14:13 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:

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Doctor X

Wow.

Unfortunately, I cannot get the "Search" to find a post I made of Forsyth's explanation of "where" this all comes from.

Briefly, there is no biblical "fall of angels." What you have is a blending of traditions that happened over time. Satan--as a person/individual--first appears in Chronicles to "soften" an evil act by YHWH reported in the earlier deuteronomistic history.

"Lucifer" comes from a mistranslation/misunderstanding of a taunt against a prince--who will "rise and must fall" as the sun and the son of the sun god. Forsyth traces the translations from the Hebrew into the Greek.

The "revolt against heaven" 'n all of that comes from the extra-biblical "Book of Jubilees." This is relatively late in mythmaking. It--and apologists now--retroject into a story in Genesis where the wonderful "sons of the gods" come down to earth and mate with "da wimmenfolk." This was recast as "fallen angels."

--J.D.

MiddleMan

From The Oxford Bible Commentary

"v. 12 has played an important part in the history of interpretation, being understood as an illustration of the theme of Lucifer, the fallen angel. (The theme actually owes more to the influence of Milton's Paradise Lost than to any direct biblical references.) The whole passage, vv. 12-21, has a widespread mythological background, reflecting stories about Venus, the 'day-star', visible just before dawn, and driven away by the power of the rising sun. The 'heights of Zaphon' is the holy mountain mentioned also in the Ugaritic texts as the assembling-place of the gods. In Ps 48.2 the same wrds are used to identify Mount Zion as the true divine dwelling-place. The 'Most High' of v. 14 is 'elyon, a divine title also claimed by the HB as appropriate for YHWH (Gen 14.18; Ps 91.1). These pretensions are then contrasted with the certain fate of Babylon, which will not even be granted proper burial-rites (v. 20), a matter of very deep conern in the ancient world." (pg. 450)

I don't see the connection between the Lucifer mentioned in Isaiah and the Satan of Christian mythology.

Magus55

Nice try x, but hardly convincing evidence that the Biblical claim isn't correct.

The Gospels also refer to the fallen angels.

And yes Lucifer in Isaiah is a parallel of a Babylonian king, but Kings don't fall from Heaven, nor do they try to overthrow the throne of God. Dr. Henry Morris states that its referring to Lucifer possessing the king - making it a double fullfillment/parallel reference to both a corrupted king, and the former archangel.

Doctor X

Magnus, since you have never disappointed in your consistent refusal to consult the scholarship or the texts--such as the ones that have been previously offered to you on this very point--I feel no need to take your apologetics without evidence or relevance to the actual texts seriously.

--J.D.

Magus55

Fine then don't. I'm not trying to prove anything to you.

MiddleMan

But, in ancient cosmology, stars could (they really weren't that far from the surface of the earth). This is a metaphor where Lucifer, the "morning star" (or Venus) is being equated with the king of Babylon.



But, because Venus is the brightest star in the sky, and can even remain bright and visible in the early morning (therefore eclipsing all other stars except the sun), and because this light seems to not "bow down" to the rising sun willingly and is a member of the heavens, Venus becomes the perfect metaphor for the Babylonian king. It is bright, it attempts to defy the "will" of the sun and is a resident of heaven, the abode closest to God's throne. I think the metaphor fits beautifully and has nothing to do with a supernatural agent known in later Christanity as Satan.

I wish not to comment on Dr. Morris' interpretation. I have not read it in context and, given what you offered, he appears not to know the Isaiah passage in its own non-Christian context.

Magus55

venus isn't a star...

MiddleMan

Snicker! Ha! You got me there!