Where does the idea that Freemasons worship Lucifer come from??

Originally posted by pepsi78
Among those, were sources from dictionaries and other valid sources among them ancient Latin writers and writings that said the same thing,

If it is fact why did you say it was your opinion? Reopen the thread if you feel otherwise. Maybe you can have the Tranformers teach us all English Literature while you are at it.

reply to post by pepsi78

Hi again, Pepsi

Actually you are quite confused about this whole subject and your posts are a confused mess of contradictory ideas and, well, not to put too fine a point on it....pure garbage.

First off, the name or title for the day we know to-day as ‘Friday’ comes NOT from Latin at all but from two Anglo Saxon words “Freyas-Daeg’ i.e. the Day of Freya (or conceivably her rotten twin sister, Frigga) just as Thursday comes from “Thors Daeg’ i.e. the Day of the god Thor.

Do you know any real actual Latin at all? If so, why would you post such idiocy?

But back to your friend.

The title LUCIFER (which actually IS from the Latin noun ‘LUX, LUCIS’ (‘light’) and the verb ‘FERO, FERRE, TULLI, LATUS’ (‘I carry’) ergo, Luci-Fer = the ‘Carrier of the Light’ or ‘The Bearer of the Light’ (i.e. Light-bearer), and has nothing to do with the Hebrew word SHAITAN (‘Blocker’, ‘Adversary’ a title which the ancient pre-Exilic Hebrews used to give the aboriginal inhabitants of the ‘holy’ land i.e. the Canaanites, which they called ‘Shaitanim’, (‘adversaries’) i.e. people that stood in their way of taking the ‘holy’ land from them…

The idea or concept of ‘shaitan’ (Gk. ‘ho Satanas’ or ‘Satan’ in English) evolved over time with the heavy dualistic theological (light/dark, heaven/hell, good/bad, death/life, sin/righteousness, pure/ritually unclean etc.) influence from the invading Persian armies into Palestine in the years prior to the Greek Syrian occupation under the Seleucids…

By the time the prose introduction to the Book of Job was written (c. 200 BCE during the Persian Occupation of Israel, c. BCE 531-331 BCE) the word SHAITAN had come to be the ‘Accuser’ who stands to accuse the ‘benei Adam’ (sons of men) in the Heavenly (and Persian-styled) Court of YHWH, with its heavy dualistic Zoroastrian associations with the dark evil Persian god Ahriman (aka ‘Mainyu’) – where Ahura Mazda (aka ‘Ohrmzad’) was later identified syncrestically with the ‘official’ post Exilic, post Ezrite clan god of Yisroel ‘YHWH’ (aka Yahweh).

The title Luci-Fer (or ‘The Mornnig Star’) was originally kind of neutral – and had nothing to do with the post exilic idea of an evil ‘Shaitan’ figure at any time before the destruction of Jerusalem (c. 70 CE) by the Romans, and was a title given to not only the Greek speaking ‘Iesous’ in the so-called Book of Revelation, where he is identified with the planet Venus who draws up the sun at sunrise (i.e. the ‘Bearer of the Light’)

See Rev 2:18 ff

Amen, to him who overcomes the Time of Trial, even unto death with Patience to the end to perform my Mitzvot, I shall give him the Power to Rule over the Gentiles, yea, he shall be given the power to rule over them with me even as I have been given, to smite them all with a Rod of Iron and will dash the goyim to smithereens as a potter’s vessel, and to him shall be given the title LUCIFER, even the Star of the Morning…

Also see Rev 22:16ff
I, Iesous, have sent my Messenger to give you this Word for the Yahadim – I AM the Root and Spawn of David, even Lucifer, the Bright Morning Star

Also see 2 Peter 1:19
We also have the word of Prophecy which is a true & faithful Witness and should be read and understood as the Light shining in the Darkness, until the Day of YHWH shall dawn upon you, and Lucifer the Morning Star begins to rise in your hearts and minds….

So early Christianity did not see the Morning Star (Venus/Lucifer) necessarily always as a negative/perjorative title –

The non-positive attribution to Lucifer (the Morning Star/Venus) however can be found in the targums of Isaiah chapter 14:12 ff which seem to use the title of a fallen star as applied to a human being - referring to either the King of Assyria (or perhaps of Babylon)

How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, the Morning Star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the gentiles !

For You said in your heart,

“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of the Elohim (‘the gods’)
I will sit enthroned on the mount of Assembly, on the heights of Mount Zaphon -
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of She’ol
Those who see you stare at you ponder your fate:

“Is this the man who shook the earth & made whole kingdoms tremble,
the man who made the world a wilderness & overthrew its cities
and would not even release his prisoners?

All the kings of the Gentiles lie in state each in his own tomb.
But you have been thrust from your tomb like a rejected branch;
you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword,
those who descend to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trampled underfoot !

This image of course can be found in the ancient pre-Jewish Canaanite Myth in Ugarit which tells of Lucifer the Morning Star's attempts to rise high above the clouds to establish himself on Zaphon the mountain where the gods assembled (Zaphon was probably the Pole Star), 'in the North', but was cast down in his attempt to rise, back down even further, i.e. into the underworld –

The above verses show several points of contact with the Ras Shamra literature where ‘Lucifer/The DayStar’ and ‘Dawn’ were two separate Canaanite gods…

You’ll notice In the New Testament the "Adversary" has many names, but "Lucifer" is not among them.
He is called "Satanas" (Matt. 4:10; Mark 1:13, 4:15; Luke 10:18), "the Devil" (Matt. 4:1), "the Adversary" (1. Peter 5:8, ἀντίδικος; 1. Tim. 5:14, ἀντικείμενος), "The Enemy" (Matt. 13:39), "The Accuser" (Rev. 12:10), "The old serpent" (Rev. 20:2), "the Great Serpent-Dragon" (Rev. 12:9), Beelzebub (Matt. 10:25, 12:24), and Beli’al (or Beli’ar) the last title is used extensively in the Dead Sea Scrolls as ‘Beli’al’ the ‘father of all the Sons of Darkness’ i.e. NOT a light bearer, but the direct OPPOSITE idea !!

In Luke 10:18, John 12:31 & Rev. 12:9 the ‘fall of Satan’ is mentioned. The devil is regarded as the author of all evil (Luke 10:19; Acts 5:3; 2. Cor. 11:3; Ephes. 2:2), who beguiled Eve (2. Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9).

The fact that the Masonic lodges in the late Middle Ages preserved the older traditions ref: SOPHIA/BAPHOMET in their rituals should not come as any surprise since they were reacting to the anti-Gnosis theologies of Pauline Christianity (‘salvation by faith alone’) which had cautioned against the dangers of ‘Gnosis’ and had infected and infiltrated most Christian communities by the 3rd century CE, especially after the near total destruction of the Nazorean Christian churches (‘salvation by mitzvot ve ma’aseh’ or ‘salvation by works’) following the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) where most of the torah-abiding Nazorean Ebionite family based yahadim of R. Yehsohua bar Yosef (‘Iesous’, headed up by his blood brother ‘James’ in Jerusalem, who stood in direct opposition to ‘Saul of Tarsus’ with his heretical gentile-loving torah-hating belief system) were wiped out.

The highly underground anti Christian (or at any rate, anti Pauline) Masonic initiatory Rituals (which espoused such anti pauline concepts as Wisdom/Sophia/Baphomet/ Illumination etc.) actually grew out of the far older and more ancient Greek and Egyptian Mystery religions in combination with the ancient (and later Mediaeval) Trade Guild Systems in Europe and elsewhere and have always espoused esoteric Knowledge over ‘blind faith’…

Now don’t tell me all this is news to you?

Originally posted by Sigismundus
Do you know any real actual Latin at all?

I can safely answer a resounding 'NO'.

(If you actually needed verification on that question.)

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Hi Augustus...

I agree...alas, it seems Mr Pepsi must be very young...or maybe just VERY drugged out !

More's the pity....at any rate, I'd like to see some more of your own comments !

Originally posted by Sigismundus
More's the pity....at any rate, I'd like to see some more of your own comments !

I found your theory on the origins of Masonic ritual to be a rather lucid and quite convincing. Masonic Light, who posts on this forum often, is very well versed in ritual origins and older esoteric groups and would most likely offer much deeper insight into what you have proffered.

Posts/topics such as yours and his are what keep me coming back to this site.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Thanks Augustus ! Let's keep the standard on these posts as high as possible !!

reply to post by Sigismundus

Fun little fact, during the time of St. Jerome and his translating of the Bible, specifically the single verse on Lucifer, there was a Bishop named Lucifer from Cagliari.

First off, the name or title for the day we know to-day as ‘Friday’ comes NOT from Latin at all but from two Anglo Saxon words “Freyas-Daeg’ i.e. the Day of Freya (or conceivably her rotten twin sister, Frigga) just as Thursday comes from “Thors Daeg’ i.e. the Day of the god Thor.

It comes from Latin Veneris, Veneris, as in Venus, were not talking about the origin of friday as it go's back very very far, but as for the word "VENUS" friday "Latin Veneris" Veneris Venus as in the planet Venus from Veneris.
The implication of Veneris means dark

Here she is, all I can say she will suck you dry, out of your life, take everything from you.


Veneris. You like veneris.

Do you know any real actual Latin at all? If so, why would you post such idiocy?

Sure I do.

But back to your friend.

The title LUCIFER (which actually IS from the Latin noun ‘LUX, LUCIS’ (‘light’) and the verb ‘FERO, FERRE, TULLI, LATUS’ (‘I carry’) ergo, Luci-Fer = the ‘Carrier of the Light’ or ‘The Bearer of the Light’ (i.e. Light-bearer), and has nothing to do with the Hebrew word SHAITAN (‘Blocker’, ‘Adversary’ a title which the ancient pre-Exilic Hebrews used to give the aboriginal inhabitants of the ‘holy’ land i.e. the Canaanites, which they called ‘Shaitanim’, (‘adversaries’) i.e. people that stood in their way of taking the ‘holy’ land from them…

You are correct for this but you forgot some elements

has nothing to do with the Hebrew word SHAITAN

You sure about that ?

Shai (also spelt Sai, occasionally Shay, and in Greek, Psais) was the deification of the concept of fate in Egyptian mythology

Lucifer, what the word means You should now get an idea who Lucifer is, he likes water alot.
Unlike the forward notion that you know of, only the light carrier. As for the word adversary I have been over it again and again, check my other thread.

I think you need to get a better grasp on Lucifer.

The idea or concept of ‘shaitan’ (Gk. ‘ho Satanas’ or ‘Satan’ in English) evolved over time with the heavy dualistic theological (light/dark, heaven/hell, good/bad, death/life, sin/righteousness, pure/ritually unclean etc.) influence from the invading Persian armies into Palestine in the years prior to the Greek Syrian occupation under the Seleucids…

That is what you get for hanging on that kabalah crap, with dark and light, it may be so from a perspective, it may hold a point of view but it's just a small picture, part of a very small perspective. I sense that people like you and others like masonry are obsesed with the light and darkness making a living out of it. To do so it is to live
like a robot. Don't mention kabalah crap to me ever again.

Amen, to him who overcomes the Time of Trial, even unto death with Patience to the end to perform my Mitzvot, I shall give him the Power to Rule over the Gentiles, yea, he shall be given the power to rule over them with me even as I have been given, to smite them all with a Rod of Iron and will dash the goyim to smithereens as a potter’s vessel, and to him shall be given the title LUCIFER, even the Star of the Morning…

He is called the morning star from other perspective, none that I can tell you about, it's associated with venus with other perspectives, non necesarly that venus shines bright.

So early Christianity did not see the Morning Star (Venus/Lucifer) necessarily always as a negative/perjorative title –

Lucifer can be bad or good, depends on who falls, the traditional Lucifer the first Lucifer was satan(bad)
then other lucifers fell, not necesary bad, but the classical lucifer was a bad ass. Satan, the first for the king ship.

How you have fallen from heaven, Lucifer, the Morning Star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the gentiles !

I'm not going to do you a favor, but see who the king of Tyre is. Now were talking about the classical Lucifer.

You’ll notice In the New Testament the "Adversary" has many names, but "Lucifer" is not among them.

Of course he is, you just need to research better.

In Luke 10:18, John 12:31 & Rev. 12:9 the ‘fall of Satan’ is mentioned. The devil is regarded as the author of all evil (Luke 10:19; Acts 5:3; 2. Cor. 11:3; Ephes. 2:2), who beguiled Eve (2. Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9).

Eve has a special meaning, the story is a fable, you should check what the word Evolution implies or Evening . The problem is that you need understanding to get to the riddle.
Nothing that I am at liberty to talk about.

Now don’t tell me all this is news to you?

Not really, I don't see how satan does not exist ?

About lucifer, the first was really bad, then came others like Jesus, you may also call him a lucifer, but not the classical Lucifer, among others there was also Horus, also a Lucifer, there were many, all came and left.
But the classical term for lucifer is the first one that fell because he was kicked out, the rest fell as messengers, to come here, Horus got tangled up and wanted the kingship, Jesus was very smart, turned it down.

None of what you say can make the classical lucifer good, or satan for that matter.

reply to post by KSigMason


I can assure you the translation is no mistake.

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by KSigMason

 

I can assure you the translation is no mistake.

HEY PEPSI

Here read this and stfu your persistent willful ignorance is tiresome.

*

www.masonicinfo.com...

*

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!""

"The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer.""

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."

"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness."

"So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.""

"And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say "Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists.

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!""

Yes

"The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.

I posted this a while a go, it's somewhere in the thread, the king of Tyre "the king of Babylon" is refered to in another passage in the bible as who he is., for that you need to go to another passage in the bible and to genesis part.

It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer.""

I have been over this, covered it, I am not going to do so again.

"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."

Helel is the deity that rebeled and wanted to overthrow the chief god at the mountain top "phonician mithology"
same story in the bible with the rebelion in the bible. It's why the king is called helel.
You can read my post, it's in this thread.

"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness."

The translation is not an error. I am not going to further comment on it.

"And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say "Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists.

Lucifer is associated with Venus for a good reason, study and you may find.
As Jesus says those who seek will find. Jesus is spot on.(smart guy)

My posts

Originally posted by pepsi78

As there are passages in the Bible that say Jesus is the morning star; in the Vulgate Bible he's actually called "lucifer".

Jesus is called that because he is also the light, anything depicted above is shining, light, there for the term enlightment, just like Lucifer, if Lucifer felt from above then he also was a light being, a light barer.

Since he was a being of light lucifer felt from the sky, there for the name Lucifer the light bearer that felt from above. You are mixing Lucifer with other light beings like angels etc in christian clasification that are also light beings, meaning they all shine.

The term Lucifer is applied to the fallen being in the bible.

As for Vulgate Latin it's not the case, we will take a Latin dictionary.

www.babylon.com...
lucifer
N M
morning star| day star| planet Venus; bringer of light

What vulgate are you talking about, this is included into classical Latin

Actually, "lucifer" is a better translation of the Greek phosphoros (which refers to Jesus) than of the Hebrew heylel (which, in popular opinion, refers to Satan). It's more accurate to call Jesus by the name Lucifer than Satan, and the early Church (which spoke Latin almost exclusively) records several uses of the name Lucifer as a pastoral or baptismal name.

Not really.
It's why I don't like people being informed the wrong way so I see it as my duty to make some sense out of this
with this lately "lucifer is not the fallen angel" trend.


But who am I , let facts speak So may we begin........

First let's get something straight.
About the translation from hebrew to latin from latin to english.
Heylel which simply means SHINING ONE translated to Latin Lucifer translated to English that means the light bearer, same thing as shinning one.

Point number one.
Not really, Heylel is a deity it's self in ancient cultures predating hebrew, it was the deity that wanted to climb the mountain top and overthrow the chief god, similar story from the bible same character in canianite mithology he is also a popular figure in gnosis as shares the same conotation, same for hebrew.

The same as this figure in the bible.

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.

We see again the mount of congregation, the mountain top same as Lucifer from the bible wanting to conquer.


Point number two

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning. How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst

If you notice in the bible Lucifer where it is used it's called Heilel, and it is refering to the babylonian king of Tyre.
We already know in this that in the passage god was talking to the babylonian king of tyre.
To find out who king of tyre is all we have to do is go somewhere else in the bible.

Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden , the garden of God ; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald...Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filed with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.

You see, it's the same fallen angel that has fallen, the fallen angel was behind the king.
The text of Lucifer does make refrrence to the fallen angel.

edit on 13-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

No2

Originally posted by pepsi78

And they're both identified as "Lucifer".

Not really, if you want to call every light of being Lucifer then go ahead.
Lucifer was a name for the fallen angel. Because Jesus was called that it is because he was also a light being.
But the name Lucifer is associated with the fallen ones, as stated in the book of enoch fallen angels are like fallen stars.

And Jesus.

Yes because Jesus was a light being, just like other light beings. Don't mix jesus with helel, helel is also a deity in ancient culture. Any fallen angel is like a Lucifer, Jesus fell on earth as a messenger, then he went back up.

This doesn't contradict anything I've said.

It does not, they are all light beings, but the translation for Lucifer as helel the deity is correct.

The Vulgate Bible, translated by St. Jerome. It's the only extant text from which we get "Lucifer", and it's used in both contexts.

The terminology is part of classical latin, the translation serves a correct description of a light being fallen from the sky. It's a correct terminology for such a creature.

Exactly. Phosphoros, meaning "bringing light", more readily translates to "light bearer" than heylel, which means "shining one".

Lucifer in many Latin cultures means to shine, there is even a name LUCIAN.
Lucifer refers to the shining cherub that fell from the sky, if you go to genesis you will see he is called a shining cherub.





I'll need to see a source for that.

www.deliriumsrealm.com...
However, it is more probable that this passage is an allusion to a Canaantie or Phoenician myth about how Helel, son of the god Shahar, sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. Evidence for this theory comes from an Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. That would make El, Elyon, and Shahar members of the Canaanite pantheon and the "mount of meeting" is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology. Unfortunately, this is just speculation as archaeologists have not uncovered any Canaanite sources that describe Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.

Many Apocalyptic writers interpreted this passage as referring to Lucifer, and wrote about the fall of the angels. 1 Enoch refers to the falling angels as stars (see the watchers) and may be the beginning of the overlap between the story of the watchers and Isaiah.

If you notice in the bible Lucifer where it is used it's called Heilel

You've presumed that heylel=Lucifer in all contexts. This is a mistake.

As I told you heilel is also a deity, an entity, it's his name ,like your name is I don't know Mario.

This is exegesis; there's nothing wrong with it, but it has no mention in the passage you've quoted.

Yes it does, it's the same king, same fallen angel.

Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden , the garden of God ; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald...Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filed with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.

You were an anoited guardian cherub, (the cherubium that fell)

Refers to the king of tyre,"Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him"
It makes a point to who is behind the king, the same king that is quoted as Lucifer in the other chapter, it's the same persona, it is clear without a doubt. The king is the fallen angel.

edit on 13-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

Have fun.

Besides this, there are lots and lots of things, that of course I'm not going to talk about.
One thing I can tell you is Lucifer is no mistake as in translation.

What I have a problem is with Jehovah being god, I can't identify him as the creator of the worlds, but he may be a lord and rule here on earth. I have a good notion of who god is, I am sure he is not a 666 for sure, Jehovah, I'm not so sure, I'm pointing to Jehovah 666, Saturn, meaning part of Jehovah is Satan.

Exactly who calls on Lucifer and tells the son of man to go tell him what he has to say, I'm guessing is Jehovah.
But Jehovah may try to trick the son of man by sending him into the dark. The son of man not knowing go's along with it thinking that Jehovah is supreme god of the universe and other worlds.

My current opinion of Jehovah is that he is the god of the underworld. Tammuz > Osiris > Adonis.
Also the other pair of twins enlil/enki. As I know Seth kills Osiris as Enki kills Enlil.

reply to post by pepsi78

Are you high? I'm not being rude, but some of things that you write boggles the mind. You don't seem to follow logic or make any sense. You say the etymology of Friday comes from Venus, but the word is derived from the Norse goddess.

reply to post by pepsi78

Oh you can assure me? No you can't. Were you there? No.

Several verses prior to the word Lucifer, it speaks to him as a king of Babylon, a mortal man. The original text says "Helal, son of Shahar" meaning "day star, son of the morning". In the time of St. Jerome, the day star was called Lucifer as it preceded the rising sun and was considered the day/light bringer. If we keep "day star" synonymous with "Lucifer" then God wants Lucifer in your heart and Jesus is also referred to as Lucifer. I think Jerome mistook a name or title for a literal translation. It's only used once in some versions of the Bible, and in ousts it is not used at all. I also pointed out that there was a Bishop in Cagliari named Lucifer. I'd like to also point out that royalty is often described as shining or illuminating (ie King Louis the XIV was called the "Sun King").

reply to post by pepsi78

Lucifer is associated as the planet Venus was referred to as Lucifer because it shown so brightly in the morning (and evening) they thought it to be a star. You're over analyzing something and connecting dots that are not there. You're reading too much into it.

reply to post by pepsi78

Adonis a god? I thought he was that vain bastard who died while staring at his own reflection.

Are you high? I'm not being rude, but some of things that you write boggles the mind. You don't seem to follow logic or make any sense. You say the etymology of Friday comes from Venus, but the word is derived from the Norse goddess.

Venus ? How can Venus come from there, it's Latin for Latin Friday, as for Friday in English I have agreed.

Several verses prior to the word Lucifer, it speaks to him as a king of Babylon, a mortal man.

It's what a Lucifer is, Jesus was a mortal man, Jesus died ? Then he got resurected. Horus died by the sting of a scorpion, Isis broth him back to life. Osiris died, Osiris got killed.

The original text says "Helal, son of Shahar" meaning "day star, son of the morning". In the time of St. Jerome, the day star was called Lucifer as it preceded the rising sun and was considered the day/light bringer. If we keep "day star" synonymous with "Lucifer" then God wants Lucifer in your heart and Jesus is also referred to as Lucifer

It's depending on who you talk about, the one you talk about is a vile. They are also called morning star for a specific reason. As for accepting the lucifer in my hear that you talk about, I don't think so.

I think Jerome mistook a name or title for a literal translation. It's only used once in some versions of the Bible, and in ousts it is not used at all. I also pointed out that there was a Bishop in Cagliari named Lucifer. I'd like to also point out that royalty is often described as shining or illuminating (ie King Louis the XIV was called the "Sun King").

There is no misinterpretation of the word, study the word bit by bit, it means far more than light carrier or bearer.

Lucifer is associated as the planet Venus was referred to as Lucifer because it shown so brightly in the morning (and evening) they thought it to be a star. You're over analyzing something and connecting dots that are not there. You're reading too much into it.

Not really, Venus, has to do with Lucifer from different points of view.

Adonis a god? I thought he was that vain bastard who died while staring at his own reflection.

Adonis is derived from the Canaanite Adon. It is the Semitic word for master or 'lord' therefore Adonai or Adonis, it's Jehovah. Adonai is used in the bible.

reply to post by pepsi78

Wow, did you not read my post? I said Friday comes from a Norse goddess not from the word Venus. Friday=Frigga's Day. You're looking at a symbol meaning I'm sure, we're talking about etymological root.

The man talked about in the Book of Isaiah was the disgraced king of Babylon, referred to as Lucifer. I'm not talking about Egyptian mythology. Quit doing distractions and face the facts. Lucifer is not the same as Satan and it is a mistranslation.

It's depending on who you talk about, the one you talk about is a vile. They are also called morning star for a specific reason. As for accepting the lucifer in my hear that you talk about, I don't think so.

So "2 Peter 1:19 - We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" If we're keeping with the standard that day star = lucifer then yes the Bible does say to let it into your heart.

There is no misinterpretation of the word, study the word bit by bit, it means far more than light carrier or bearer.

I have studied it and the word has been bastardized and vilified over the centuries over a mistranslation. Well, as only a few version of the Bible actually have this singular used word, I would say yes, it's looking to be mistranslated. You would think it would have been used more as were other descriptors of Satan/Devil.

I hate people who think they know just enough to talk about ancient languages, but really they are misguided.

I just wonder if they trully believe they are worshipping Dawn Morning and if so DO THEY THINK THE BRIGHTEST is HAPPY with THEIR progress?????? And if not then whats next for them and other lucientaz....

Be well

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
I just wonder if they trully believe they are worshipping Dawn Morning and if so DO THEY THINK THE BRIGHTEST is HAPPY with THEIR progress?????? And if not then whats next

for them and other lucientaz....

Be well

edit on 7/8/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

who is they?

Wow, did you not read my post? I said Friday comes from a Norse goddess not from the word Venus. Friday=Frigga's Day. You're looking at a symbol meaning I'm sure, we're talking about etymological root.

Friday as in english friday ? or friday as in Venus friday "veneris" I told you are right about English word, but there is also Latin word for friday, veneris that is in paralel to English friday.
The notion of Venus is Veneris for friday. Venus representing friday the 5th day of the week. Friday in english, paralel Veneris in Latin.

The man talked about in the Book of Isaiah was the disgraced king of Babylon, referred to as Lucifer. I'm not talking about Egyptian mythology. Quit doing distractions and face the facts. Lucifer is not the same as Satan and it is a mistranslation.

The babylonian king is the king of tire, the cherubium named helel, helel who wanted to overthrow the chief god at the mountain top. What is it not clear to you ?

So "2 Peter 1:19 - We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" If we're keeping with the standard that day star = lucifer then yes the Bible does say to let it into your heart.

Lucifer makes refrence to venus for other things, something that I'll leave you to discover, same go's for the name of Lucifer.

reply to post by pepsi78

Hi Pepsi

The City of Tyre is in Syro-Phoencia on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in present day Lebanon. Babylon ('Babel' lit. 'the gate of the God[s]') is just south of the present day city of Baghdad in present day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

The King referred to in proto-Isaiah chapter 14 may be the king of Nineveh (present day Mosul in modern day Iraq) or his blood relation (c. 715 BCE) on the throne of Babylon - neither of these kings or cities have anything whatsoever to do with the Ugaritic city of Tyre in Phoencia other than being a sometime-vassal state of larger countries to whom they paid annual tributes e.g. Egypt or Babylon or Persia.

Get a map. Go back to school. Learn something about geography and history and ancient languages. Then come back on this thread and start talking sense - the thinking persons on this thread are getting a little tired of your ignorance of even basic facts...

'nuff said.

Like I said.

When did the pissing contest become an event at the special olympics?

As if everything isn't 1 infinite eternal presence to begin with.

Like it matters what names we give to it.