Whats in a name, Satan, Lucifer and the rest?

reply to post by LUXUS


Satan is a title referring to an adversary. I'm positive that Satan is the Dragon that tried to usurp YHWH and failed. So Satan is a fallen angel and is THE Adversary. Satan is not his name though. If you read the Book of Enoch, you will get a better picture of the fall of the Watcher order of Angels. 'Satan' is not listed among their number, probably because the name was added later. My theory is that 'Satan' is either Samjaza the leader of the Watchers who lead them to their fall or Azazel who contributed the most in corrupting mankind with forbidden knowledge (war, sorcery, etc). Perhaps the War in Heaven (not described in Enoch, just the fall of the Angels and the demoralization of mankind) occured after the Watchers learned of their fate and they sought to dethrone YHWH.

reply to post by LUXUS


Oh yeah, Lucifer, didn't address that. Lucifer is the King of Babylon, the passage in Ezekiel is very specific in that it is referring to the King of Babylon who is a man. The King of Tyre speach is much more likely referring to 'Satan' because Ezekiel says that The King of Tyre was in Eden (impossible) and was the Annointed Cherub that Covers (blasphemous if refering to a human). This gives the impression that 'Satan' was a prototype for Ya'hshuah. Christ=Annointed One and Cherub that Covers implies an intermediary between God and Man.

Lucifer is also a bad translation of the Hebrew Heylel which means "Dawnstar, Son of the Morning". The King of Babylon was a huge megalomaniac and thought he could become like The Most High. Ezekiel is taunting him because he died and is now equal with all men in death.

Ya'hshuah does refer to 'Satan' as "masquerading as an angel of light", which implies he does pretend to give illumination. So ascribing the term Light-Bearer to 'Satan' isn't a huge mistake. Though, I think the term implies that he actually has something to offer besides destruction. I bet he loves the parallels between the name and Promethius.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by infoquest

 

You are correct. There is not really any mentioning of horns in the bible, we have the golden calf story, and the symbolic horns in the ocean you describe.
However it is undeniable that when the church wanted to vilify and demonize something, they gave it horns! I believe it comes from these old stories, as well as ancient mythology, where allot of good spirits/angels had horns. They therefore needed to alienize these pantheons. And this was their tactic!

The Horns and cloven hooves are associated with demons and the devil, because of the Jewish Rite of the Scapegoat, which is all about Abraham and Lot's encounter with Azazel.

More evidence that 'Satan' is Azazel?

The antichrist is more than one entity.. It describes anyone acting anti-christly..

an·ti·christ (nt-krst, nt-)
n.
1. An enemy of Christ.

so if i kicked you for no reason, I'd be acting like an antichrist

Originally posted by LUXUS
When the 200 watchers had surveyed the planet Earth which was teeming with life they discovered that there was intelligent life. Not one but a few primitive humans species.
Of the few human species on Earth Cro-Magnon man was found to be the most intelligent. Though these creatures were primitive and animalistic in comparison to the watchers they loved them treating them much like pets.

If it was not for them we would still be living in the bushes, humans are way more advanced then they should be and that's why we have such problems, we were not reddy for it!

Originally posted by The GUT
How do you extrapolate the cro-magnon aspect by what was written in Enoch? Because they taught the girls cuttings & such? If so, that's a pretty big jump.

Originally posted by LUXUS
Its not that hard, we are the descendants of Cro-magnon man, we have absolutely no relation to Neanderthal man who was around at the same time. Humans did not develop from monkeys,apes, chimps all these things developed independently. Humans dont fully understand evolution, currently there is a belief that everything evolved from everything else. Man the most advanced was actually created first but was last to materialise physically.

what was first shall be last and what was last shall be first

edit on 17-12-2010 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

That's not much of a reason or an answer. No offense.

reply to post by squirelnutz


There are multiple uses for the prefix Anti. Like you said, you could be anti-christ by being a jerk and not loving your neighbor. This is anti meaning against. It can also mean opposite, such as antithesis. This is why the general consensus is that the Anti-Christ (distinct from those already risen) shall be/is a false Christ who shall instead of ensuring salvation for mankind, will ensure their destruction by giving them the mark. There have already been false prophets who have destroyed the souls of men, such as Hitler and Robbespierre, but THE Anti-Christ will trump them all. Remain vigilant my friends and may none of us be fooled on that day.

reply to post by LUXUS


Your right there is only one thee Anti-Christ but in the Bible it speaks of many Anti-Christs but there's one main one that is the son of satan i do agree with your theology on the concept of what constitutes a devil you're spot on...

reply to post by kallisti36


The point of my post was to really make clear to people that Satan is a title and not one person and not even necessarily an evil person (unless you want to think of David and God himself as being evil). I also wanted to bring to peoples attention that Lucifer is not necessarily a bad person and by definition is one who brought knowledge which advanced human evolution.

Whilst I am sure that Lucifer was a "watcher" it is possible that Azâzêl is the one called as Lucifer as he was the one who "revealed the eternal secrets". It was either Semjâzâ or Azâzêl who were later called Lucifer.

Another possibility is that Semjâzâ is the lord Satan (being the leader and therefore the ringleader, the one who suggested they mate with humans) whilst Azâzêl could be Lucifer being the one who revealed the secrets to humans.

The question has been asked a few times why do secret society's look fondly upon Lucifer, the answer is he is seen as someone who brought humans out of the darkness of Ignorance. He was not an evil spirit, a devil or the anti Christ he was a "watcher"....flesh and blood!

And btw secret society's don't worship him as a GOD, they know full well he is not the creator.

" the anti Christ "

Do you mean AN anti Christ, as Christ is title?
And there can be many anti Christs?

reply to post by catlantis


The Bible speaks of many anti christs but there is a main one which is spoken about in revelations, that's the point i was making.

reply to post by King Seesar


There is always AN antichrist.. It's not just one; there is always at least one...

Hitler was an Antichrist

reply to post by squirelnutz


Yea i agree with that statement 100 percent Hitler was a antichrist so was Joseph Stalin and Genghis Khan also Vlad the Impaler there has been many.

reply to post by LUXUS


Lucifer is a title referring to the King of Babylon. In hebrew it means "Dawn star, son of the morning", this is Venus. The King identified with this star because it shone brightest, and he wished to be like the most high. Ya'hshuah takes this title, because Venus heralds the dawn. Lucifer is not Satan, they are two different titles. It is a prevailing mistake because Satan is described as an angel of light and also sought to usurp the Most High. Satan and Lucifer are two distinct megalomaniacs.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by LUXUS

 

Lucifer is a title referring to the King of Babylon. In hebrew it means "Dawn star, son of the morning", this is Venus. The King identified with this star because it shone brightest, and he wished to be like the most high. Ya'hshuah takes this title, because Venus heralds the dawn. Lucifer is not Satan, they are two different titles. It is a prevailing mistake because Satan is described as an angel of light and also sought to usurp the Most High. Satan and Lucifer are two distinct megalomaniacs.

Who was the King of Babylon, what was his name?

Originally posted by LUXUS
Who was the King of Babylon, what was his name?

Asimov believed it was actually Nebuchadnezzar, and that Isaiah 14:12 was actually written a century after Isaiah's time...

It is not only Jerusalem and Judah that are warned in the Book of Isaiah concerning the wrath of God. The surrounding heathen nations are also warned of doom, and first in line is Babylon.

It is easy to suspect that chapters 13 and 14, in which the doom of Babylon is foretold with savage imagery, is not really Isaianic. In Isiah's time, it was Assyria that was the conquering nation and Babylon lay under its thumb in more devastating fashion than Judah did. The paean of hatred and scorn should, it would be expected, be turned against Assyria and the new capital that Sennacherib had built at Nineveh.

On the other hand, a century after Isaiah's time, it was Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar that was the oppressor. It is reasonably likely, then, that this passage is of later origin and was possibly composed during the Exile at a time when Babylon seemed doomed to fall before the conquering armies of Cyrus the Persian.

Picturing Babylon as already fallen, the writer recites a taunting poem of sarcastic contempt for the mighty Babylonian monarch now brought low.

From Asimov's Guide to the Bible, p538

Nimrod was also a king of Babylon, could it be a title given to him....light bearer

I have been looking deeper into the meaning of the word Lucifer and I am more convinced then ever that it has a positive meaning rather then a negative one.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

If you study the meaning of this in greater detail it is possible to have a greater understanding of the word.

We are told that Lucifer means the "son of the morning"

Question is if he is the son of the morning then who is his father?

The morning is brought about by the SUN, therefore Lucifer is the son of the sun, the source of light.

Lets now think about Venus the day star. It is a bright object that brings light a luminous object a light bearer but what is the source of its light? Its source of light is the sun.

Any object which reflects the suns light could be a Lucifer.

If you applied it to a person it would mean that they are not the source of the light (god is) but it is reflected in them.

Who is called "the light of the world"? Jesus

I have not seen the text but apparently St Jerome called Jesus Lucifer or day star.

If this meaning has also been applied to Jesus then how could it have a negative meaning?

Son of God = Son of the sun (light) = Lucifer = day star = someone who brings light into the world!

Originally posted by LUXUS
Nimrod was also a king of Babylon, could it be a title given to him....light bearer

The first Assyrian conqueror of note was Tukulti-Ninurta I. It seems very likely that he served as the original inspiration for the Greek lgend of Ninus. ("Ninurta" with a few letters dropped and the Greek final -s, almost invariably used in their own names, becomes "Ninus.") In the Greek legend, Ninus singlehandedly founds Nineveh, conquers all of Babylonia and Armenia (Urartu), and the nomadic regions to the east as well, founding the Assyrian Empire.

It seems quite possible that, in analogous fashion, "Ninurta" became "Nimrod" to the editors of Genesis. Indeed, the short picture of Nimrod in these few Biblical verses seems to point to an Assyrian monarch in particular. Assyrian art was powerful and cruel and one of the favorite objects of portrayal was that of the Assyrian kings in pursuit of big game. Hunting was undoubtedly a favorite and well-publicized sport of those monarchs and this is undoubtedly the reason for describing Nimrod as "a mighty hunter."

Then, too, the Assyrians succeeded the Kassites (Cush) as the dominant power in Babylonia, which makes it natural to have Nimrod described as the son of Cush.

Asimov's Guide to the Bible, pp52-53.

reply to post by LUXUS


For some weird reason I am fascinated by Near Death Experiences. I found some interesting stuff about Satan at this page:

Near Death

Some of the research says:

The concept of an evil entity or entities who are trying to cause people to do bad things is a concept that is probably as old as human history. Perhaps it began when someone committed a wrong against someone and needed a scapegoat - someone to blame their sins on. In modern times, the popular phrase used to be, "The Devil made me do it." Some people picture a Devil with horns and a pitchfork. Others describe him as a goat with hooves. Some people describe the Devil as a force, rather than a being, who can be everywhere at the same time to tempt people. The overwhelming consensus in NDE research is that Satan does not exist - at least - not the Satan described literally in the Bible. Nor does evil exist - only mistakes for which we are allowed to make for the purpose of instruction.

I just learned that in the liturgy for Easter mass, Jesus is referred to as Lucifer/the morning star. Twice. I had no idea, and I sat through quite a few Easter Masses when I was a girl.

Here's the English version:

May the Morning Star which never sets
find this flame still burning:
Christ, that Morning Star,
who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son, who lives and reigns for ever and ever.
Amen.

And here's the Latin version that's actually spoken during mass:

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, Lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.
R/ Amen.

Source: Wikipedia

You'd think with how strongly Christians of all stripes equate Lucifer with Satan, the Catholic church would remove all traces of their lord and savior from being equated with him. Unless they know what's really up. What I find interesting is how Jesus is referred to as Lucifer/the morning star more than once, but most Christians just gloss over it. The only real explanation I've seen is that Jesus is saying he's the true bringer of light, whereas Lucifer is the false light, and that's kind of a stretch since in all of the references equating Jesus with the morning star I've seen, nowhere is it said anything like "Jesus is the real morning star" -- nor can that meaning be easily inferred. I find it curious.

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
You'd think with how strongly Christians of all stripes equate Lucifer with Satan, the Catholic church would remove all traces of their lord and savior from being equated with him. Unless they know what's really up. What I find interesting is how Jesus is referred to as Lucifer/the morning star more than once, but most Christians just gloss over it. The only real explanation I've seen is that Jesus is saying he's the true bringer of light, whereas Lucifer is the false light, and that's kind of a stretch since in all of the references equating Jesus with the morning star I've seen, nowhere is it said anything like "Jesus is the real morning star" -- nor can that meaning be easily inferred. I find it curious.

But, of course, nowhere in the bible does it say Lucifer is Satan. That's all pulp fiction from the likes of Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, both written well over a thousand years after the bible. Yet here are all these christians taking those versions of "the fall" as gospel!