Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Rise / Fall of Gods first Archangle Light Bearer Lucifer — Why Did he actually fall?


Manwon Lender
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am uncertain if this discussion has ever taken place on the forum, and I am not an expert on the Subject what I would appreciate if possible is to have a open discussion so that myself or others can gain insight into the biblical description of these biblical events. Below I have added some questions again I am uncertain if they are conducive to this discussion any constructive criticism is appreciated.

Could the Birth and introduction of Jesus have been the cause of Lucifer’s fall for no other reason that Jesus wanted the titles bestowed upon Lucifer by God?

Could the entire of fall of Lucifer be nothing except a metaphor that introduces the entry of the false Prophet Jesus according to Jewish texts, and the rise of the Son of God according in the New Testament?

How does Lucifers creation and mission in heaven and the introduction of the Christ effect each other?

It is much to be deplored that the euphonious and comprehensive name light-bearer should ever have been applied to the prince of " the rulers of the darkness of this world" so persistently, that it popularly has come to be considered as belonging exclusively to him. The fact is that in his case the title is thorrughly a misnomer. It only seems to apply when he " transforms himself into an angel of light." In the bestowal upon him, even by the Lord's servants, of a name which is the property alone of One who is the light itself, there is unfortunately no protest against this usurpation of the arch-deceiver. But how did Lucifer come to be so designated as Satan?

The title Light- bearer, in respect to every particular of the spiritual significance of the metaphor, belongs to Christ because of his inherent dignity, his soul-attracting charms, and his illuminating power in the midst of all moral darkness. To deprive him of that name is to rob him of a ray of his glory. He claims it. "I am the bright and morning star" (Rev. XXII., 16), is the witness which the glorified Redeemer bears to himself. That utterance is only the prolonged echo of the word that fell from the lips of the God-man before his passion had culminated in the awful scene on Calvary-" I am the light of the world "-that word itself, a divine commentary on the promise of old given by the prophet Malachi (Iv., 2), "Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings."

Let the name "Illuminator" be restored to him to whom it properly belongs. Call Satan, Lucifer, as appropriately as Bread of Life, Good Shepherd, or any other title owned by our Lord Jesus in virtue of what he is to the starving, wandering sinner whom he invites to come to him. To everyone who,following Christ, " walks not in darkness but hath the light of life," he is " the day-star who arises in their hearts " Peter In the Latin versions of (wa?76poz) (2 I., 19). the text in Isaiah which has been considered, and of the above statement of the apostle Peter, the word lucifer, occuring in each, should have been printed with a capital L only in the latter instance, and not, as unfortunately is the case, in the former alone.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/469507


 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satan is a modern derivation of the word, shaitan which meant 'one who opposes', and was a term held by any angel doing the work of God in a wrathful disposition.  shaitan is derived from the previous term bene elohim 'sons of god'.  It was not a pronoun/name that referred to one angel.  That came later, influenced by the wars and occupations.

For more insight into the origins and alterations of Satan... Elain Pagels compiled a strong study of the gnostic origins of the term and its transition to the modern figure and its polemical uses in her work Origins of Satan.

It's a concise, potent read.  But for a briefer overview, here's an article summarizing it with more context for those interested.

article: origins of satan

Edited by quiXilver
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think lucifer is a term used in reference to the morning star venus. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for sure. In Judaism Satan was never an adversary of God, he was a servant. He only did what God wanted him to do. Like making Job's life miserable.
The snake in Eden wasn't Satan either. It was literally a snake. The Lucifer from Isaiah and the Satan from Job are not identical either, AFAIK.

Which makes the Devil known today an invention of the gospels, who were probably concocted by the Romans (the Flavians to be more precise). They probably invented him to give the Christians something else to hate and fear, other than themselves and their fellow Romans. Quite clever.

 

Edited by zep73
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I think lucifer is a term used in reference to the morning star venus. 

You are correct, and it was also because the light bearer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, zep73 said:

One thing is for sure. In Judaism Satan was never an adversary of God, he was a servant. He only did what God wanted him to do. Like making Job's life miserable.
The snake in Eden wasn't Satan either. It was literally a snake. The Lucifer from Isaiah and the Satan from Job are not identical either, AFAIK.

Which makes the Devil known today an invention of the gospels, who were probably concocted by the Roman (the Flavians to be more precise). They probably invented him to give the Christians something else to hate and fear, other than themselves and their fellow Romans. Quite clever.

Thank you Zep, that’s some great information please keep it coming my friend. Thanks for the link Zep!:tu:

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Satan is a modern derivation of the word, shaitan which meant 'one who opposes', and was a term held by any angel doing the work of God in a wrathful disposition.  shaitan is derived from the previous term bene elohim 'sons of god'.  It was not a pronoun/name that referred to one angel.  That came later, influenced by the wars and occupations.

For more insight into the origins and alterations of Satan... Elain Pagels compiled a strong study of the gnostic origins of the term and its transition to the modern figure and its polemical uses in her work Origins of Satan.

It's a concise, potent read.  But for a briefer overview, here's an article summarizing it with more context for those interested.

article: origins of satan

Thank you very much for your information it’s very helpful, please keep posting it appears you have a good amount of information on the subject, I will look at your link later thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Here's a little info on a common image of the supposed devil.

https://www.learnreligions.com/eliphas-levis-baphomet-goat-of-mendes-95993

Wow thank you that’s an interesting read, I am glad you supporting this thread I am certain your pretty knowledgeable about such subjects with both your background in Christianity  and the occult, please keeping adding to this thread. I hope since you said you don’t hate me :D its ok if I address you with the term friend even if it is only one sided, if it’s offensive I will not do it again!

Thanks my friend!:tu:

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is very good read some may be interested in it does apply specifically to this thread

RECENT ADVANCES IN BIBLICAL CRITICISMIN THEIR RELATION TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. 

BY REV. T. K. CHEYNE, Rector of Tendring

My own conviction," said the late Dr. Pusey, "has long been that the hope of the Church of England is in mutual tolerance." That truly great man was not thinking of the new school of Old Testament critics, and yet if the Anglican Church is ever to renovate her theology and to become in any real sense unde- niably the Church of the future, she cannot afford to be careless or intolerant of attempts to modernize our methods of criticism and exegesis. It would no doub

THE NAMIE LUCIFER.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/469507

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not prefer to refer to Lucifer, as Satan, the Devil or any other assorted names he has been given across time. I personally only prefer to use his title that was given to him by God, as the first Archangel that was created. Which of course is Lucifer or the other title God gave him which is Light Bearer according to Christian Biblical Scripture.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lucifer-classical-mythology

Lucifer, (Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (1608–74) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase “as proud as Lucifer.”  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lucifer-classical-mythology

18789CE4-C843-4E04-96C5-6A55E9B49954.jpeg

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Wow thank you that’s an interesting read, I am glad you supporting this thread I am certain your pretty knowledgeable about such subjects with both your background in Christianity  and the occult, please keeping adding to this thread. I hope since you said you don’t hate me :D its ok if I address you with the term friend even if it is only one sided, if it’s offensive I will not do it again!

Thanks my friend!:tu:

From what I gather Christianity needed a big bad guy, so they took Job's accuser (thus satan) and gave him spiritual steroids. Making him nearly equal to god and he because "god of this earth". A neat little way of saying that all the bad things that happen were the devils fault, or that god was testing your faith. The thing I find interesting is that an omni-god was divided into two parts. A good god and a bad god. At least this is my understanding. I could be wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The verses I think you're mostly thinking about are Luke 10:17-18:

Quote

The seventy [or seventy-two] returned rejoicing, and said, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name.” Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky."

Although Luke's Jesus is celebrating the success of his appointed exorcists by using an image from the Jewish Bible (Isaiah 14:12 directly, a similar idea is somewhat differently phrased in Ezekiel 28:8-9), I do NOT think it's irresistible to interpret Luke's Jesus as teaching that the Isaiah verse is about Satan.

I think the intended parallel is in the action shared by the two verses, Luke's and Isaiah's. That is, a powerful "prince" is overthrown, a different prince in each verse. In the Luke speech, that's because casting out demons diminsihes Satan's power over the earth and people in an obvious and "practical" way.

Compare when Lincoln quoted the Bible to say that a house divided cannot stand. He meant the United States, and while his biblical source verse is about Satan's domain, e.g. Mark 3:25, Lincoln obviously did not mean that the United States was Hell. He meant that unity was required in each case for the organization in question to persist.

But since Luke's Jesus is unabiguously speaking about Satan, then "the morning star" in his source verse becomes associated with Satan. When the Bible is translated into Latin (the version that is called the Vulgate), the Latin word used for "morning star" was Lucifer. Presto! Lucifer becomes a name or descriptive title of Satan. But it's not original with any biblical source text, it's just a side-effect of the translator's choice.

Luke's imagery of falling from the sky recurs in Revelation chapter 12. I won't quote the whole thing, but you'll recognize the "red dragon" as the embodiment of the devil, with lots of references to satanic lore. This also where you'll find a "war in Heaven" in the NT. As the loser of the battle with Michael, the red dragon-devil is indeed thrown down to earth.

However, there is no sense in Revelation that Satan ever was a good guy, the loyal agent of his God that he is throughout the Jewish canon (but less so in some Jewish apocypha like Jubilees or some of the Enoch literature). John's Jesus rams that idea home in 8:44

Quote

You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

The "from the beginning" is repeated in the espistle 1 John, verse 3:8. (It could mean the beginning of our earth, leaving open the possibility that there was an earlier stage where he was a good guy, but it surely isn't spelled out that way.)

For interesting ideas about an initially good angel turning bad, then you might want to look into the Islamic literature, which draws on some of the Jewish aprocrypha and tosses in some seasoning of its own. One idea that appears in Islamic lore is that God demands that the angels pay reverence to Adam. Satan refuses, because he pays reverence to nobody but God himself.

You can interpret that as iusubordination born of pride (similar to Christian accounts of "Satan's sin," especially modern Christians) or you can interpret that, as some Muslims apparently do, as Satan being so much in love with God as to be unable to obey him in this matter.

Either way, Satan is a tragic figure in these interpretations.

Your statue is the Christian style tragic figure: Satan is dejected because he no longer gets to wear his former crown nor wield his sceptre. One of the Islamic stories is about the love "not wisely, but too well" tragedy. Satan is forever imprisoned in Hell, and his only consolation is that he is allowed to hear the echo of the voice of his beloved - the voice damning him to Hell.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

From what I gather Christianity needed a big bad guy, so they took Job's accuser (thus satan) and gave him spiritual steroids. Making him nearly equal to god and he because "god of this earth". A neat little way of saying that all the bad things that happen were the devils fault, or that god was testing your faith. The thing I find interesting is that an omni-god was divided into two parts. A good god and a bad god. At least this is my understanding. I could be wrong.

I think your could right, but ‘I think there is something else that plays into this along with what you said. I have been reading some of the old Christian Texts, and some of the information appears to never have been included in the Old or New Testaments. While it doesn’t directly so say so, it’s hints at the fact that after Christ returned to Heaven him and Lucifer did not get along well and this was before his fall. Apparently Jesus wanted Lucifer’s titles, and ‘I am starting to think that part of the reason things changed was possibly do to this, because according to the scriptures I read, Jesus assumed those titles after Lucifer was Blown out of heaven by God. You see I have very limited knowledge of Christianity, so ‘I am currently doing dole reading,  so when I was told Lucifer was cast out, I always thought that’s what was meant, but after reading some of the old scriptures it clearly says God drew a breath and blew him out of heaven, man I hope he had fresh breath!:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The verses I think you're mostly thinking about are Luke 10:17-18:

Although Luke's Jesus is celebrating the success of his appointed exorcists by using an image from the Jewish Bible (Isaiah 14:12 directly, a similar idea is somewhat differently phrased in Ezekiel 28:8-9), I do NOT think it's irresistible to interpret Luke's Jesus as teaching that the Isaiah verse is about Satan.

I think the intended parallel is in the action shared by the two verses, Luke's and Isaiah's. That is, a powerful "prince" is overthrown, a different prince in each verse. In the Luke speech, that's because casting out demons diminsihes Satan's power over the earth and people in an obvious and "practical" way.

Compare when Lincoln quoted the Bible to say that a house divided cannot stand. He meant the United States, and while his biblical source verse is about Satan's domain, e.g. Mark 3:25, Lincoln obviously did not mean that the United States was Hell. He meant that unity was required in each case for the organization in question to persist.

But since Luke's Jesus is unabiguously speaking about Satan, then "the morning star" in his source verse becomes associated with Satan. When the Bible is translated into Latin (the version that is called the Vulgate), the Latin word used for "morning star" was Lucifer. Presto! Lucifer becomes a name or descriptive title of Satan. But it's not original with any biblical source text, it's just a side-effect of the translator's choice.

Luke's imagery of falling from the sky recurs in Revelation chapter 12. I won't quote the whole thing, but you'll recognize the "red dragon" as the embodiment of the devil, with lots of references to satanic lore. This also where you'll find a "war in Heaven" in the NT. As the loser of the battle with Michael, the red dragon-devil is indeed thrown down to earth.

However, there is no sense in Revelation that Satan ever was a good guy, the loyal agent of his God that he is throughout the Jewish canon (but less so in some Jewish apocypha like Jubilees or some of the Enoch literature). John's Jesus rams that idea home in 8:44

The "from the beginning" is repeated in the espistle 1 John, verse 3:8. (It could mean the beginning of our earth, leaving open the possibility that there was an earlier stage where he was a good guy, but it surely isn't spelled out that way.)

For interesting ideas about an initially good angel turning bad, then you might want to look into the Islamic literature, which draws on some of the Jewish aprocrypha and tosses in some seasoning of its own. One idea that appears in Islamic lore is that God demands that the angels pay reverence to Adam. Satan refuses, because he pays reverence to nobody but God himself.

You can interpret that as iusubordination born of pride (similar to Christian accounts of "Satan's sin," especially modern Christians) or you can interpret that, as some Muslims apparently do, as Satan being so much in love with God as to be unable to obey him in this matter.

Either way, Satan is a tragic figure in these interpretations.

Your statue is the Christian style tragic figure: Satan is dejected because he no longer gets to wear his former crown nor wield his sceptre. One of the Islamic stories is about the love "not wisely, but too well" tragedy. Satan is forever imprisoned in Hell, and his only consolation is that he is allowed to hear the echo of the voice of his beloved - the voice damning him to Hell.

Yes those are the verses, along with other scriptures I have reading that apparently were not included in the New and Old Testaments. Thanks very much for participating in this thread my friend like always your additions are very valuable, I got tired of Crazy Horse so ‘I put him on ignore and started this thread, don’t know where it will go but I hope to learn something about Christianity. I am very ignorant when it comes to this subject.

Oh and by the way I have not read your entire post but, honestly I will because I value your input!

Thanks again my friend!:tu:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s an appropriate song to set the mood here!:devil:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I got tired of Crazy Horse so ‘I put him on ignore and started this thread, don’t know where it will go but I hope to learn something about Christianity.

We have a few randoms that might pop up in this thread at some point. That'll bring a whole new level of crazy.

As for Christianity, there seems to be two camps. Those who take it literally and those who don't. I'm more inclined to think of it all as just fables meant to convey various messages. Not something where a man literally walked on water, etc. 

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-christianity

To be honest I can see where someone in a position of religious authority decided to be done with it and give people "spiritual power". Then a pseudo myth being created around that person. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

We have a few randoms that might pop up in this thread at some point. That'll bring a whole new level of crazy.

As for Christianity, there seems to be two camps. Those who take it literally and those who don't. I'm more inclined to think of it all as just fables meant to convey various messages. Not something where a man literally walked on water, etc. 

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-christianity

To be honest I can see where someone in a position of religious authority decided to be done with it and give people "spiritual power". Then a pseudo myth being created around that person. 

 Well I am in your Camp man, you know I was raised Catholic Baptized, given a God Father and until I was about 14 years old my parents made me follow the religion, but at 14 my dad gave me the choice, and I turned my back and walked away never thought about it again. So like I said I am with you man:tu:

By the way I started another thread on favorite Guitarist Jimmy Page, which is about his religious beliefs,, he was a follower of Alester Crowley if fact owned his home on Loc Ness, check out the thread you may have some comments to add there also, it’s also in the religious forum section.

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

We have a few randoms that might pop up in this thread at some point. That'll bring a whole new level of crazy.

As for Christianity, there seems to be two camps. Those who take it literally and those who don't. I'm more inclined to think of it all as just fables meant to convey various messages. Not something where a man literally walked on water, etc. 

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-christianity

To be honest I can see where someone in a position of religious authority decided to be done with it and give people "spiritual power". Then a pseudo myth being created around that person. 

Hey this Jesus is for you!!:lol:

298812664_YoumadeJesussmile.gif.e51df4b4b27d4b925c0bd7bd9ada89d4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

 Well I am in your Camp man, you know I was raised Catholic Baptized, given a God Father and until I was about 14 years old my parents made me follow the religion, but at 14 my dad gave me the choice, and I turned my back and walked away never thought about it again. So like I said I am with you man:tu:

I don't think Christianty is bad per say. I think people take it too far. My take on it is that the whole thing is internal. Between the believer and god. Where the main concept was faith or trust in god, right action, and prayer. Prayer really being just a form of affirmations and venting. Even looking at something like the good samaritan the idea is to help others. The story of Job could be seen as strength in the face of tragedy. I don't exactly "hate" the religion, I hate how people become overzealous with it. Acting as if their god (idea) is going to punish those who lack faith. Which is a nice way to validate bad stuff happening in a person's life. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hey this Jesus is for you!!:lol:

298812664_YoumadeJesussmile.gif.e51df4b4b27d4b925c0bd7bd9ada89d4.gif

5b4.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted 

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

5b4.png

Honestly, my wife  and I only celebrated it before our Daughter became ill and past away in 2012, since then we have not celebrated it at all, we only celebrate the Buddhas Birthday which is on the Lunar Calendar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Your link doesn't work.

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.