Where did Lucifer come from?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Where did Lucifer come from?

Post #1

Post by ST88 »

If Satan is/was a fallen angel, why wasn't the battle in Heaven mentioned in Genesis?

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #41

Post by bernee51 »

nikolayevich wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
hiramabbi2 wrote:
Let us just go back to the original topic - "Where did Lucifer come from?" s
aaahhhmmmm, she/he/it didn't come from anywhere...she/he/it doesn't exist
What are your reasons for this unbelief?
probably the same as the reasons for my lackof beleif in the christian god - all part of the same mythology. I can see no reason to believe ineither god or Lucifer.

I do find it very interesting though the lengths some people go to, and their erudition, when exporing the origins of the Lucifer myth.

Quite impressive.
nikolayevich wrote:
bernee51 wrote:
hiramabbi2 wrote:
God Bless
god has blessed me with his absence.
I believe God will sometimes appear absent if it is requested of Him. It has been said that God will be wherever you want Him to be in the end, in relation to you. He will be your enemy if you so desire; your Savior if you choose.
I have not requested god's absence - nor it is his absence the result of a decision on my part. It is a conclusion that I have arrived at.
nikolayevich wrote:However, there is a kind of persistence on His part which I think requires more active avoidance on the part of His subjects.
then I am not one of his subjects - my 'avoidance' is totaly passive. This, of course, fits with my theory that god only exists in the minds of believers. I'm sure it is would require activity on your part, for instance, to 'avoid' god's influence.

officer2002
Student
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:20 am

Post #42

Post by officer2002 »

The question poster implies that things said about the beginnings of Satan are not true because they are not written in Genesis chapter 1.
This is bad logic.
If I start meeting with you and on the first day tell you about my adulthood. On the second day that we meet I tell you about my childhood. Did my childhood not exist because I told you about it?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #43

Post by Zzyzx »

.
officer2002 wrote:The question poster implies that things said about the beginnings of Satan are not true because they are not written in Genesis chapter 1.
The implication exists in the reader. I see no implication that the tales are not true -- only a question. If the question cannot be addressed convincingly, I may conclude that an inconsistency exists.

When WAS the concept of "Satan" introduced?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Skyangel
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1211
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:22 pm

Post #44

Post by Skyangel »

Zzyzx wrote:.
officer2002 wrote:The question poster implies that things said about the beginnings of Satan are not true because they are not written in Genesis chapter 1.
The implication exists in the reader. I see no implication that the tales are not true -- only a question. If the question cannot be addressed convincingly, I may conclude that an inconsistency exists.

When WAS the concept of "Satan" introduced?
The first mention of the word satan in the bible is ( 1 Chron 21:1) It is a Hebrew word meaning adversary

The first and only mention of the word Lucifer is in Isa 14:12
The word Lucifer is the English translation of the Hebrew word "heylel" which according to the strongs concordance means "light-bearer", shining one, morning star.

The word Lucifer is actually a Latin word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

The word "heylel" is derived from a root word "halal" which is used 165 times in the Old Testament and it is translated as follows in the KJV:
117 times = Praise
14 times = Glory
10 times = Boast
8 times = Mad
3 times = Shine(d)
3 times = Foolish
2 times = Fools
2 times = Commended
2 times = Rage
1 time = Celebrate
1 time = Give
1 time = Marriage
1 time = Renowned

Please click the above link to verify the places it is used in the bible. You will find the links to the scriptures on that site.

Obviously translators have attached all those different meanings to the word "Halal." The meanings are obviously, good and bad; as well as positive and negative.

Some people believe the word Lucifer refers to satan/the devil. Others believe it refers to Jesus.
Both are referred to as lights in the bible.
Jesus as the light of the world ( John 8:12)
Satan as an angel of light which deceives the world. (2 Cor 11:14)

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #45

Post by Goat »

Zzyzx wrote:.
officer2002 wrote:The question poster implies that things said about the beginnings of Satan are not true because they are not written in Genesis chapter 1.
The implication exists in the reader. I see no implication that the tales are not true -- only a question. If the question cannot be addressed convincingly, I may conclude that an inconsistency exists.

When WAS the concept of "Satan" introduced?
Apparently, the concept was introduced in the first disporia, and was introduced into Judaism around 300 bce.. and for the next 300 years went through a transformation.

Mind you, the Jewish concept of Satan is not the same as the Christian concept. The Christian concept is Satan is a fallen angel, in Judaism, angels have no free will, and can not fall. Satan is a servant of God, who has a specific job, and that is to provide bad choices for people, so that by rejecting those bad choices, and choosing Good, they can lift themselves from leading a 'mundane' life, and live a 'sanctified' life, closer to God. Satan is more like the 'imp of the perverse' rather than this malevolent being trying to tear you away from God..

The name 'lucifier' came from taking the term 'morning star' in Isaiah, and putting it into Latin. That term in Isaiah does not refer to Satan, but rather it is referring to an old phonetician God who reached too high for power and fell. This God was being compared to King Nebuchadnezzar, and it was mocking King Neb.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
EduChris
Prodigy
Posts: 4615
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm
Location: U.S.A.
Contact:

Post #46

Post by EduChris »

ST88 wrote:...where did Lucifer come from?
The Bible doesn't tell us. Obviously God created him, and obviously he used his freedom to disobey God, but other than that we really don't know much because God hasn't chosen to tell us.

Many people believe that the book of Job is one of the earliest books (if not the earliest book) in the Hebrew Bible. Satan is already present in this very early book.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #47

Post by Goat »

EduChris wrote:
ST88 wrote:...where did Lucifer come from?
The Bible doesn't tell us. Obviously God created him, and obviously he used his freedom to disobey God, but other than that we really don't know much because God hasn't chosen to tell us.

Many people believe that the book of Job is one of the earliest books (if not the earliest book) in the Hebrew Bible. Satan is already present in this very early book.
There is evidence that Job was redacted.. and like I said, the Jewish concept of 'the accuser' is much different than the Christian one.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply