How can Lucifer be a fallen angel?

[Yahu]

Lucifer is only referenced once in scripture. It isn't even a name in the original hebrew. Lucifer is Latin from the Latin translation into our modern canon.

The actual passage calls him 'Heylel ben Shachar' which is translated 'Lucifer, son of the morning'. How can he be a fallen angel if he is not 'ben Elohyim' but 'ben Shachar'? I guess people don't know that Shachar was a Canaanite deity that was himself an 'ben El' according to the Canaanites.

Now Heylel (Lucifer) isn't even a name. It is a descriptive title. It means 'light bringer' or 'shining one' and is a common epitaph for a sungod. For example the same thing in Greek is Pheobus, ie 'bright'. Pheobus is a title of Apollo and Apollo means 'the destroyer' in Greek.

Now since Lucifer is from the Latin translation, it is interesting to note that the goddess Diana was Diana Luciferah as well in the Latin, ie the feminine form of Lucifer who was the twin sister of Apollo.

Most christian doctrine assumes that the serpent in the garden was Lucifer yet no where in scripture is this even speculated. Satan doesn't even appear in scripture until the time of Job, well after the flood.

Now if we assume that Shachar actually was an angel that had children then Lucifer at most is the son of a fallen angel who would have been born on earth, lived then died. How can he be anything more then just a ghost?

The passage of Isa 14 talks of Lucifer as a shameful ruler that destroys, then dies, is eaten by worms, descends into sheol where kings in sheol say 'Is this the MAN?'

So how is Lucifer a man?

[Divine Insight]

I think this simply demonstrates that the Biblical scriptures are based on many different Pagan myths. Clearly Isaiah is referencing Lucifer as having "fallen from heaven". His description of this Lucifer can only fit the Biblical Satan.

It's also been sealed in Christian theology by the book of Revelation that the "Old Serpent", the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same entity. So this would certainly link together the serpent in the Garden of Eden with Satan as the Devil. Therefore the Satan in Job must have been the same as the serpent in the garden of Eden.

This should make any theologian question whether this Satan was still crawling on his belly eating dirt at the time of Job.

But yeah, the Lucifer referred to by Isaiah certainly appears to the same as the Satan in the rest of the Bible, so this is no doubt where many theologians get the idea that Satan was a fallen angel named Lucifer who was hoping to take over the throne of God.

But yes, I agree with you that this clearly brings in characters from other Pagan mythologies. No question about it. This is why it seems to me that any serious theologian must ultimately conclude that the Biblical Scriptures are a hodgepodge of various superstitious tales and not some unique story of a specific God.

Aren't theologians permitted to follow the truth wherever it leads?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Yahu]

I looked up "Lucifer" in Smith's Bible Dictionary, and it says this: "Lucifer (light-bearer), found in Isaiah 14:12, coupled with the epithet 'son of the morning,' clearly signifies a 'bright star,' and probably what we call the morning star. In this passage it is a symbolical representation of the king of Babylon in his splendor and in his fall. Its application, from St. Jerome downward, to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self-idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the Evil One in Revelation (Apocalypse)."

Interesting....and that's what I have thought. Satan is identified with this Babylonian king falling; the description undoubtedly compares to what Satan's situation became.

He wasn't always "Satan." That name was given to him because he took a course of rebellion against God. We don't know what his name was before. From a righteous, perfect start, he apparently began thinking about how he would like to be "higher than the clouds; like the Most High." (See James 1:14,15.) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19. This idea is particularly compelling when we read verse 13: "You were in Eden, the garden of God." I look at Satan as being like the one described in this passage....he was once a perfect, beautiful angel, "the anointed cherub who covers; blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you."

[Yahu]

I think this simply demonstrates that the Biblical scriptures are based on many different Pagan myths. Clearly Isaiah is referencing Lucifer as having "fallen from heaven". His description of this Lucifer can only fit the Biblical Satan.

It's also been sealed in Christian theology by the book of Revelation that the "Old Serpent", the Devil, and Satan all refer to the same entity. So this would certainly link together the serpent in the Garden of Eden with Satan as the Devil. Therefore the Satan in Job must have been the same as the serpent in the garden of Eden.

This should make any theologian question whether this Satan was still crawling on his belly eating dirt at the time of Job.

But yeah, the Lucifer referred to by Isaiah certainly appears to the same as the Satan in the rest of the Bible, so this is no doubt where many theologians get the idea that Satan was a fallen angel named Lucifer who was hoping to take over the throne of God.

But yes, I agree with you that this clearly brings in characters from other Pagan mythologies. No question about it. This is why it seems to me that any serious theologian must ultimately conclude that the Biblical Scriptures are a hodgepodge of various superstitious tales and not some unique story of a specific God.

Aren't theologians permitted to follow the truth wherever it leads?

Well there are a couple of problems as you stated. But for example, the Hebrew word Shammayim is what gets translated as Heaven but there is a problem. Shammayim is one of only two words in Hebrew that has 'ayim' as part of the word. 'Ayim' is normally an dual plural ending, ie HEAVENS plural of two.

Now the word Shammayim doesnt mean Heaven. The birds fly in the heavens, ie sky. The stars are in the Heavens. The realm of Yah is considered the 3rd Heaven. The casting down from Heaven is just as likely to be cast out of the sky. The reference in Isa 14 is taking about the shameful king of Babel. Babylon and Babel are the same word in Hebrew. We know the Tower of Babel was cast down. It is just as correct to say Lucifer was cast from the sky by the fall of the tower of Babel. And isn't just interesting that paganism started at Babel? Didn't it then spread as people scattered, using different words/names/titles in the differing languages for the same pagan deities?

Now the 'old serpent' in Revelation is assumed by most to be the serpent in the garden but the cockatrice and the fiery flying serpent are also mentioned in Isa 14. The cockatrice is a mythical dragon of the sky called Ziz in Hebrew.

Isa 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

So who is the serpent's root verses the cockatrice verses the fiery flying serpent. Now note the fiery flying serpent is the fruit/child/offspring of the cockatrice. Another scripture says vipers hatch from the cockatrice eggs.

I see the 'serpents root' as the original serpent in Eden. I see the cockatrice an angel that fell into error post flood that fathered children. He would be among the 4 angels bound at the Euphrates which is of course by Babel. Could Shachar be a reference to the old testament cockatrice? Now who is the fiery flying serpent that is the son of the cockatrice? I see that as Lucifer. The word in the Hebrew is Sereph as the singular of Serephim but cant be translated as angel because it is a child of another individual.

Now another problem is the misuse of El being translated as God. El doesn't mean God. It can be a reference to God but actually means 'mighty' or used singularly as an implied 'the mighty one'. You have to look at the context of who is being referenced. Each nation had an El that was their founding father of each of the 70 nations. With El being a national progenitor then El Elyon, ie mighty of the mightiest, in that case is a reference to Noah not God.

Now in the case of the rebellion of Babel wasn't it a rebellion against Yah's appointed authority of Noah? Didn't Babel want to rule over all the nations of man? So it could just as easily be seen as Lucifer trying to usurp the authority of throne of Noah. The passage in Isa 14 uses El not Elohyim. Now Lucifer isn't even elevating his throne over El but over the 'stars of El'. Who were these 'stars of El'?

So there are all kinds of holes in the modern mythology of Lucifer that just doesn't hold water. Modern day doctrine comes from Augustinian doctrine which was spread via the RCC as fact and carried over into modern accepted doctrine. But Augustine refused to believe that angels took wives as stated in Gen 6. He banned the book of Enoch which contradicted his views and presented a doctrine that the 'ben elohyim' of the pre-flood were just sons of Seth that married daughters of Cain. But of course that is ridiculous and wouldn't produce giants and mighty men.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 1 by Yahu]

I looked up "Lucifer" in Smith's Bible Dictionary, and it says this: "Lucifer (light-bearer), found in Isaiah 14:12, coupled with the epithet 'son of the morning,' clearly signifies a 'bright star,' and probably what we call the morning star. In this passage it is a symbolical representation of the king of Babylon in his splendor and in his fall. Its application, from St. Jerome downward, to Satan in his fall from heaven arises probably from the fact that the Babylonian empire is in Scripture represented as the type of tyrannical and self-idolizing power, and especially connected with the empire of the Evil One in Revelation (Apocalypse)."

Interesting....and that's what I have thought. Satan is identified with this Babylonian king falling; the description undoubtedly compares to what Satan's situation became.

He wasn't always "Satan." That name was given to him because he took a course of rebellion against God. We don't know what his name was before. From a righteous, perfect start, he apparently began thinking about how he would like to be "higher than the clouds; like the Most High." (See James 1:14,15.) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19. This idea is particularly compelling when we read verse 13: "You were in Eden, the garden of God." I look at Satan as being like the one described in this passage....he was once a perfect, beautiful angel, "the anointed cherub who covers; blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you."

LOL.
Satan isn't even a name. Again it is a title. Satan in Hebrew is the verb 'to accuse'. HaSatan is 'the accusing one'. It is a title of a position in the Heavenly court. Basically the prosecutor.

Now Eze 28 had 3 prophecies. Nobody ever looks at the other 2. They are directed at the prince of Tyrus, the King of Tyrus and the 'she of Sidon'. They are directed at the primary deities of the Pheonicians, ie Baal, Molech and Ashtoreth. That is the lord (prince), Molech (shameful king) and Ashtoreth (shameful star, queen of heaven/sky). BTW, the star of Ashtoreth is Venus. She is Diana Luciferah of the Romans and the primary deity of Sidon. Now the Canaanites called Ashtoreth by the title 'queen of heaven' but it wasn't Yah's Heaven but 'queen of the sky' as queen mother at Babel, Nimrod's Nephilim mother. She is also the mother of Sidon, hense the giantism in the Canaanite people.

It even states in the prophecy about Baal that the prince thinks he is a god but dies like a man.

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Isa 14 isn't comparing Lucifer to the king of Babylon. Lucifer is the 'shameful king', ie Molech of Babel! How is it that you people take out 4 verses in the middle of the passage and think those 4 verses are talking about someone entirely different? That is asinine.

Lucifer is the pagan sungod Molech of the Pheonicians. Sungod worship throughout the old testament is equated as Satan worship. Of course Sidon was settled after the fall of Babel. Sidon was one of the captains of Nimrod according to the book of Jasher.

Here is an example. In the visions of Jeremiah, he saw many abominations at the temple like the women weeping for Tammuz (another name of Baal) but the WORST abomination were the men in the courtyard facing the east. They were worshiping the sungod, Lucifer himself in the temple courtyard.

[Yahu]

We don't know what his name was before. From a righteous, perfect start, he apparently began thinking about how he would like to be "higher than the clouds; like the Most High." (See James 1:14,15.) In the course that Satan took, there seems to be, in some respects, a parallel with that of the king of Tyre as described in Ezekiel 28:11-19. This idea is particularly compelling when we read verse 13: "You were in Eden, the garden of God." I look at Satan as being like the one described in this passage....he was once a perfect, beautiful angel, "the anointed cherub who covers; blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you."

There are several problems with that interpretation. Where is Eden now? Where does the tree of life now exist? You are assuming it is a reference to the earthly Eden that was destroyed by the flood yet it also talks of the stones of fire. We also know that Satan is allowed to enter Yah's Heaven to bring accusations against mankind.

It is a false to assume that it can only refer to the Eden of Adam's time as being the serpent. It is just a reference that he is allowed to walk the heavenly realm and the earth and the realms of sheol.

Yah gave dominion of the earth to mankind. How can Lucifer/Satan rule here if he isn't somehow of the lineage of mankind? Yah NEVER gave dominion of the earth to an angel or fallen angel. He can't have dominion here as an angel.

Now lets not forget that 2 Pet 2 and Jude both state that the angels are in prison chained in darkness. No fallen angels have the right to walk the earth or enter the heavenly realm.

Now everyone makes of Eze 28 that he was the greatest of the angels. That is nonsense. Most people don't even know what a 'covering cherub' references. The creatures about the throne have 3 pair of wings, on back, on feet and feathered arms. The wings on the feet cover the feet. The feathered arms cover the body and the wings on the back are for flying. The covering cherub only has one set to cover the body.

Now the lion of Babylon in Daniels dream was a winged lion that had his wings plucked by Yah and also had the heart of a man. That is a reference to Lucifer, the covering cherub with his plucked wings but also is part prideful man. Part angelic form and part man. Sounds like a crossbreed/nephilim to me. Not only is the lion a representation of Satan but lions also lined the roads leading up to the temple's of Apollo. The lion is sacred to Apollo.

BTW, early forms of Ashtoreth also showed her with feathered arms.

That is what is means by covering cherub, a winged individual with feathered arms for covering which is common in pagan deities. So are the images of winged babies a standard motif in pagan temples.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Yahu]

The passage in Isaiah 14:12 does indeed refer to The King of Babylon.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002 ... IFER&p=par

However other passages do refer to the spirit creature identified as "satan" "the devil" (no personal name provided) that was once a favored angel but rebelled, tempted Eve, challenged Jehovah God in relation to Job and confronted Jesus himself shortly after his (Jesus') baptism.



This one is also identified as the "prince of this world" the leader of the demons and Jehovah God's enemy.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[JLB32168]

For additional consideration is the Septuagint(LXX) version: Esaias 14:12, "12 How has Lucifer [it's actually Eosphorus a Greek variant of the word Phosphorus], that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent [orders] to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

[Yahu]

For additional consideration is the Septuagint(LXX) version: Esaias 14:12, "12 How has Lucifer [it's actually Eosphorus a Greek variant of the word Phosphorus], that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven! He that sent [orders] to all the nations is crushed to the earth.

It's a shame they didn't use Pheobus instead in that translation. That would have made the proof of my position easier. I never checked the Septuagint because I never took Greek. I did take Hebrew.

‎(He�sphóros), from �ως ‎(Hé�s, “dawn�) + φέ�ω ‎(phér�, “to bear, to carry�).

Granted it still seems a reference to the sun, ie sungod. In the Greek mythology Apollo would carry the sun on its course with his chariot.

Wiki says:
The form Eosphorus is sometimes met in English, as if from Ἠωσφό�ος (Ē�sphoros), which is not actually found in Greek literature,[1] but would be the form that Ἑωσφό�ος would have in some dialects. As an adjective, the Greek word φωσφό�ος is applied in the sense of "light-bringing" to, for instance, the dawn, the god Dionysos, pine torches, the day; and in the sense of "torch-bearing" as an epithet of several god and goddesses

That could also be an epitaph of Apollo. It all comes down to which light they are referring towards. Is it the morning star, Diana Luciferah or the actual light of the sun? Considering the passage in Isa 14 is clearly taking about a male figure, that would eliminate Diana/Vensus as the reference.

Now the Romans saw Diana as a combination of the Greek goddesses of Artemis and Aphrodite. They knew her persona of Artemis was Diana in her youth worshiped as the virgin huntress, goddess of witchcraft and the moon while later in life she was worshiped as the erotic goddess Aphrodite. What happens when your virgin goddess is no longer a virgin? You create a new name and worship her under new attributes. So if Artemis is Luciferah, that makes the male personification Lucifer, her twin brother Apollo.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 1 by Yahu]

The passage in Isaiah 14:12 does indeed refer to The King of Babylon.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002 ... IFER&p=par

However other passages do refer to the spirit creature identified as "satan" "the devil" (no personal name provided) that was once a favored angel but rebelled, tempted Eve, challenged Jehovah God in relation to Job and confronted Jesus himself shortly after his (Jesus') baptism. This one is also identified as the "prince of this world" the leader of the demons and Jehovah God's enemy.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

It is a MAJOR assumption that is all referring to one individual that has been active against mankind since Eden while scripture is clear that the pre-flood angels that sinned (including the serpent) are imprisoned for their sins and aren't let out until Judgement.

For example, the 'prince of the powers of the air' is NOT Satan if you understand the enemy realm. The realm of the air belongs to the anti-christ spirit, not Satan. That is a totally different principality.

It is clear there are several major principalities. For example, you have the false prophet and the anti-christ and the great whore in Revelation. Each is a reference or an individual under a different principality. The anti-christ spirit was worshiped as Baal by the Canaanites. Molech worship was direct Satan worship and Ashtoreth is the principality reference by the 'great whore'. The three of them represent the unholy trinity.

Now the Babylonian empire is ruled over by a principality. Daniel is clear who that individual is.

Dan 7:2 Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea.
3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

Now the 'four winds' can also be translated as 'four spirits' that are 'four great beasts'. This is a reference to the four primary principalities. They are also called the four pillars of earth or heaven that separate the heavens from the earth.

The empire of the winged lion is the Babylonian empire and Satan is the first principality to rule over the major empire.

If you have ever seen the movie, 'One Night with the King', the story of Ester, take a good look at the setting. There is a huge statue of a winged lion behind the throne. There are also many other statues of beings with feathered arms of covering cherubs. It was filmed at an actual location with those statues already there in a city in India.