How have Christians come to interpret "Lucifer" as the devil?

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
@Infinityloop


Well, i'm not really into luciferianism but i'm sure it bothers you that people actually worship lucifer if it's only Venus or a rock from your point of view.
Neither, I find the whole topic pathetic and ridiculous. Polytheists worship a lot of other things, I don't really see what you're saying. The topic of sun worship is brought up all the time, other planets have been worshiped, as have other things in nature such as Oceans, Rivers, Trees, Flowers, etc. This doesn't, in the Abrahamic worldview, actually make any of these things "angels" or "demons" or "gods".

Babylon is also mentioned in the NT
Of course, I did mention this earlier in the thread. In the view of the NT, Babylon becomes instead of the area situated in the ancient geographical area corresponding to Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Syria etc, in the NT the ancient empire of Babylon becomes a symbol for the oppression of the Israelites and an embodiment of the what the Abrahamic tradition sees as perversion.
I do know what you mean, likely better than you do.
 






Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
726
Neither, I find the whole topic pathetic and ridiculous. Polytheists worship a lot of other things, I don't really see what you're saying
When Albert Pike talks about lucifer god of freemasonry, you think they worship rocks?

This doesn't, in the Abrahamic worldview, actually make any of these things "angels" or "demons" or "gods"
Of course, what matters for me it's what the Bible says. And my position stays unchanged regarding lucifer.
 






Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,126
So that the thread can see, the passage that this verse is from is as follows (38:4-11), interestingly like in Isaiah it is a poem:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?




Where do you get this from, in regards to Satan? what is your evidence of it?



Ok, lets go back to Isaiah 14 and look at some relevant passages from that chapter:

On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury has ended!
The Lord has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”


...........................


All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star (lucifer), son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost 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 the pit.
Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”


If you have any intelligence you will be able to tell that it doesn't call the King of Babylon himself venus/lucifer, he uses the astrological myth about venus/luciver/light-bearer and it's fall as an analogy for the fall of the King, as I've been explaining here since my OP.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then read Isaiah 14 at least five times before you go replying to this post, seriously.
I don't see how it could not mean both a king and Satan as well. This is known as double reference in Bible hermeneutic. The Mormons believe that both Jesus and Lucifer were "spiritual brothers" (morning stars sang together) at some point also so the references to both being morning stars makes sense and is not a misinterpretation.

Also if you look as Ezekiel as well...


Ezekiel 28
If this passage were referring exclusively to the ruler of Tyre, then you would certainly have to say that it is a case of imagery and even overstatement.

  • Could Ezekiel actually have had the “ruler” in mind when he described him as being “perfect and blameless” in all his ways? The doctrine of original sin is muddled when one considers that the “king of Tyre” is said to have been “blameless from the day he was created.” In contrast to that statement, King David wrote “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5) Satan was sinless when he was created, but that could not be said of any earthly ruler, not even King David.
  • It is said that the King of Tyre was ‘created’ instead of ‘born.’ If the word ‘born’ had been used it would certainly have ruled out Satan, but that is not the case.
  • The ruler of Tyre could not have been in the Garden of Eden. Satan was.
  • It seems strange that the king is described as being adorned with ‘every precious stone.’ Did he really have such wealth? If this were referring to a king, it would seem to be exaggeration.
  • The king was called a “guardian cherub.” This would make it the only instance in the Old Testament where that word was used in reference to a human. That seems unlikely when you study how the word ‘cherub’ is used in other contexts.
  • At one time, the “king of Tyre” would have been in close fellowship with God, for it is said that he walked on the ‘holy mount of God.’ Obviously this could not have been the case; it would have to be imagery. The ‘holy mount of God’ is a direct reference to God’s throne. On the other hand ‘cherubs’ are associated with closeness to God, as demonstrated in the construction of the ‘Ark of the Covenant.’ “The cherubim (pl. of cherub) were the “inner circle” of angels who had the closest access to God and guarded his holiness.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the ruler of Tyre is not the only person being referred to here. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to believe that the passage is referring to the ruling power behind the ruler of Tyre’s actions.

It should be noted that addressing Satan through a human being is consistent with another passage in scripture. In Matthew 16:23 we see that “Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Jesus was talking at Peter, but directing his comments to Satan. Reading the passage carefully it is hard to determine just which part of the sentence was for Peter and which part was for Satan. (One feels the same uncertainty at times in Isaiah and Ezekiel.) Whichever the case, Peter got an earful, and Satan—the ruling power behind Peter’s foolish words—was put in his place. In the same way, the ruler of Tyre would have been warned, and Satan—the ruling power behind his reign—would have been exposed.

Isaiah 14
To some extent, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 stand together. The first phrase in verse 12 is the key to this passage. Isaiah seems to switch gears and speak of someone more than the king of Babylon. Unless you also take the passage in Isaiah figuratively you are forced to consider the application of the principle of double reference.

  • It seems hard to envision the king of Babylon “falling out of heaven.” The verse implies that the one who has fallen originally started out in heaven—that heaven was his original home. The fact that the fall from heaven is literal is enforced with the phrase “You have been cast down to the earth.” This certainly could not apply to an earthly ruler.
  • The sin that the “king” proposes in his five “I wills” seems to go far beyond any human’s most outlandish and egotistical aspirations. On the other hand it is completely consistent with what one would expect of Satan.
  • How did the king propose to “ascend into heaven”?
  • Did the king really think he could usurp God’s throne?
  • Did he think he could sit on the sacred mountain? This indeed seems a most unlikely human ambition, even for a very evil king.
  • The reference to “the stars of God” is usually interpreted as referring to angelic beings (Job 38:7). Did the king really think he could rule over them?
  • Did the king really think he could be like the Creator God—the Most High?
In addition to these questionable ambitions, the individual is called Lucifer, the “morning star,” a word used to describe incredible brightness and beauty. Dr. Renald Showers gives a good explanation of this word in his book entitled, Angels.

Verse 12 refers to this being as, “O Lucifer, son of the morning.” The name Lucifer does not appear in the Hebrew text. It is a Latin translation of the Hebrew word helel, which is in the text. The Hebrew word means “shining one.” The root of this word “represents the giving off of light by celestial bodies.”
The designation “son of the morning” is the Hebrew way of calling this being the “morning star.” The word translated “morning” means “dawn” and refers to “the breaking of the day, that time just prior to sunrise.” The morning star is so much brighter than all other stars that when the light of dawn makes all other stars invisible, the morning star is still visible.
The point of these designations is that the subject of verse 12 is a shining being of light. Just as the morning star is the brightest of all stars, so this being is the brightest of all shining beings of light created by God.
This point is significant due to several facts. As noted earlier, God called angels “stars” (Job 38:7). The Bible portrays angels, not mortal humans, as bright shining beings (Mt. 28:2-3; Rev. 10:1). The Apostle Paul called Satan “an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).
In light of what has been seen, it can be concluded that Isaiah 14:12 is not referring to a human ruler of ancient Babylon. Instead, its subject is the brightest or greatest of all the angels who originally had heaven as his home
.
In Revelation 22:16 this same word is used to describe the beauty of Christ. That it would also be applied to an evil king of Babylon is hard to comprehend. On the other hand, the passage makes sense if Isaiah did switch gears and began to lament over the one who was the driving force behind the king of Babylon, the great counterfeiter, Satan.

 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
When Albert Pike talks about lucifer god of freemasonry, you think they worship rocks?


Of course, what matters for me it's what the Bible says. And my position stays unchanged regarding lucifer.
I don't care what Albert Pike says, the discussion is about Isaiah 14.

What the Bible says is the point of this thread, try reading what I've said a few times if you have trouble comprehending what I'm saying.
 






Wigi

Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
726
I don't care what Albert Pike says, the discussion is about Isaiah 14.
But I do care and that's what i'm conveying with my precedent post.
I think it's rather interesting that you give your likes to those who call out zionism but when I speak about Pike who possibly was among those who foretold the rise of zionism, your attitude is the god they worship is irrelevant though they called it lucifer. It's funny really.
 






  • Like
Reactions: Pan
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
But I do care and that's what i'm conveying with my precedent post.
I think it's rather interesting that you give your likes to those who call out zionism but when I speak about Pike who possibly was among those who foretold the rise of zionism, your attitude is the god they worship is irrelevant though they called it lucifer. It's funny really.
What you are saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying, furthermore you are not helping to prove if what you are claiming is Biblical or not.

Whether or not you Wigi are a freemason and you believe what Albert Pike believes, has no baring on what the Bible says.

Furthermore the Bible disagrees with you.
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,109
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star (lucifer), son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost 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 the pit.




The church fathers though this was talking about the Devil... which is not hard to understand since it's talking about a fallen heavenly being who wants to be like God.

This God wannabe will sit on the mount of meeting... on the far north above the clouds and stars of God.


The only mount of meeting we know about... is mount Zion where the Temple of God was and where they were required to meet three times a year. The Temple priests are in the bible also called stars and God is also described as clouds.

The only place on mount Zion that is north and above the City of David where the Temple of God was... is the Temple Mount.


Does this mean that in God's book the Devil is outed as Allah ? Absolutely !
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379



The church fathers though this was talking about the Devil... which is not hard to understand since it's talking about a fallen heavenly being who wants to be like God.
You think that the King of Babylon from 8 BC was a 'fallen heavenly being'? :(
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
A fallen heavenly being is obviously not about an earth man.
On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

How the oppressor has come to an end!
How his fury has ended!
The Lord has broken the rod of the wicked,
the scepter of the rulers,
which in anger struck down peoples
with unceasing blows,
and in fury subdued nations
with relentless aggression.
All the lands are at rest and at peace;
they break into singing.
Even the junipers and the cedars of Lebanon
gloat over you and say,
“Now that you have been laid low,
no one comes to cut us down.”

The realm of the dead below is all astir
to meet you at your coming;
it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you—
all those who were leaders in the world;
it makes them rise from their thrones—
all those who were kings over the nations.
They will all respond,
they will say to you,
“You also have become weak, as we are;
you have become like us.”
All your pomp has been brought down to the grave,
along with the noise of your harps;
maggots are spread out beneath you
and worms cover you.
How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star (lucifer), son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost 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 the pit.
Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth

and made kingdoms tremble,
the man who made the world a wilderness,
who overthrew its cities

and would not let his captives go home?”
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,109
God is also called man in His book.

Obviously God is not a mere man... and neither is a heavenly being a mere man.
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
God is also called man in His book.

Obviously God is not a mere man.
All evidence points towards this chapter objectively being a polemic against the King of Babylon, nothing more or less. Try reading it again if you didn't get what it said.
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,109
All evidence points towards this chapter objectively being a polemic against the King of Babylon, nothing more or less. Try reading it again if you didn't get what it said.
You are free to think what you will.

I just tell truths.
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
And afterall it is indeed a clever and witty polemic because it is throwing the salt in the king's eyes, insulting him with drawing his fall as analogous to a planet that falls and sets in the sky, of which was a fascination of those ancient civilizations.
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
Anyway, the essential thing to get out of this thread (on Isaiah 14) for readers of this thread, is that the King of Babylon was too overconfident. He thought himself to be more powerful than he actually was. The chapter at least paints him as a tyrant with massive resources, the notion being that he was once a person with it all who abused his power, and now he's crawling through the mud like every other person.

Geeze, if only Christians could understand how to read.

And remember that opening verse (Isaiah 14:3-4):
On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

Because it literally tells you the purpose of the poem. You (an Israelite in the 8th century BC), are supposed to use this poem (Isaiah 14:4-23) as a taunt towards the Babylonians. This is what the Bible says.
 






TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,109
Everybody can understand that a fallen heavenly being is pretending to be God.

And we all know who this God wannabe is.

Allah.
 






Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,379
Everybody can understand that a fallen heavenly being is pretending to be God.
Anyway, the essential thing to get out of this thread (on Isaiah 14) for readers of this thread, is that the King of Babylon was too overconfident. He thought himself to be more powerful than he actually was. The chapter at least paints him as a tyrant with massive resources, the notion being that he was once a person with it all who abused his power, and now he's crawling through the mud like every other person.

Geeze, if only Christians could understand how to read.

And remember that opening verse (Isaiah 14:3-4):
On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

Because it literally tells you the purpose of the poem. You (an Israelite in the 8th century BC), are supposed to use this poem (Isaiah 14:4-23) as a taunt towards the Babylonians. This is what the Bible says.




edit, also regarding translations of merely just that one word itself ("lucifer"), you really should compare translations: https://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/14-12-compare.html

And I am going to spam that link right here, just so that you do read it:


 






Last edited:

SquaredCircle

Established
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
224
So now you're into freemasonry and esoterism?
Explain us how Lucifer worship works and what it is really about since you seems to know what you're talking about.

While you're at it, tell us who wrote the Quran and what's its purpose since you said it's the continuation of the OT while it's already good at 'occult control'. Smh
Men wrote the Quran ! You understand that Abraham is the start of the Torah and the Quran right ?
 






Top