Is Lucifer the same being as Satan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EphelDuath

Guest
If so, can it be proven using only OT verses?

The argument being made is that the identification is mistakenly made because of a mistranslation in KJV and Paradise Lost.
 
A simple answer of yes or no would be fine. Those links have details.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
A simple answer of yes or no would be fine. Those links have details.
Click to expand...
A simple answer of yes or no would not be fine. The issue is more complex than that. The first link I gave illustrates the complexity:

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).
 
Lucifer=Satan came relatively later in tradition (not Tradition).

Satan is the Evil One; everyone knows that.

lucifer is a common noun for light-bearer. In Isaiah 14, it’s used to refer pejoratively to the King of Babylon, whose downfall is being celebrated. The original Hebrew has heleyl, lit. daystar.

Lucifer (proper noun) was a Catholic bishop of Cagliari, who suffered much during the Arian heresy, and although he never left the orthodox position, was involved in a brief schism in which he took a disciplinary position against reinstating former Arian priests. He is revered as a saint in some quarters.
 
Lucifer was traditionally the title of the Archangel who was cast down from heaven with his rebel angels.
How art thou fallen from heaven,** O Lucifer**, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High. But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15)
Click to expand...
But technically Lucifer was not his name, but his position. As he was cast down, he lost his Position. The word sa’tan means literally “no name” or “he who has no name”. Jesus said
"I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven…"Luke 10:16
Click to expand...
So I’m pretty sure that the being who was once the lucifer is the same being that we now call the devil or satan who traditionally is the head of the rebel angels (or demons)
 
Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the King of Babylon.

Again, the claim is that Christians misinterpreted or invented a new theology that contradicted the Jewish view of Satan. Is there any scriptural evidence that Lucifer was a fallen angel in the OT, the same being as Satan, the demon?
 
Pat_the_Cat said:
But technically Lucifer was not his name, but his position. As he was cast down, he lost his Position. The word sa’tan means literally “no name” or “he who has no name”. Jesus said
Click to expand...
No. ha’satan is Hebrew for “the Adversary”. “No name” would be “lo shem”.
 
Pat_the_Cat said:
Lucifer was traditionally the title of the Archangel who was cast down from heaven with his rebel angels.

But technically Lucifer was not his name, but his position. As he was cast down, he lost his Position. The word sa’tan means literally “no name” or “he who has no name”. Jesus said

So I’m pretty sure that the being who was once the lucifer is the same being that we now call the devil or satan who traditionally is the head of the rebel angels (or demons)
Click to expand...
Lucifer IS traditionally the title of the Archangel who was cast down from Heaven not WAS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top