LUCIFEREVOLUTION

Alif Balaam Yashin

SINISTERIST
Messages
60
Reaction score
30
Points
18
LUCIFEREVOLUTION
Abstract
Lucifer is a poetic Latin descriptive noun used in place of various words
associated with the Morning Star in mythology. The Latin word 'Lucifer
may translate to "light-bearer", however, the earliest association with the
word Lucifer is with the Morning/Evening Star, Phosphorus/Hesperus.
The Morning/Evening star was a poetic device used by ancient
Mesopotamians and Greeks to describe a bright but lesser deity that
attempts to usurp a greater deity but ultimately fails to do so.
LUCIFER the MORNING STAR

There remains much confusion as to what Lucifer is and is not. Most of
this confusion comes from the Abrahamic world which has
misinterpreted several words and jumbled their meanings into a negative
light. First, Lucifer is not and has never been a proper noun (name) it is a
descriptive noun used throughout the ancient world for various reasons.
The main verses in question here are from the Christian bible and I will
explain how the word Lucifer is not the Christian devil, Satan, or much of
anything to do with the Abrahamic faiths.

Isaiah 14:12
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"
Hebrew
!איך נפלת מהשמיים, הו לוציפר, בן הבוקר"
" !כמה אתה נכרת עד האדמה, אתה שהחלישת את האומות
הלל בן שחר
Hêlêl ben Šāḥar
son of the morning star

Revelation 22:16
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the
churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning
star.”
Greek
"Εγώ, ο Ιησούς, έστειλα τον άγγελο μου να σας μαρτυρήσει για αυτά τα
πράγματα για τις εκκλησίες. Είμαι η ρίζα και ο απόγονος του Δαβίδ, του
λαμπρού πρωινού αστέρα."
πρωϊνός λαμπρός ἀστὴρ
lampros prōinos astēr
bright morning star

Isaiah 14:12 was written in Hebrew, the original text uses the words
Helel ben Shahar which means 'son of the morning star', it was translated
into Latin and used the Latin noun 'lucifer' which means the same thing
'morning star'. However, this verse is in reference to the King of Babylon,
not a fallen angel or Satan.

Revelation 22:16 was written in Greek, the original text uses the words
"lampros prōinos astēr" which means 'bright morning star' and is in
reference to the planet Venus. The Morning Star is a poetic device used
throughout ancient history to symbolize the bright star (planet), Venus,
during the dawn which brings the light of the new day.

The words Morning Star in both instances, and in reference to the many
ancient myths that also use the term 'morning star', symbolize something
brilliant, majestic, royal, and kingly. In Isaiah, it references a once-great
king (Nebuchadnezzar) that has fallen from power, and in Revelation, it
references Jesus simply as a great king.

In 382 AD, Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to write a revision
of the old Latin translation of the Bible. This task was completed
sometime during the 5th century AD, and eventually, it was considered
the official and definite Latin version of the Bible according to the Roman
Catholic church. By the 13th century, it was considered the versio vulgate
– the common translation.

St. Jerome misunderstood the meaning of the Hebrew word 'heylel', and
translated it into "Lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from
the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring"). The word Lucifer at the
time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant
"morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus. Jerome thought the
passage was referring to Satan in addition to the king of Babylon, and
because of this, the use of the word "Lucifer" made the transition from a
term referring to Venus and the Morning Star to also referring to the
Abrahamic Satan.

MORNING STAR in ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY
The earliest use of the Morning Star mythology is the Mesopotamian
myths of the Sumerian King Etana, the Canaanite myth from Phonecia
called the "Fall of the day star", and the Ugaritic myth called the Baal
Cycle.

Each of these myths describes the attempt of a lesser deity to usurp a
greater deity to which the Morning Star always fails to do so. This
allegory can be seen in the way that Venus (both Morning and Evening
Star) attempts to overtake the Sun or the Moon but always loses the
battle.

It wasn't until thousands of years later that the Gnostics elevated Lucifer
to the Principle of Compassion for Life and Creation, the Defiance of
Corrupt Authority, the Current of Spiritual Evolution. Luciferianism has
personified the idea of Lucifer as the Principle of Self-development, the
model of individuality, individuation, and independence.

GNOSTIC LUCIFER
The idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel comes from the Enochian myth of
fallen angels combined with Dante Alighieri (Dante's Inferno) and John
Milton's (Paradise Lost) epic works that solidified Satan with the name
Lucifer.

The Gnostics never explicitly used the names “Lucifer” or “Eosphoros”
(or Phosphoros) in the age in which they lived. The association of the
Serpent in the Garden of Eden with Lucifer in Gnosticism came later
when Gnostic scholars associated the name Lucifer with planetary
archons. Their new identity of the Lucifer/Serpent became that of
spiritual enlightenment, the principle of compassion for life and creation,
and the defiance of corrupt authority. In this respect, Lucifer becomes a
Current/Energy/Thoughtform.

The Gnostic Christians believed in the Light of Lucifer which they viewed
as the enlightenment which he, as the Serpent, (an Egyptian phallic form
as the serpent Ami‑Hemf "Dweller in the Flame,"), who enlightened the
first parents, Adam and Eve, against God's Will. Here Lucifer is likened to
Prometheus who stole fire from heaven to give civilization to humanity.
God denied the first two people the fruit of the tree of knowledge, but
Lucifer gave them the Light of Wisdom.

These Gnostic sentiments and beliefs for Lucifer were held by the
Persians as well. Unlike Orthodox Christians, they did not hold Jehovah as
the good‑God of mankind, but the Demiurge who created man for his
own selfish interest. Lucifer was regarded as the hero, savior, and friend
of man, who revealed the sacred mysteries which the Heavenly Father
jealously withheld. Some, such as the Gnostic Luciferians, held that
Lucifer was the brother of God.

These Gnostic beliefs persisted throughout the first half of the Christian
era and well into the second half. German theologian Meister Eckhart
said, "Lucifer, the angel, who is in hell, has the perfect intellect and to this
day knows much."

The name Lucifer also appears in Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches
made famous by Charles Godfrey Leland. The work is based on myths
and legends of ancient Italian witchcraft (La Vecchia Religione /
Stregheria). Lucifer was the son and consort of Diana, goddess of the
night. Their daughter is Aradia, the witch‑messiah in the myth.
Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi

‑from the Gospels of Nag Hammadi: Testimonial of Truth (TOT)
"the God whom most Christians worship, the God of the Hebrew Bible, is
'himself' one of the fallen angels, from whose tyranny Christ came to set
human beings free.

TOT (3:4‑5)
it reveals truth only when one reads it in reverse, recognizing that God is
actually the villain, and the Serpent the holy one

Reality of Rulers (Nag Hammadi)
"It is Samael and his fellow 'rulers' of the Darkness (Eph.6:12), not the
true God, who formed Adam's physical body, set him to work in Paradise,
"to till and cultivate it" then put him to sleep and fashioned his female
partner out of his rib.

God commanded Adam not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, which could
open his eyes to the Truth. However, Eve became enlightened by the
feminine spiritual principle who appeared to her in the form of the
Serpent and deified them both . . . against God's Will.

God threw mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that
humankind might be occupied with worldly affairs, and might not have
the opportunity of being devoted to the Holy Spirit / Higher‑Self
Platonic Ideologies/First Form Ideals/Authentic Thoughtforms. Meaning,
just as the etymology of a word can usually provide you with the
authentic, first reality of that word, so does there exist the original,
authentic ideal of a thoughtform.

He is the Mercury of the Gauls, He is the Serpent of the Ophites, the
Kundalini and Budha of the Vedic, the Uræus of the Pharaoh! Lucifer is
the Principle of Compassion for Life and Creation, the Light born in the
Womb of Darkness . . . defiance of corrupt authority and the Current of
Spiritual Evolution. As Prometheus, unlike the Abrahamic savior, He dies
every day in order to bring us the Flame.

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of
Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is
the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the Holy Spirit,
while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism.”
- Eliphas Levi

ROMAN-GRECO LUCIFER
Publius Ovidius Naso
Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses" was written 8 B.C.E.
The planet Venus, the second in the solar system, is called Lucifer when it
precedes the sun in the morning, and Hesperus when it follows the sun in
the evening.

Nunlius Noctis. modo lotus, undis Hesperus, pulsis iterum tenebris
Lucifer idem.— Senec. in Hippol. Statione codi: from his station in
heaven. When the morning star, Lucifer is the last to disappear.
The stars which lay obscured under Chaos, now begin to shine forth.
Hesiod, in like manner, speaks of the stars as last formed. Last Lucifer
Sprang radiant from the dawn-appearing morn, And all the glittering
stars that gird the heaven.

Publius Vergilius Maro 29 B.C.E.
Eclogue VIII: Damon and Alphesiboeus Compete
"Lucifer, arise, precursor of kindly day, while I, shamefully cheated of my
lover Nysa’s affection, complain, and call, still, to the gods, in the hour of
my death, though their witnessing these things has been no help to me."
Timaeus by Plato in 360 B.C.E.

"First, there was the moon in the orbit nearest the earth, and next the
sun, in the second orbit above the earth; then came the morning star and
the star sacred to Hermes, moving in orbits which have an equal
swiftness with the sun, but in an opposite direction; and this is the
reason why the sun and Hermes and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken
by each other."

*This Lucifer is also portrayed as a Lunar deity unlike his usual association with Venus.
Transliteration:
"Hermes and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken by each other"
"Ο Ερμής και ο Εωσφόρος προσπερνούν και προσπερνούν ο ένας τον
άλλον" "O Ermís kai o Eosfóros prospernoún kai prospernoún o énas ton
állon"

ATTAR
The ancient Semitic deity of Attar sometimes appearing as a rain and
water god is cited as a possible identification for Helel. Attar, it’s worth
mentioning, is etymologically and mythologically related to the Goddess
Ishtar. Likewise, Attar in his various forms might have been related either
to the morning or evening stars or the planet Venus more generally.
Lucifer is the Morning Star announcing daily birth of the sun. The
Canaanites called him Shaher, the Hebrews Shaharit, “Morning Service”
commemorating him. His twin brother, Shalem, the Evening Star,
announced the daily death of the sun. These two may be identified as the
heavenly twins of the Greeks, Castor and Pollux, born of Leda's World
Egg. They also played a prominent role in Persian sun worship as two
torch‑bearers, one with an ascendant torch, the other pointing
downward. The image of Baphomet should come to mind.

In Canaanite legend, Shaher and Shalem were born of the great mother
Asherah, in her world‑womb aspect as Helel, "the Pit." Shaher coveted
the superior glory of the sun god and attempted to usurp his throne, but
was defeated and cast from heaven like a lightening bolt. There is a 7th
Century B.C. scriptural account of this story of the Morning Star, which
eventually becomes the biblical Isaiah 14:12‑15. Lucifer is told, "Thou
shall be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." The pit, here, is
symbolizing, or the same as, Helel (Asherah), the Mother‑bride's womb.
The Morning Star was the god, at times referred to as a bird, Benu to the
Egyptians. He was the dying‑and‑reborn Phoenix, called the "Soul of
Ram" who died on the World Tree in order to renew himself so to "shine
on the world." It is said his spirit dwelled in the phallic obelisk, called
Benu or the Benhen Stone, representing the god's sexual union with the
Mother. One finds Plato knew the morning star as Aster which appeared
as the Evening Star (the planet Venus). He saw Aster as a
dying‑and‑reborn deity, "Aster, once, as Morning‑Star, light on the living
you shed. Now, dying, as Evening‑Star, you shine among the dead."

HORUS MORNINGSTAR
Egyptian god Horus the Elder has typically been identified with the sun.
Other scholars have advanced arguments that the god is to be identified
with the planet Venus, with the star Sirius, and with the amorphous sky.
The cult of Horus was prominent already in pre-dynastic times (Writing
itself is first attested in Egypt during the pre-dynastic Period, ca. 3200
B.C.E. Rulers at Nekhen, for example, worshiped the falcon‑god prior to
the unification of Egypt. In the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 3000‑2600
B.C.E.), Horus is explicitly identified as "a star." This much is evident from
the fact that royal domains were named after the astral god. The domain
established by Anedjib (the Horus name of an early Egyptian king who
ruled during the 1st Dynasty), was called (Órsbåt), “Horus, star of the
corporation (of gods).”

The Pharaoh Hotepsekhemwy established a domain called (Óroesbå),
“Horus risen as a star.” While Pharaoh Khasekhemwy founded a new
domain called Órsbåbåw, “Horus, the star of souls.” Both during the 2nd
Dynasty. Most informative, perhaps, is the domain established at the
beginning of the Third Dynasty by Djoser, named Órsbåntipt, “Horus, star
at the front of the sky”.

Additional information regarding the star‑god Horus is to be found in the
Pyramid Texts dating from roughly a half millennium later (2300 B.C.E.).
That Horus was not the sun, as often maintained, is suggested by various
hymns wherein the god is clearly distinguished from the ancient sun god
Ra. In the following passage, for example, Horus (as the deceased king) is
implored to ascend to heaven and join Re: “Rêoe summons you into the
zenith of the sky as the Jackal, the Governor of the Two Enneads, and as
Horus Ônty‑mnit.f; may he set you as the Morning Star in the midst of the
Field of Rushes.”

Egyptologist Raymond Faulkner, considered it a foregone conclusion that
Venus must be the stellar body referenced by the phrase “Morning Star.”
Thus, in a comprehensive survey of Egyptian star‑lore Faulkner wrote as
follows: “As regards the identification of the Morning Star and the Lone
Star with actual celestial bodies, there can be little doubt that, as
elsewhere, the Morning Star is Phosphorus, Venus as seen at dawn.”
The most detailed study of Egyptian star religion to date is that by Rolf
Krauss. He, too, would identify Horus with the planet Venus, citing as
evidence various passages in the Pyramid Texts that describe the star as
shining in the “eastern” portion of the morning sky while moving with
respect to other stars, a characteristic of planets rather than stars. Krauss
summarized his findings as follows: “As early as the beginning of dynastic
times Horus seems to be identified with the planet Venus. The names of
the so‑called royal vineyards describe Horus as a star. The name of
Djoser’s vineyard reveals that Horus is a particular star ‘at the front of
the sky’. The identification of Horus with Venus as known from the
Pyramid Texts suggests itself…Royal ideology and ideas about the
Hereafter seem to have had cosmological and stellar foundations which
may well go back to pre-dynastic times."

An analysis of Horus’s early epithets offers additional insight into his
astral origins. A recurring name of the god is Duat, traditionally
translated as “Netherworld.” The word Duat, in turn, is derived from the
root dwå, “morning,” whence comes Horus’s epithet Neter Dua “Morning
Star (or God).” The etymology of Duat suggests that Horus’s identity as
the Morning Star is permanently connected to his role as Lord of the
“Netherworld.” In a passage from the Pyramid Texts the association
between the “Morning Star” and the Duat is made explicit: “O Morning
Star, Horus of the Netherworld, divine Falcon, wådåd‑bird whom the sky
bore"

So, What's the Problem?

So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe
that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being
who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning").
Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament
believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has
been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains
though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early
Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine. The irony for
those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title
('morning star' or 'light‑bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19,
where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos‑phoros'
'light‑bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.
So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
Obviously, he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote.
He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS
scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when
it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This
incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the
Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on
Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only
appears in Isaiah.

CONCLUSION
Lucifer is not an Adversary as the word Satan (Shaitan) describes, Lucifer
is the 'Bringer of Light' in other words Lux Lucis (Lucifer) is gnosis,
truth, and Divine knowledge. Lucifer brought us the Truth and Freedom
from the Will of Another, and showed us the way to either be One with
God / Nature / Objective Universe or to become a god ourselves. Lucifer
is the principle of progress and intellectual inquiry, the divine inspiration
behind spiritual enlightenment. Through Lucifer's spirit humanity first
climbed down from the trees and The Luciferian Principle has
represented the flow of progress ever since.
 
You almost have it figured out. I will comment on this section...

Isaiah 14:12 was written in Hebrew, the original text uses the words
Helel ben Shahar which means 'son of the morning star', it was translated
into Latin and used the Latin noun 'lucifer' which means the same thing
'morning star'. However, this verse is in reference to the King of Babylon,
not a fallen angel or Satan.

I have bolded the relevant part.

You have made the common mistake of not connecting the two entities...
  • King of Babylon
  • Fallen Angel or Satan
The King of Babylon is a physical being. Satan is a Spirit. You need to put the two together to understand the deeper meaning.

The King of Babylon is Satan in a physical humanoid body. It is just that simple. In other words, Lucifer is a physical incarnation of the Spirit of Satan.

We are talking Reincarnation here, and it happens over and over. Satan falls from Heaven to incarnate into the various Kings. There are seven that are highlighted in Scripture...
  1. King of Egypt
  2. King of Assyria
  3. King of Babylon
  4. King of Medo Persia
  5. King of Greece
  6. King of Rome
  7. Future King
The 'Beast' is the same thing as Satan in physical form. Lucifer, i.e., the King of Babylon, was simply one of the 'heads' of the Beast. Each head is symbolic of an incarnation.

The Beast 'was, is not, and yet is'. That is called Reincarnation. A 'Morning Star' is an Angel that is about to be conceived into a physical body. That is the symbolism.

Do you not understand what the 'Sides of the Pit' means? It is euphemism for the Uterus...

Isaiah 14:15
"Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."


Hermeitcal Triumph - SM.png

The 'Hermetical Triumph' is Reincarnation. What is Hell? Did you bother to Google it? It took me two seconds...

"...religions with reincarnation usually depict a hell as an intermediary period between incarnations..."


It is the Church that usurped the real definition of Hell, the Mother Fertility Goddess of Reincarnation, and twisted it into something perverted and fictional.

Again, Lucifer was simply one incarnation of many of Satan into humanoid form...

Revelation 17:8
"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."


The Bottomless Pit, the Sides of the Pit, etc., etc. is the Womb of Creation that Satan shall ascend out of once again.
 
I realise you've done/collated a lot of work here, and if quantity means something, then full marks to you.

However, there are a couple of errors, and if you want this concept to have any credence in Christian or Abrahamic circles, you need to address a couple of key issues:

The Morning/Evening star was a poetic device used by ancient Mesopotamians and Greeks to describe a bright but lesser deity that
attempts to usurp a greater deity but ultimately fails to do so.
Dubious. There is an essay on the issue here, and another one here.

As I understand it, from the above links and elsewhere, scholars argue there is no direct text reference, rather, it's a conflation of myths.

My area of interest on this topic at the moment is the idea of Kings 'ascending' to become deities after their demise and Isaiah's rejection of such an idea.

Down with Helel: The Assumed Mythological Background of Isaiah 14:12-14
"Even more interesting is the parallel with a passage in the Ugaritic legend of Keret, where his children are bewailing him because of his coming death (KTU 1.16.I:1-23).[31] Within the context of mourning, reminiscent of Isa. 14, Keret is called `son of El.' It is suggested that as a god he could not die. We probably do not have to take this literary, because we have to reckon with the exaggeration inherent to most dirges. In an other part of the text Keret's death is described as `joining El' and `reaching the sun-set' (KTU 1.15.V:16-20). This offers an even better parallel to Isa. 14:12-15, as it combines the association of the king with the sun and his close relation to El. There are many indications that the ancient Israelites were familiar with this kind of royal ideology suggesting a divine status of the king.[32] It remains a matter of dispute whether and, if so, for how long, this was accepted in Israel. There can be no doubt about it, however, that the poet of Isa. 13-14 is referring to it, in this way emphasizing the conflict between YHWH and the king of Babylon. It may also have become clear that ììéä is not the name of a god and that Isa. 14:12-15 does not reflect a myth about a fight between gods. The poet certainly used some mythological elements, but these are only rightly understood within the framework of ancient royal ideology."

But this is just one interpretation. There are a number of alternatives. Yours is one among them.

First, Lucifer is not and has never been a proper noun (name)
Two errors:
1:
There is a saint and bishop, Lucifer of Cagliari (4th century), so clearly it was a proper noun.
There is also a St. Lucifer, a martyr and priest, and St. Lucifera, both from Sardinia. And another bishop, Lucifer of Siena. It appears to be a common name in Sardinia and Tuscany, and Christians clearly saw no allusion to Satan at the time.

2: In the Vulgate, lucifer is lower case, it's only much later versions of the Bible that it appears capitalised – so that critique can't be levelled at Jerome.

Isaiah 14:12 ... However, this verse is in reference to the King of Babylon, not a fallen angel or Satan.
Yes, it was a reference to the King of Babylon, but why? You explain the the origin of the parable, but offer nothing about the meaning – the very thing that Isaiah is pointing at.

The words Morning Star in both instances, and in reference to the many ancient myths that also use the term 'morning star', symbolize something brilliant, majestic, royal, and kingly. In in Revelation, it references Jesus simply as a great king.
Well ... to be fair, more than 'simply as a great king' in Revelation.

St. Jerome misunderstood the meaning of the Hebrew word 'heylel', and translated it into "Lucifer" ...
The LXX reads: "πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros)"
The Jewish translators of the Hebrew into Greek used the 'heylel' to 'heosphoros', and Jerome followed the LXX – so you can see his logic.

Jerome thought the passage was referring to Satan
Got any actual evidence of that?

It wasn't until thousands of years later that the Gnostics elevated Lucifer to the Principle of Compassion for Life and Creation, the Defiance of
Corrupt Authority, the Current of Spiritual Evolution.
Quite ... and on what basis, one wonders? You seem to argue no historical or mythological reference?

The idea of Lucifer as a fallen angel comes from the Enochian myth of fallen angels combined with Dante Alighieri (Dante's Inferno) and John
Milton's (Paradise Lost) epic works that solidified Satan with the name Lucifer.
But Origen put 2 and 2 together a lot earlier than Dante or Milton – he was again looking at the understanding behind the analogy.

As Enoch never named a fallen angel Lucifer, the earliest attribution you have is the 13th century / 17th century respectively.

The Gnostics never explicitly used the names “Lucifer” or “Eosphoros” (or Phosphoros) in the age in which they lived. The association of the
Serpent in the Garden of Eden with Lucifer in Gnosticism came later when Gnostic scholars associated the name Lucifer with planetary
archons.
But is there a relevant link to the archons? Surely more likely they took the link from Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians believed in the Light of Lucifer ...
Which Gnostic Christians?

... the Serpent, (an Egyptian phallic form as the serpent Ami‑Hemf "Dweller in the Flame,") ... Lucifer is likened to Prometheus ...
Again, the conflation of myths with no actual foundation. In short, the error you assume of Jerome.

German theologian Meister Eckhart said, "Lucifer, the angel, who is in hell, has the perfect intellect and to this day knows much."
But he's working from Christian reasoning via Enoch, not via the Gnostics.

The name Lucifer also appears in Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches made famous by Charles Godfrey Leland. The work is based on myths
and legends of ancient Italian witchcraft (La Vecchia Religione / Stregheria). Lucifer was the son and consort of Diana, goddess of the
night. Their daughter is Aradia, the witch‑messiah in the myth.
Scholars of witchcraft dispute the authenticity of the materials, as you probably know.
 
Last edited:
You almost have it figured out. I will comment on this section...



I have bolded the relevant part.

You have made the common mistake of not connecting the two entities...
  • King of Babylon
  • Fallen Angel or Satan
The King of Babylon is a physical being. Satan is a Spirit. You need to put the two together to understand the deeper meaning.

The King of Babylon is Satan in a physical humanoid body. It is just that simple. In other words, Lucifer is a physical incarnation of the Spirit of Satan.

We are talking Reincarnation here, and it happens over and over. Satan falls from Heaven to incarnate into the various Kings. There are seven that are highlighted in Scripture...
  1. King of Egypt
  2. King of Assyria
  3. King of Babylon
  4. King of Medo Persia
  5. King of Greece
  6. King of Rome
  7. Future King
The 'Beast' is the same thing as Satan in physical form. Lucifer, i.e., the King of Babylon, was simply one of the 'heads' of the Beast. Each head is symbolic of an incarnation.

The Beast 'was, is not, and yet is'. That is called Reincarnation. A 'Morning Star' is an Angel that is about to be conceived into a physical body. That is the symbolism.

Do you not understand what the 'Sides of the Pit' means? It is euphemism for the Uterus...

Isaiah 14:15
"Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."



The 'Hermetical Triumph' is Reincarnation. What is Hell? Did you bother to Google it? It took me two seconds...

"...religions with reincarnation usually depict a hell as an intermediary period between incarnations..."


It is the Church that usurped the real definition of Hell, the Mother Fertility Goddess of Reincarnation, and twisted it into something perverted and fictional.

Again, Lucifer was simply one incarnation of many of Satan into humanoid form...

Revelation 17:8
"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."


The Bottomless Pit, the Sides of the Pit, etc., etc. is the Womb of Creation that Satan shall ascend out of once again.
Utter nonsense . . . Lucifer has absolutely no presence in the Christian bible
Nebechadezzner would only be associated through Christian lenses because . . .

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in
relation to what we call the "others". Satan is a social and cultural
phenomenon as old as the mind of humanity itself. There has always
and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of
oppositions and they are "Us & Them" or "Me" and "the rest of you" .
. . etc.

Sumerian and Akkadian tablets concur with this worldview from the
earliest known writings, the ancient Egyptian word for an Egyptian
meant "human", which excluded all who were not Egyptian to be
relegated to 'non-human', the Greek word for non-Greeks was
"barbaroi" (barbarians). The Jewish Essenes called anyone, not an
Essene "ha satan" (the adversary), Zoroastrianism set forth the
dualistic "good" (what we believe in) and "evil" (what they believe
in).
"A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by
selecting, isolating, and emphasizing as aspect of another people's
life, and making it symbolize their difference"
- William Scott Green (Professor of the history of religion - ancient Judaism, biblical studies,
and the theory of religion).
So, who/what is this Satan?
He simply is who you are not!

Satan is NOT a spirit but rather an archetype

Your Uterus association is nothing more than confabulation

Lucifer is a poetic Latin descriptive noun used in place of various words
associated with the Morning Star in mythology. The Latin word 'Lucifer
may translate to "light-bearer", however, the earliest association with the
word Lucifer is with the Morning/Evening Star, Phosphorus/Hesperus.
The Morning/Evening star was a poetic device used by ancient
Mesopotamians and Greeks to describe a bright but lesser deity that
attempts to usurp a greater deity but ultimately fails to do so.
 
I realise you've done/collated a lot of work here, and if quantity means something, then full marks to you.

However, there are a couple of errors, and if you want this concept to have any credence in Christian or Abrahamic circles, you need to address a couple of key issues:
*errors? According to who? After all we ARE talking about mythos
Dubious. There is an essay on the issue here, and another one here.
If you would unpack those articles as I have with a plethora of research, it would be appreciated
Otherwise, I would just dispute you with that plethora of research and let you read for the next 6 months . . . fair?
As I understand it, from the above links and elsewhere, scholars argue there is no direct text reference, rather, it's a conflation of myths.

My area of interest on this topic at the moment is the idea of Kings 'ascending' to become deities after their demise and Isaiah's rejection of such an idea.

Down with Helel: The Assumed Mythological Background of Isaiah 14:12-14
"Even more interesting is the parallel with a passage in the Ugaritic legend of Keret, where his children are bewailing him because of his coming death (KTU 1.16.I:1-23).[31] Within the context of mourning, reminiscent of Isa. 14, Keret is called `son of El.' It is suggested that as a god he could not die. We probably do not have to take this literary, because we have to reckon with the exaggeration inherent to most dirges. In an other part of the text Keret's death is described as `joining El' and `reaching the sun-set' (KTU 1.15.V:16-20). This offers an even better parallel to Isa. 14:12-15, as it combines the association of the king with the sun and his close relation to El. There are many indications that the ancient Israelites were familiar with this kind of royal ideology suggesting a divine status of the king.[32] It remains a matter of dispute whether and, if so, for how long, this was accepted in Israel. There can be no doubt about it, however, that the poet of Isa. 13-14 is referring to it, in this way emphasizing the conflict between YHWH and the king of Babylon. It may also have become clear that ììéä is not the name of a god and that Isa. 14:12-15 does not reflect a myth about a fight between gods. The poet certainly used some mythological elements, but these are only rightly understood within the framework of ancient royal ideology."

But this is just one interpretation. There are a number of alternatives. Yours is one among them.
Understood and agree
Two errors:
1:
There is a saint and bishop, Lucifer of Cagliari (4th century), so clearly it was a proper noun.
There is also a St. Lucifer, a martyr and priest, and St. Lucifera, both from Sardinia. And another bishop, Lucifer of Siena. It appears to be a common name in Sardinia and Tuscany, and Christians clearly saw no allusion to Satan at the time.
So, every Latin person I run into named Jesus is JESUS?
2: In the Vulgate, lucifer is lower case, it's only much later versions of the Bible that it appears capitalised – so that critique can't be levelled at Jerome.
Jerome's mistranslation is from Hebrew to Latin

Isaiah 14:12
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"
Hebrew

The sentence in question is
Hêlêl ben Šāḥar
Son of the Morning Star
הלל בן שחר

The word Lucifer is indeed capitalized . . . though please show me otherwise

Yes, it was a reference to the King of Babylon, but why? You explain the the origin of the parable, but offer nothing about the meaning – the very thing that Isaiah is pointing at.


Well ... to be fair, more than 'simply as a great king' in Revelation.


The LXX reads: "πῶς ἐξέπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὁ ἑωσφόρος (heosphoros)"
The Jewish translators of the Hebrew into Greek used the 'heylel' to 'heosphoros', and Jerome followed the LXX – so you can see his logic.


Got any actual evidence of that?


Quite ... and on what basis, one wonders? You seem to argue no historical or mythological reference?


But Origen put 2 and 2 together a lot earlier than Dante or Milton – he was again looking at the understanding behind the analogy.

As Enoch never named a fallen angel Lucifer, the earliest attribution you have is the 13th century / 17th century respectively.


But is there a relevant link to the archons? Surely more likely they took the link from Christianity.


Which Gnostic Christians?


Again, the conflation of myths with no actual foundation. In short, the error you assume of Jerome.


But he's working from Christian reasoning via Enoch, not via the Gnostics.


Scholars of witchcraft dispute the authenticity of the materials, as you probably know.
Please refer to my previous reply . . .
 
*errors? According to who? After all we ARE talking about mythos
You post in its entirely contains errors of assumption.

If you would unpack those articles as I have with a plethora of research, it would be appreciated
Otherwise, I would just dispute you with that plethora of research and let you read for the next 6 months . . . fair?
I don't have a dog in this fight...

As I understand it, there is no certain opinion regarding the origin and meaning of the phrase הלל בן שחר and it remains open to interpretation.

I happen to think Isaiah is using הלל בן שחר within an extended parable, and it's that which interests me more. For that reason I tend to go with Professor Spronk's reading, a "polemical response to the concept of deification of the king during his lifetime or after his death."

The parable speaks of arrogance that ends in humiliation and a fall.

+++

So, every Latin person I run into named Jesus is JESUS?
No, simply pointing to the error of your saying "Lucifer is not and has never been a proper noun (name)."
It is, or at least was, until it fell out of favour.

Jerome's mistranslation is from Hebrew to Latin
The sentence in question is
Hêlêl ben Šāḥar
Son of the Morning Star
Actually, I think that's not quite correct Hebrew, I think. It's 'Son of the Morning' – not 'Morning Star'.

The translators of the Septuagint read 'son of the morning' and chose the equivalent Greek heōsphoros, the morning star, and subsequently Jerome chose lucifer, being the Latin equivalent to the Greek.

The word Lucifer is indeed capitalized . . . though please show me otherwise
Isaiah 14:12, Jerome's translation: "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"
It's lower case.

In Old English we have:
"Þær æfter on þam circule lucifer up arist." Byrhtferth (970-1020) Handboc in Anglia.

"Wæs þæt encgelcyn ær genemned, Lucifer haten, leohtberende." Christ & Satan (7-10th century)

Later:
1374 "After þat lucifere the day sterre hath chasyd awey the dirke nyht." Chaucer, translation of Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae

1425 "Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer, that is dai sterre, in his tyme."

1645 "The Stars..will not take their flight, For all the morning light, Or Lucifer that often warn'd them thence." Milton, On Christ's Nativity: Hymn vi

It is in the later bibles, however:
1382 "A! Lucifer, that risidist eerli, hou feldist thou doun fro heuene; thou that woundist folkis, feldist doun togidere in to erthe."

1545 "Wie bist du vom Himmel gefallen, du schöner Morgenstern! Wie bist du zur Erde gefällt, der du die Heiden schwächtest!" Luther's Bible.

Although there's evidence in English at least that Lucifer was capitalised, a name, prior to Wycliffe.

+++

In the Life of Adam and Eve – an apocryphal Jewish text around the 1st century, Satan utters the words of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14:13-14, resulting in his fall along with his angels.

2 Enoch 29:4-5 says much the same.

So around the 1st century we have a clear connection between the fall of the King of Babylon in Isaiah linked to the fall of angels from heaven.

The audience would see that it was the Prince of the Fallen Angels, howsoever he be named, who put the words into the King of Babylon's mouth.

+++

Tertullian would use the same Isaiah text to reference the Prince of this World, (or my preference, the Archon of this Cosmos – John 12:31 et seq) and parallel the fall in Isaiah 14 with the fall of Satan spoken by Jesus in Luke 10:18, a step too far, perhaps, but one can see how, and follow the simple logic. (Against Marcion, V, 11). Tertullian He makes no mention of Lucifer, although he writes in Latin.

Origen would do much the same:
"... And what is said in many places, and especially in Isaiah, of Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be explained of that individual. For the man Nebuchadnezzar neither fell from heaven, nor was he the morning star, nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning."

However, Rufinus' Latin, circa 397CE, reads thus:
"... what is related in many passages of Scripture, and especially in Isaiah, regarding Nebuchadnezzar? For he is not a man who is said to have “fallen from heaven,” or who was “Lucifer,” or who “arose in the morning.”

+++

What seems clear is that the scant uses of Lucifer in Fathers – Tertullian, Origen (in Latin amended translation) and Jerome – is most commonly a direct reference to Isaiah 14:12, where the text is read figuratively to imply the work of the devil, and only there.

Elsewhere the Fathers refer to the Devil or to Satan ... Lucifer by the 7th century had not really entered common or popular parlance.

+++

In the Judeo-Christian-Gnostic tradition we have Satan, Lucifer, Abbaton, Asmodeus, Tryphon, Sabbathai, Satanael and others, while in popular Medieval folklore and literature there's an array of popular sobriquets: Old Nick, Old Horny, Old Hairy, Black Bogey, Lusty Dick, Dickon or Dickens, Gentleman Jack, the Good Fellow, Old Scratch ... each European language generating its own nickname.
 
Back
Top