The devil?

P

Perishiko

Registered Member
I'm told the Devil is/was an angel. I'm confused, where did people "get" this knowledge?

Even if one was to believe in the bible. Where in the bible does it mention anything about the devil and what he is? (Besides the obvious references to him being responsible for sin. And him being the "snake" that tempted others.)
 
SkinWalker said:
People get the "knowledge" the same way any religion gets its "knowledge." They invent it.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. But, where/when did this "knowledge" come to surface? I'm confused as to where they get these stories. At least jesus has his own pages in the bible. This poor devil guy hasn't got anything but rumors according to my knowledge.
 
The pseudepigraphical book of Enoch discusses fallen angels, but no Lucifer.

Zoroastrianism - an Aryan Persian religion - is the first religion to have had a God of Goodness and a God of Evil. It was indeed this system of duality that most people think brought the conception of the devil into Judeo-Christianity.

The name Lucifer, by the way, was interjected into the Bible by, I do believe, St. Jerome. However, the idea of the Devil as an evil being, as opposed to Satan the prosecuting angel in service of God, or a name for opposition in general, seems to have had at least some foundation in Jesus' time.

But really, the idea of a fallen angel is not to be found in the Bible.
 
SkinWalker said:
People get the "knowledge" the same way any religion gets its "knowledge." They invent it.
Click to expand...


This is funny

imagination is a funny thing, where does that come from Mr Skin? Where does original thought come from? Biological/physiological strictly scientific answer required.
 
Unless they invent it first then pass it off as "knowledge" to the unsuspecting and credulous.
 
Perishiko said:
I'm told the Devil is/was an angel. I'm confused, where did people "get" this knowledge?

Even if one was to believe in the bible. Where in the bible does it mention anything about the devil and what he is? (Besides the obvious references to him being responsible for sin. And him being the "snake" that tempted others.)
Click to expand...

Great question. I have Bible software on my PC which has a word lookup feature so I can look up a word or phrase and see everywhere it appears in the Bible. I looked up "Lucifer" and it came up one time. Here's what it said:

Isaiah 14:12-18
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.



I'm not saying I believe in the Bible, because to me it is very questionable.

Also, my software has commentary on verses. The commentaries state that "Lucifer" in the verses above has nothing to do with Satan. It is about the King of Babylon who thought he could attain power similiar to God, but ended up falling.

So to answer your question, I have no idea how the pre-Satan Lucifer theory came about. Seemingly not from the Bible.
 
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

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).

-- from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm

And for a further discussion of the Devil as an angel as found in the Bible, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm
 
Wikipedia has this to say on the subject of Lucifer:

Christian tradition of a literal fall from heaven drew upon the Homeric tradition, familiar to many. Homer's description of the parallel supernatural fall

"the whole day long I was carried headlong, and at sunset I fell in Lemnos, and but little life was in me"

relates the fall of Hephaestus from Olympus in the Iliad I:591ff; the fall of the Titans was similarly described by Hesiod. Through popular epitomes these traditions were drawn upon by Christian authors embellishing the fall of Lucifer.

Jerome, with the Septuagint close at hand and a general familiarity with the pagan poetic traditions, translated Heylel as Lucifer. This may also have been done as a pointed jab at a bishop named Lucifer, a contemporary of Jerome who argued to forgive those condemned of the Arian heresy. Much of Christian tradition also draws on interpretations of Revelation 12:9 ("He was thrown down, that ancient serpent"; see also 12:4 and 12:7) in equating the ancient serpent with the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the fallen star, Lucifer, with Satan. Accordingly, Tertullian (Contra Marrionem, v. 11, 17), Origen (Ezekiel Opera, iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan.

In the fully-developed Christian interpretation, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Satan; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome gave it Biblical authority when he transformed it into Satan's proper name.
Click to expand...

and a cool picture...

300px-Paradise_Lost_12.jpg



It goes on to note that it is a non scriptural belief assembled from interpretations of different passages and as such falls under the heading of Christian Mythology. (not sure what the difference is between christian mythology and christian fact...)

The complete text can be found here:

Lucifer - Wikipedia
 
nds1 said:
I have Bible software on my PC which has a word lookup feature so I can look up a word or phrase and see everywhere it appears in the Bible.
.
Click to expand...
not to hijack the thread but could you do me a favor and look up the word
"REALITY" in the bible.
thanks.
 
I'm also sorry to go off topic, but just this one post. I had to post this story I found in the Bible. It's pretty funny.

Judges 3:17-22
17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man.

18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present.

19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.

20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.

21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly:

22 And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out.
KJV


dude was so fat that the knife got stuck in his gut. LOL.
 
SkinWalker said:
Unless they invent it first then pass it off as "knowledge" to the unsuspecting and credulous.
Click to expand...
Then you have to establish how something is clearly an invention - in other words you have to establish the general principles you apply (outside of mere topics of religion etc) to determine whether something is a fabrication or an observation of reality - alternatively you can just continue making confidence statements
 
The positive claim is that the magical and supernatural bullshit that religious nutters claim is factual. Therefore, the burden of "establishment" is on the nutters. Not the rational. Until such time as those making the claim can demonstrate their magical and superstitious "knowledge" to be factual, there is no reason to elevate the nonsense above myth. In other words: invention. Fantasy. Delusion.
 
SkinWalker said:
The positive claim is that the magical and supernatural bullshit that religious nutters claim is factual. Therefore, the burden of "establishment" is on the nutters. Not the rational. Until such time as those making the claim can demonstrate their magical and superstitious "knowledge" to be factual, there is no reason to elevate the nonsense above myth. In other words: invention. Fantasy. Delusion.
Click to expand...

thats all fine but aside from questions of religiousity and nutters, what are the general principles you apply (that can be applied to anything, whether it be religious or not) to determine whether something is factual (at the moment we are just left with a circular argument - that religion is delusional because it can not be established and that anyone who establishes it is a nutter because it cannot be established - if you want to climb out of this loop, you could determine what are th egeneral principles you apply to determine whether something is factual)
 
He's right, LG. You are being a post-modernist whacko.

You guys love to pretend that there is no truth, and that THIS is somehow an absolute truth that defies its own rule. You pretend that there are no coherent systems, and then you communicate with a language set that is consistent and meaningful to many people with different past experiences.

Post-Modernism is dead, friend. It was a fun way for untalented people to pretend that they had talent. The formula was for people to be unintelligible, and point to a lack of comprehension on the other side as proof of one's own genius. This bullshit led to the sell of painted circles for 6 figures, the worship of beat-poets, the Warhols, Nietzsche's, and stoned hippies sitting around a campfire talking about the sound a falling tree makes.

Post-Modernism doesn't work because it does the very things that it claims can't be done. So continue on with all of your pseudo-philosophical bullshit if you must, but please understand that this is why nobody takes you seriously, and most of us think you are an utter moron. (and that isn't an ad hominem, I'm not trying to argue anything here except for your lack of intellect, and by explaining how I arrived at that conclusion no fallacy was committed)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top