 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Moderators, Registered Joined: 13/02/2009(UTC) Posts: 3,094   Location: Probably not here Was thanked: 113 time(s) in 76 post(s)
|
sharinganerror wrote:Gildermershina wrote:sharinganerror wrote:Gildermershina wrote:sharinganerror wrote:Well, even in the bible it says that Lucifer was the highest ranking angel, being the angel of music and all. When he fell, he took all of the talent with him. No, it doesn't. You're thinking of Paradise Lost. No, I'm thinking of Isaiah 14:3-20. Until now, I've never even heard of Paradise Lost, nor do I associate myself with it. Lucifer is not mentioned at all in that, and the "Morning Star" Lucifer is not the same entity as Satan in the Bible, only in post-Biblical Christian literature. In fact, the fallen angel = satan reading is more appropriate to Islam than to Christianity, since there is no direct link anywhere in the Bible between the fallen angel/morning star Lucifer and Satan. The tradition of the fallen angel is pagan and refers to multiple fallen angels. Because of all the appropriated pagan myths in the Bible, people often mix and match different characters with those of post-Biblical literature, and yet they do not equate Jesus to Osiris or Dionysus, or any number of pagan other traditions of the God-man from the same period. Anyway my point is, Satan is given many many names in the Bible, but not one of them is Lucifer. can you read the Greek manuscripts? what translation have you read? How can you prove that "Morning Star" or the "Son of the Morning" isn't Lucifer? Wikipedia. And before you go all "Hah! Anyone can edit wikipedia you idiot!", what Wikipedia stated, plain as fact, over several different articles (and several linked non-wikipedia pages, including direct readings of actual biblical texts describing the Morning Star), was that there is no direct link anywhere in the Bible between the two figures, and that any link between the two has been made through translation and reading between the lines. Now, call me a traditionalist, but the whole point of the Bible is that it's the word of God. If God had meant to make Lucifer and Satan the same character, wouldn't he have been more specific and not darted around the issue at every mention? Additionally, I understand that the entire concept of Satan as the ruler of Hell is not mentioned in the Bible either, he simply acts as the voice of temptation to test the faith of Jesus, amongst others. The western conception of Biblical Hell is somewhat coloured by post-biblical literature, particularly the aforementioned Paradise Lost, which paints the apocryphal image of Hell as having a hierarchical physical structure based on the perceived level of sin. |
