Talk:Lucifer/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comment

I note that the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which is the second edition of the earlier volume of the same name edited by Mircea Eliade, has a separate article on Lucifer which is included in their outline as a part of "Canaanite mythology." If anyone here has access to either of those works, they would be very valuable sources for an idea of what to include here. I probably won't get to that book until next Monday myself, but I can try to remember to check it then if someone drops me a note to do so. But that book is the most highly regarded refernce work in this field that isn't clearly tied to any particular "school" of religious thought, and I read all the reviews I could find and found critical comments about some articles, but not this one, so I assume it might be one of the better indicators of what to include in this article here out there. Like I said, though, try to remind me over the weekend if you want me to check, because any attempts I make to have a "things-to-do" list pretty much disappears or becomes useless due to new developments fairly fast. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:John Carter for your input here. It's much welcomed and appreciated. I will check out my library to see what I can come up with. I live in Vegas, so resources here are plenty.  — Jasonasosa 04:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this Taxil's Hoax thing belong in this article?

Seems pointless to have an entire section about debunking something previously not mentioned on the page, only indirectly related to the article itself, and unlikely to have been known to the user beforehand. Shouldn't it be in a freemasonry article or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.233.115 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The section reports about the hoax and also (not exclusively) about the debunking, which was done by Taxil himself, not by Wikipedia. I think the section should be kept. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User talk:Esoglou. Luciferianism and freemasonry has been a subject of much debate.  — Jasonasosa 09:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Heart star icon

I think it worth detailing the heart star icon that has noticeably entered the forum or following of Satanists whether they be Anton LaVey's or not over certainly this past decade. In my opinion it should be informed in this article, with of course its own dedicated section, detailing where this obviously new spin of Satanism has come from, the why, the how, the what... and anything else that is relevant to this which will make anyone reading more educated about this now broader topic of the dark side. Any objections? Comments? Questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dawn Bringer or light bringer

"The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος[6][7] (heōsphoros),[8][9][10] a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[11] Kaufmann Kohler says that the Greek Septuagint translation is "Phosphoros".[2]" I don't know what Kohler's point is exactly. Phosphoros and Eosphoros are both Greek names for the Morning Star, but if the term is mentioned only once in the Septuagint, it can't be both. Looks to me like Kohler has slipped up - or someone has misunderstood his point. 121.73.34.172 (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Both ἑωσφόρος and φωσφόρος are used in Greek literature. This article is about the Latin term lucifer, when means light-bringer. Esoglou (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Lucifer VS Satan

I have the impression that this article does not emphasize enough on the difference between Satan and Lucifer as two different entities. Is it really the same figure/character/angel or is there actually a difference? The Seven Princes of Hell puts Satan and Lucifer as two parts of the seven rulers of hell (wrath and pride respectively). 88.89.42.79 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Rosemary Ellen Guiley, the source cited for the Seven Princes of Hell, is at all as notable as Milton and Dante, who identify Lucifer with Satan. In fact, I think the Seven Princes of Hell article should be deleted as simply not notable. Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Seven Princes of Hell isn't synonymous or limited to the source of its article... It is a well known part of Christian theology, (see Peter Binsfeld for one) and part of the Seven deadly sins. But this is not really a big part of my initial post. 88.89.42.79 (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The seven deadly sins are certainly a well-known part of Christian theology; but I confess that until now I never once heard of the "Seven Princes of Hell". Just my ignorance? Esoglou (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd never heard of them either, despite having done research in the area (not too deep, mind). I can't find many reliable sources either. Lithium (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The Guiley book in Seven Princes of Hell is a secondary source for an early modern exorcist's views. A few grimoires distinguish between the two (I'd have to dig for a second to find which ones exactly, but can), because there is no consistent mythology for hell. That said, Lucifer is the Christian version of the myth (with some fringe Jewish roots as with a lot of Christian ideas), Satan is the broader Abrahamic version. Satan's role as a cosmic prosecuting attorney in Judaism (rather than an anti-God Ahriman knock-off) needs to be emphasized over at that article.
That said, I would like Seven Princes of Hell either merged back into Christian demonology if it is not expanded (probably something in grimoires to expand it), but I recall some past resistance to mixing "pure Christian demonology" with demonology from occultists who claim to be Christian and are even Catholic priests. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I remember, Christian and "distinctly" occult material were put in separate articles, then eventually merged into Classification of demons, which I will be redirecting Seven Princes of Hell to, since it's just a repeat of material there, and any attempt to expand it would just be more material from there. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone just perusing this topic casually, it seems to me that the articles as they now stand need to be either merged or more clearly disambiguated, because they seem completely redundant right now.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucifer edit, true meaning

The true meaning of the name Lucifer has been lost throughout the many ages of translations and interpretations of the Bible. In the Beginning God created the firstborn son Jesus who was named Lucifer before being born as Yehoshua(Jesus). The name Lucifer has the meaning "light bringer" where as his twin brother the Devil is the opposite of light. When the Devil decided to lead the angels down to earth and disobey God he started becoming "the Devil", where as his brother Lucifer was doing the opposite by obeying God and doing everything he was told. That is why he is called someone who "was daily his delight"(KJV, Holy Bible, Proverbs 8:30) or "a master worker"(The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero713 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's the biggest load of rubbish I ever heard. Lucifer is Satan, as supported by many scriptural texts. Nowhere in the scriptures is Jesus referred to as Lucifer. How can Christ be "the Firstborn" if Lucifer is His twin brother? Bottom line, this is badly written and unsourced, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a reliable source anywhere to support these outlandish claim. WP deals in facts, not in the messed-up personal beliefs of its users. If you have a source for this information, state it! If not, this is nothing more than a messed-up personal perspective and should not be included in WP. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning there was god. Father son and holy ghost. The was no twin no firstborn son. There is one god made up of 3 figures. Morningstar was a name refferd to the Babylon god to tried to take on baal and failed falling the pit of the dead. That is a pagan story. Not Jewish or Christian. The Christian meaning of morning star is of Jashua who claimed the title while on earth. Jesus was the Greek name given to Jashua but he has many names and titles. He is god si has no twin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aithnea Aodhagan (talkcontribs) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review -and remove- Taxil's hoax

It strikes me that the article/section called Taxil's hoax is spurious and irrelevant to the main topic, setting up the article as a shielded forum for attacking Freemasonry. I am not a Freemason of any kind, but the issue is quite obvious to me. "Taxil's Hoax" should be removed, although if there is an article on Freemasons or Freemasonry and it flows from the content therein, it may be reconsidered particularly where the subject of various derogatory assertions about Freemasonry may be discussed in some context.

I should think that the pretense of balance in the section would not fool anyone; it is the essence of its irrelevance and not the balanced presentation of irrelevance that I am calling into question. No one is enlightened about the supposed nature of Lucifer by it, unless, perhaps, it is the unstated belief that Lucifer incited Taxil.

Frankly, I am shocked that such an abuse should have been included in a wikipedia article.William Hoffman (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

^I agree with this... although it is interesting, and Catholics specifically name being a member of the freemasons as a sin... I'd like to know why that is, and what the conflict is and has been... But it all does belong in a different article.66.44.115.196 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Anonymous

Lucifer the morning star?

The KJV Bible has to be the oldest english translation of God's word. How then does Jesus call himself the bright and morning star in that translation and on here this article says with straight out bias that lucifer is the morning star?24.181.13.230 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)TheIsraelite777

Jonathan Black, etc.

I have undone the insertion into the lead of the ideas that Jonathan Black presented in his The Secret History of the World: As Laid Down by the Secret Societies, which another editor seemingly believes to be a reliable source worthy of mention in the lead of the article rather than under "Occultism". Black's idea of the identification of the snake of Genesis 2 with a being called Lucifer followed Christian tradition. The insertion presents it as preceding Christian tradition: "Before the rise of Christianity". Not even Black says this. The insertion, placed immediately before "Christian tradition influenced by this presentation came to use the Latin word for 'morning star', lucifer, as a proper name ('Lucifer') for Satan as Satan was before his fall", made nonsense of that statement. The presentation that influenced Christian tradition was of course not Black's: it was pre-Christian "interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to Satan, and presenting him as a fallen angel cast out of heaven", as the article says. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't indicate the page on which Billy Graham supposedly said that the serpent of Genesis 2 was "Satan as Satan was before his fall", surely a strange idea. And you again put in the strained idea, irrelevant for this article, that the forbidden fruit of Eden was an apple and that the association of that supposed apple with the serpent and so with Satan and so with Lucifer and so with Venus the planet (quite a lengthily roundabout association!) had a parallel in the association of the Apple of Discord with Venus the goddess of sexual love (as well as with the goddesses Juno and Minerva). Esoglou (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
1) In the quote I linked the "page" (the digitized version of the text on Google Books is without indications of page) where for Graham Lucifer is the serpent according to a biblical foundation, and the serpent of Genesis is before its fall (prelapsarian status). The whole Christian tradition agrees on this fact, but there is not any mention in the article.
2) I consider of the utmost importance in the article the lack of any further exegesis according to a Gnostic and syncretistic mythology, not necessarily occultist.
3) Excuse me for a moment: what do you mean with "fall of Lucifer"? I think you do not mean fall from Eden (Gen. 3:14: "So the Lord God said to the serpent: 'Because you have done this, / You are cursed more than all cattle'"), but fall from the angelic choirs as in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite's De Coelesti Hierarchia. Thus the main problem seems to be this misconception. Is the article clear enough on this point?
Mauro Lanari. --79.3.37.91 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
1) Thank you for your explanation. I clicked on your citation of the book, which only brought me to its cover. It would have been less confusing if the link there brought the reader to the page that you were citing.
2) I don't understand this. Do you mean that you think it extremely important that the article should lack more "exegesis according to a Gnostic and syncretistic mythology, not necessarily occultist"? Or do you mean (as I suppose is more likely) that you think it extremely important that the article should not lack more information on Gnostic and syncretistic mythology? In this latter case, start a section on Gnostic and syncretistic mythology that can then be summarized in the lead. That's what the lead is for.
3) Of course I don't think that the serpent-in-Eden story is presented as happening before the fall-of-Lucifer story. It was your edit that said that Satan, as he was before his fall, was the serpent of Genesis 3: "Christian tradition ... came to use the Latin word for "morning star", lucifer, as a proper name ("Lucifer") for Satan as Satan was before his fall: the serpent that Genesis chapter 3, while describing the story of "The Temptation and Fall of Man," in verse 3:13 calls 'the tempter'." Esoglou (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
1) The tmp {{cite book}} allows the distinction between the URL of the book and the quote: I've used it. Anyway, no problem.
2) I meant: "I consider a problem of the utmost importance/relevance/seriousness in the article the lack of any further exegesis according to a Gnostic and syncretistic mythology." Yes, someone should start a section on this topic, but for which I do not judge myself an expert. So I simply added a postscript to a note of the lead, without editing it directly. I did not think it was a such (important/significant/severe) damage.
3) On this point it seems that I have problems with an understandable editing. Why then do you not fix it, now that we've clarified? Thanks, really.
Mauro Lanari. --79.3.37.91 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the only way I see of "fixing it" is to remove from the lead the complicated insertion that I would have difficulty in formulating even as a section of the article. There would be a strong smell of Wikipedia-excluded synthesis from any presentation of the idea that, because strands of Christian tradition identify the serpent of Genesis 2 with Satan, and because strands of Christian and Jewish tradition identify Satan with Lucifer, and because strands of Jewish and Christian tradition think that Satan/Lucifer is referred to in Isaiah 14:12, and because most scholars (those, that is, who do not think Satan/Lucifer is referred to in Isaiah 14:12 - surely a gaping break in the chain of evidence!) think the word הֵילֵל, which is supposedly applied to Satan/Lucifer in that passage, means the morning star, you can therefore associate the Genesis 2 serpent with the planet Venus. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It would already be a big step forward insert at least the simple concept: "strands of Christian tradition identifies Lucifer with the serpent cursed in Genesis (2-3)." That is, for example, what Billy Graham states and writes. And not only him, of course: see [1] or [2].
Mauro Lanari. --79.53.68.216 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The sources you mention do not identify the serpent or Lucifer with the planet Venus, nor do they provide grounds for non-synthetic linking the serpent and/or Lucifer with the Apple of Discord. You can't follow up what they say with: "As a result, 'Lucifer has become a by-word for Satan in the Church and in popular literature'". Instead, they are examples of how by their time Lucifer had already become a by-word for Satan. Try putting it elsewhere in the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I sensed that there was again a misunderstanding. What you say is related to the second point, and I've already answered: "Yes, someone should start a section on [Gnostic and syncretistic mythology], but for which i do not judge myself an expert." Instead what I asked you "to fix" is exactly this third point: could you help me in deciding where and how putting in the article these additional informations ("strands of Christian tradition identifies Lucifer with the serpent cursed in Genesis 2-3")? Thanks again.
Mauro Lanari. --79.23.69.162 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Demonizing the son of Aurora

To Mauro Lanari: To make Wikipedia say the ancient Roman personification of the morning star explains the use of the name Lucifer for the Devil, you must find a reliable source that says so. (Greek mythology did not use the Latin word "lucifer".) Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If the Roman mythology is basically a Latin translation of the Greek myths, and if Heosphoros/Phosphoros has been translated into Lucifer, he pre-existed to Christianity as divinities in Roman religion/mythology. Then if Christians have demonized him and why, it is a next step, but I do not think that this whole process should be excluded from the article.
Mauro Lanari. --80.181.182.61 (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That argument of yours is as clear an example of forbidden WP:SYNTH as can be imagined. The only place where the Vulgate used lucifer to translate a Greek word is 2 Peter 1:19 ("et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"), where it renders φωσφόρος, and you surely don't imagine that there either lucifer or φωσφόρος was ever taken to be a reference to Greek or Latin mythology. Of the other four instances of the Vulgate's use of the word (all as translations from Hebrew, not Greek), only in Isaiah 14:12 does it mean "morning star". In the other three uses it means "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the dawn" (Psalm 109(110):3). Only a statement of what a reliable source says "clearly and directly" (WP:V) can be put in Wikipedia, not a statement that an editor attributes to a source that he uses only as an element in an original-research argument or synthesis.
Matthias Albani says: "The Vulgate translates the Hebrew Helel as Lucifer who in Roman mythology is the son of Aurora." He does not say what you have put in the article with this edit, that "the Christian tradition has demonized [Lucifer] who in Roman mythology was the son of Aurora". This too is synthesis of yours to link Christian tradition with the mythological Lucifer son of Aurora. What Albani says is that "this account", meaning the interpretation in the Life of Adam and Eve of the fall of Helel as the fall of Satan and his angels (of which no trace is of course to be found in Roman mythology!), became widespread in Christian theology. Quite a different thing from what you are attributing to him. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Attributing to (pre-Enochic) Judaism modern interpretations of Is 14:12

I have had to remove the unsourced claim that "Judaism interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as an astronomical phenomenon which gave rise to a myth ..." The cited source says (as its own opinion) that Isaiah borrowed his account of pride followed by a fall from a popular legend, and it approves Gunkel's idea about the astronomical origin of the legend. It does not say that Judaism had that idea. The information in the source belongs to the "Mythology behind Isaiah 14:12" section, where it is already referenced. Esoglou (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Even worse: in fact, the reliable source attributes the idea to Isaiah himself and not to Gunkel, who simply agrees with this idea ("is undoubtedly correct [when he holds] that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth"). Your "modern interpretation" is an exegesis of 1895, fully accepted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, of a Hebrew or even more ancient idea and/or myth. This exegesis, available in an English translation of 2006, as every exegesis can not be evaluated on the basis of its modernity or antiquity, but of its correctness or wrongness. I gave you this explanation of astronomical origin already months ago, the only one that provides a justification for the demonization of Venus and of the king of Babylon, and from which emerge the features of deception and fall subsequently attributed to Satan and/or Lucifer, but did not find sources in English. I had them only in my idiom and on paper books, while not now. If you want to, expand the concept in a subsection, but this concept is so important that it must already be present in the lead.
Mauro Lanari. --95.246.66.47 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You rightly say that it is the modern Jewish source, not ancient Judaism, that attributes to Isaiah a borrowing of his idea from a legend about the morning star. Gunkel is another modern source in comparison to pre-Enochic Judaism, although page xxi of the introduction to the cited translation of his work says he is already out of date in seeing as of Babylonian origin what later scholars see as Canaanite. The fall of the morning star recounted in the legend is, of course, not an actual "astronomical phenomenon". We must also take account of the doubt cast by the cited Eerdmans Commentary on this view of the origin of the image Isaiah used, but I think we can say that it is the generally accepted view. Esoglou (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that this latest version of the article is the one far less POV, giving comparable space and visibility to the two opposite exegetical perspectives.
Mauro Lanari. --95.246.66.47 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucifer and King James version?

This opening of the article is a completely distorted definition of Lucifer:

  • "Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12."

Lucifer has nothing to do with the King James version, and has everything to do with the Latin Vulgate version. Roman Catholics used the Latin Vulgate translation of Lucifer for 1500 years before King James every came along, and Roman Catholic translations into any other language (not just the King James version) are still going to have "Lucifer".Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the article lacks a section on the process of personification of heōsphoros in Heosphoros, of phōsphoros in Phosphorus, and of lucifer in Lucifer, which occurred already in the pre-Christian Greek and Roman mythology. "Lucifer, as a personification, is called a son of Astræus and Aurora or Eos, of Cephalus and Aurora, or of Atlas. By Philonis he is said to have been the father of Ceyx. He is also called the father of Daedalion and of the Hesperides." (A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, p. 449). See also Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia Of Literature, p. 544.
Mauro Lanari. --80.181.182.61 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
To Jimhoward: In Isaiah, the Vulgate did not speak of Lucifer (the Devil or Satan). It spoke, not of the Devil/Satan, but of the morning star. Catholic translations into English are certainly not "still going to have 'Lucifer'". They don't. Nor do other translations into English. They translate the word more accurately. Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Revelation 22:16 King James Version (KJV) 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Explain to me this then. Because I don't understand. It was my understand the KJV was a great translation of the Bible.24.181.12.142 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)TheIsraelite777
Not even the KJV has "Lucifer" in Revelation. The KJV translation of the word in Isaiah is accurate only if the word "Lucifer" is understood in its original Latin meaning, i.e. the Morning Star, which may be what the KJV translators meant. Today, however, that is not what people understand by "Lucifer". Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Esoglou. I think TheIsraelite777 would like to know why the same epithet, "the morning star", is used in the Bible to refer to both the false idol of the Babylonian King and Jesus.
Mauro Lanari. --95.250.3.43 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
All I can say is: Why not? "Morning Star" is applied figuratively to many people, even apart from Christ and the unnamed king of Babylon (not his idol). It was applied in a song of praise of a Byzantine emperor, a song that was quoted in this article and maybe still is - I haven't checked. See also this short list of a few such people out of many. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
But mentioning these and indeed dozens of other people and things that have been called "Morning Star" in the past and in the present has nothing to do with the topic "Lucifer", which is what this article is about. Esoglou (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is not about "dozens of other people," but is the analysis, biblical and not, of the "religious figure" Lucifer-lucifer-Morning Star. Do you know someone else in the post-Jewish (=Christian) tradition considered more important of Jesus and Mary? This is a kind of information that I expect to find in an encyclopedia that speaks of "luci-fer". You're smart, suggest an alternative way to include such an element, so fundamental that it should be mentioned already in the lead.
Mauro Lanari. --95.252.136.133 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
You are right, the article is not about dozens of people other than Lucifer. The article is about Lucifer. The Latin word lucifer and its meaning as "the morning star" are pertinent only in so far as they explain the origin of this figure's name. The fact that others, no matter how many or how important, were called Morning Star is irrelevant. No light is thrown on Lucifer, the subject of this article, by the fact that "morning star" is a name in Greek (ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ πρωϊνός) for Jesus in Revelation 22:16, a name in Latin (stella matutina) for Mary in the Litany of Loreto, the name in German (Morgenstern) of the founder of games theory, the name in Sanskrit (Sitara) of an Afghan women's rights activist, an Indian dancer and a Canadian actress, the name in Chippewa (Wabun-Anung) of a leader of the Sault Ste. Marie Indians, the name of a lady in the Arabian Nights' Entertainments ... Esoglou (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary in the "Lucifer" article

I repeat even more succinctly: the attribution of the title Morning Star-"luci-fer"-Lucifer, in the Christian tradition does not stop where you want to, but also involves Jesus and Mary. This is of encyclopedic relevance and completely on-topic with the article.
M.L. --95.252.136.133 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the article about? (Just look at the title.)
Does Revelation 22:16 call Jesus Lucifer? Does Christian tradition call Mary Lucifer? Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If the content of the article was already fully completed in the title, almost like for self-evidence, then why any further analysis of meaning? Why don't we delete everything else? Or should you just stop where this analysis (of the Christian tradition) can risk creating problems of faith (hindrances[Matthew 16:23][Romans 14:13])? How much is your point of view neutral or due to your religious belief?
M.L. --95.252.136.133 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The article is about Lucifer. If there is anything in the article unrelated to Lucifer, it should be removed. The identification of Lucifer with Satan is pertinent, and should stay. The derivation of his name from the Latin word lucifer, which means "morning star" is pertinent, and should remain. But information, unrelated to Lucifer, about the morning star or about people, newspapers and ships who are called Morning Star does not belong. Nor does information, unrelated to Lucifer, about Satan, such as the United States being called the Great Satan. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope: religious/Christian informations related to Lucifer-"luci-fer"-Morning Star belong to the article. They are pertinent, have an encyclopedic relevance, therefore they must stay. Or do you really think the United States is a religious/Christian figure? Can you grasp the very subtle difference?
M.L. --95.247.66.23 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. The 13th-century and later Litany of Loreto is unrelated to the figure this article is about.
  2. If you think the number of invocations of Our Lady in that litany is 48, you are more than half a century out of date.
  3. In English it is not customary to indicate the accusative form when referring to a Latin noun. (Ma neppure in italiano; è forse diverso in marchigiano?) As we speak of "lucifer", not "lucifer[um]", so we speak of "stella matutina", not "stella[m] matutina[m]".
  4. In English, "the latter" refers to the last of two, not of three.
  5. Khomeini did link the United States with the religious figure of Satan, though not with Lucifer. Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL. I will answer "in marchigiano."
  1. Ma questa voce la stiamo redigendo solo noi due? Non interessa nessun altro? Non è possibile ascoltare ulteriori opinioni?
  2. Sono nato, vivo e abito a circa 40 Km da Loreto, le informazioni le ho per direttissima. I titoli della Madonna sono 48 nella fonte citata, prenditela con la Columbia University, non con me, se la loro lista anglo-latina non è aggiornata. Eccoti l'elenco degl'attuali 53 titoli, però solo in latino: http://www.reginamundi.info/SantoRosario/SantoRosarioLatino/litanieLauretane.asp
  3. Sì, in italiano (colto) il latino si declina, tanto più quando è una citazione. Andreotti, latinista, si scusò pubblicamente per aver scritto condicio sine qua non invece di condiciones sine quibus non (oops, ho scelto un esempio in cui pure gl'anglofoni suggeriscono la declinazione per il plurale). Quanto poi i Romano-Latini siano riusciti ad arricchire la lingua inglese, non lo so. Mi sembra assai poco.
  4. "In English, 'the latter' refers to the last of two, not of three": infatti facevo riferimento alle ultime tue due citazioni dell'Apocalisse.
  5. Khomeini e gli USA? Allora guarda qui: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Belzebu.jpg & http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-06-addiobelzeb.jpg
  6. Almeno ci stiamo divertendo pur trattando argomenti seri, seriosi, serissimi. Grazie, Esoglou.
Mauro. --79.55.191.243 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think your comments, which you said would be in Marchigiano dialect but in fact are in Italian, needed a reply. But I see I must say something. You presented no support whatever for the idea that there is a relationship between Lucifer and the 10th-century Byzantine emperor (the choir that greeted him would not dare insult him by likening him to the Lucifer figure), Mary the mother of Jesus or the title of stella matutina given to her in the Middle Ages (when to associate her with the Lucifer figure would be considered nothing short of blasphemy), or the ships of 19th-century missionaries (who would be shocked at the notion that their ships were dedicated to the Lucifer figure). Shall we just delete the Lucifer#"Morning Star" as a title section? Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Query about relevance of a remark on the devil

If the name "Lucifer" came into use for the Devil only some time after the writing of the Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible, and was thus not used by Origen, Tertullian and Augustine, is the information about the motives that Origen, Tertullian and Augustine attributed to "the Devil" for rebelling against God relevant as a section in the article about "Lucifer"? Would the account of Martin Luther throwing the inkwell at "the Devil" be relevant too? Would a mention of Acts 13:10, where Paul called Elymas a son of "the devil" be relevant? Or a mention of John 8:44, where Jesus himself said some Jews had "the devil" as their father? Including any of these seems to be a synthesizing of the proposition "this is about the devil" with the proposition "Lucifer is the devil", to produce the conclusion "this is about Lucifer". Isn't such synthesizing unacceptable in Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost the entire article is based on the conceptual distinction between the devil before and after the fall, i.e. the difference between Satan and Lucifer. These three authors before the coinage of the word "Lucifer" have provided two versions about the reason for this fall. Does it look to you an irrelevant information or without it is missing a fundamental point of this article?
M.L. --95.252.136.142 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil". The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."

Doesn't this show that, even after "the coinage of the word 'Lucifer'", there is no need to mention Lucifer in talking of the fall of the "fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil'", and that there are no grounds for claiming that the "Lucifer" article is the one into which one must put information such as the remark you want to insert or, for that matter, the statement in the CCC? The argument, "These three authors before the coinage of the word 'Lucifer' have provided two versions about the reason for this fall", smells strongly of WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
[3] & [4]. What do you think of these two Vatican official sources? Are even these not sufficiently clear and unambiguous?
M.L. --87.3.68.235 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think these two 19th-century sources could be cited somewhere in the Lucifer article without having in any way to resort to synthesis. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Quello che chiedi si trova in un articolo di Communio: troppi numeri pubblicati per poterlo ritrovare su cartaceo, scarsamente digilitalizzato e quindi irrecuperabile online pure sull'ACNP. In subordine, una ricerca su Google Libri fornisce una settantina di risultati: alcuni non pertinenti, altri solo in visualizzazione snippet, altri ancora che insisterai a giudicare poco rilevanti quanto un'enciclica papale: [5], [6], [7]. Non condivido il tuo modo di fare di tutt'un'erba un fascio: gl'autori citati cristiani a quale confessione appartengono? Mi pare quantomeno ovvio trovare delle discrepanze fra la demonologia cattolica e quella protestante/riformata, ortodossa, anglicana, ecc. Il tuo giustapporli così banalmente mi sembra di scarso rigore scientifico.
"Recentemente hai viaggiato un po'". No, è che quando vado a letto spengo il router assieme al pc, e quando lo riavvio il gestore m'assegna un nuovo IP (appunto dinamico). Il range/intervallo oscilla fra >70-xxx e <100-xxx. Al Santuario non torno più dopo avervi visto questi: degl'angeli (?) neri che m'hanno suscitato un senso d'angoscia e oppressione che ritengo anti-"evangelizzatorio".
M.L. -79.2.235.80 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Quando il mio IP cambia, rimane immutata l'indicazione geografica. Se ho capito bene, a te non succede così. Confesso di non capire l'accenno agli "angeli (?) neri". Ma non è questo il luogo adatto per conversare di cose simili. While we can discuss other matters on our own talk pages in whatever language we choose, here we should, for the sake of other editors, talk about the article and do so in English. You say that Google Books provides sources for (the equivalents in Italian of) Lucifer+envy+jealousy+God+man. So what? In the Lucifer article we can and should use reliable sources that speak of Lucifer. What I am questioning is the use here of sources that do not speak of Lucifer. You have also questioned above the use of sources from a variety of Christian confessions. I don't see what that has to do with the question of the relevance to an article on Lucifer of sources of any provenance whatever that do not speak of Lucifer. Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
1) I thought only evil angels were depicted black. 2) Here I have provided you at least one source that talks exclusively about the connection between Lucifer, envy, jealousy, God, mankind, Tertullian and Augustine. Did you notice? 3) If the oppositions on the exegesis of the serpent (Lucifer or non Lucifer) come from authors of different Christian confessions, this fact is of the utmost relevance.
M.L. --79.23.64.42 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Point 2 is the only one about this discussion. Sources that speak of Lucifer, envy, jealousy, God, mankind, Tertullian and Augustine can be used in the Lucifer article, but not sources that do not mention Lucifer. (Point 1 is not about the Lucifer article and would be appropriate only for our personal talk pages; and point 3 is not about the matter discussed in this section; so, if you wish, start another section for it.)
Now that you have provided the section of the article we are discussing with reliable sources about Lucifer, I have removed the irrelevance tag. The section is no longer irrelevant to the article. I have also removed from the part speaking of Lucifer the reference to the self-published commentary by Ron Corson, who says there is no such person as Lucifer, but I have left it as a sort of appendix for what he says about Tertullian giving jealousy as the reason for the fall of the Devil. Leo XIII's 1888 encyclical says nothing about Lucifer's motives and must be removed also. Nicolas of Dijon apparently treated "envious" and "jealous" as synonyms. Perhaps he was right. Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Finché non troverò, e ormai sono mesi, nessun altro interlocutore a parte te per questa voce, come fosse considerata una scemenza, continuerò a scrivere in italiano. O forse nemmeno: questa mattina mi si è bruciato il monitor, ti sto scrivendo da un portatile di fortuna e non so se e quando potrò tornare a collaborare. Non capisco perché insisti nel cancellare la parola peccato/sin: è un peccato parlare di "peccato di superbia e/o invidia e/o gelosia"? Lucifero è stato precipitato per un peccato di disobbedienza e/o ribellione, e le fonti lo chiamano così. Termino more or less provvisoriamente facendoti sapere che non esiste un dialetto marchigiano, qui il dialetto già cambia a ogni quartiere della città, peggio ancora per chi, come me, ha studiato "fuori sede" (Roma, Perugia, Padova) ed è un ibrido a parte (see idiolect). T'auguro buona prosecuzione "in solitaria". Ciao. Mauro. --79.3.37.227 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Dimenticavo: ma tu hai mai studiato demonologia? Il peccato del diavolo è eo ipso il peccato di Lucifero, non ce ne sono altri e le traduzioni delle encicliche papali non sono certo sbagliate. Tutti gli angeli precipitati sono, per la tradizione cattolica, le "schiere o milizie di Lucifero", al che la tua ossessiva distinzione fra Diavolo e Lucifero lascia il tempo che trova. Peggio pure con Satana: per i cristiani è Il Precipitato, ma per il libro di Giobbe un suo ministro obbediente. --79.3.37.227 (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You object to the removal of "the sin of" on the grounds that it was because of Satan/Lucifer's sin that he was cast down. Pride or envy/jealousy was what the cited writers gave as his motive for rebelling/falling. The sinfulness of his action wasn't his motive but instead, as you yourself say, that aspect of his action because of which he was cast down. You are quite right to suggest that this should be made clearer. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your considerations are OR. Sources say "Lucifer's sin" and our/your reasoning here on Pedia worth zero. Here we are allowed only to quote them, nothing else and nothing more. --87.20.66.66 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the cited sources say: "As for the specific reasons for Lucifer's fall, some patristic writers suggested pride, others envy"; "The majority view ... held that Lucifer's sin was pride (superbia) ... The minority view ... held that Lucifer's sin was envy (inuidia), more specifically envy of humanity ..."; "... allorchè parlarono della natura del peccato del primo Angelo ... una lussuria spirituale ... un'avarizia spirituale ... una superbia, che gli fece desiderare di rendersi simile a Dio, e di salire il suo Trono ... Per me ... un peccato d'invidia ... La sua superbia lo rendè invidioso contro il suo superiore, cioè contro Dio ..." Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that, I think by some miracle, I managed to make you understand the importance of this point, do the pleasure of mentioning it at the end of the lead. Otherwise I will by myself. --87.20.66.66 (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here it is

"3) If the oppositions on the exegesis of the serpent (Lucifer or non Lucifer) come from authors of different Christian confessions, this fact is of the utmost relevance. -M.L."

"Point 3 is not about the matter discussed in this section; so, if you wish, start another section for it. -Esoglou"
It's up to you. M.L. --95.232.16.89 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The tag placed on the section "Serpent of Genesis 3" ("The material near this tag may contain information irrelevant to the article's main topic") directs here for discussion. One could well argue on other grounds that the section does contain information irrelevant to the article's main topic, but it is hard to see what the comments posted here have to do with the relevance of the section. The section is about "Christians", not about "Protestants" or "Catholics" or what have you. All the writers whom it cites seem to be Christians, whether Protestants such as Mungovan, Graham, Ansley and Milton, or Catholics such as Nowell, and there are several whose affiliation is unknown to me, but perhaps not to you, namely, Pallister, Tromp, Jonge, Luttikhuizen and Gregory. If you really want to start a separate section for each Christian confession, you have a difficult task before you. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mauro, for what reason do you claim that the material concerning the Genesis 3 serpent is irrelevant to the topic Lucifer? Since all you say here is that the fact that the views are expressed by writers of different confessions is relevant, what can be the grounds of your claim that the material is irrelevant, not relevant?! The irrelevancy tag that you have restored needs to be explained. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Esoglou, if I understood correctly, but I'm not sure, above you've already done a (re)search on the Christian confession of those authors/writers. Why do not you add these relevant information in the article? Ps: conversely, why do you judge irrelevant a section on the battle between the archangel Michael and Lucifer with his troops/militia? Grateful thanks for your attention. M&L. --82.49.4.242 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You have tagged as irrelevant to Lucifer certain material in the article. In what way is that information about the serpent in Gen 3 irrelevant to Lucifer? That is the question here. Anything else is a red herring. I've already said that your objection about the diversity of denominations among the writers already added to the article is no argument against their relevancy. So what is your objection? Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
My objection is very simple: I disagree. Would you prefer another type of tag, such as {{expand section}}? Ps: grateful thanks for your kind and utterly comprehensive reply about the section on the battle against archangel Michael. --82.49.4.242 (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The tag that you have placed and that directs here for discussion claims that the material near it is irrelevant to Lucifer. Whatever it is that you say you disagree with, you have said nothing whatever about any supposed irrelevancy of what is in that part of the article, but have instead suggested adding to what is already there ("expand section"). So the irrelevancy tag that you have placed remains undefended and must be removed. Esoglou (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)