Talk:Lucifer/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


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 (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 (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. (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). (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. (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. (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? (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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:
  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: &
  6. Almeno ci stiamo divertendo pur trattando argomenti seri, seriosi, serissimi. Grazie, Esoglou.
Mauro. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. - (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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)

Category:Supernatural (U.S. TV series) characters

On 27 October 2013, I added Category:Supernatural (U.S. TV series) characters to the bottom of this article.

On 28 October 2013, Jgstokes undid my edit on the grounds that the category was added “without explanation.”

On 29 October 2013, I re-added Category:Supernatural (U.S. TV series) characters to the bottom of this article, including the following description:

Added Category:Supernatural (U.S. TV series) characters since Lucifer was an important character in multiple seasons of Supernatural and was the primary antagonist throughout season five.

About an hour and a half later, Jgstokes again undid my edit, this time on these grounds:

Undid revision 579232244 by allixpeeke (talk). Your explanation is not sufficient. First you must prove that the Lucifer in this series is the same Lucifer this article is about.

In an effort to ensure that this does not devolve into an edit war, I’m including my explanation here for review.

First, as I said, Lucifer is a pivotal character in the show Supernatural.  But, this isn’t just any ol’ entity named “Lucifer” this is the same Lucifer described in this article.

  1. The Lucifer in the series is an archangel who rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven by his brother, Michael.  This article is about the same Lucifer who battled Michael, as indicated by the article subsection titled “Conflicts with Archangel Michael.”
  2. In the series, Lucifer is essentially what most would describe as a “fallen angel.”  In the introduction to this article, it reads, “[T]he form of Judaism witnessed to in 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch…gave Satan an expanded role, interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to him, and presenting him as a fallen angel cast out of heaven for refusing, according to Jewish writings, to bow to Adam, of whom Satan was envious and jealous.”
  3. In the series, Lucifer began as God’s most-beloved creation.  After the creation of humanity, Lucifer rebelled against God because he was jealous of the love God bestowed upon humanity, and incensed that God had commanded that humanity be loved above all, despite the flaws thereof.  In the “Motives of rebellion” subsection of this article, it reads, “As Lucifer’s or Satan’s motive for rebelling…, Christian writers mention…envy of humanity.”
  4. In the series, Lucifer is described as the light-bringer and the Morning Star.  In fact, when he escapes from his cage in Hell, a blinding light is emanated.  Moreover, when Lucifer possesses a human vessel, his internal glow is so strong that it begins burning the skin of his human vessel.  Or, as the very first paragraph of this article reads,
Lucifer…is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12.  This word…occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-influenced Strong's Concordance means “shining one, morning star, Lucifer”.  The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate…meaning “the morning star, the planet Venus”, or, as an adjective, “light-bringing”.  The Septuagint renders הֵילֵל in Greek as ἑωσφόρος…, a name, literally “bringer of dawn”, for the morning star.

In summation, the notable character in the series Supernatural named Lucifer is the same Lucifer as described in this article.  There’s really no ambiguity.

If there are no further objections in the coming week, I will then re-add the category to the bottom of the article.

Best regards,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for bringing the question for discussion here rather than edit-warring. You deserve commendation. I think it is best to give Jgstokes a chance to reply before making any substantial comment myself. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Angel Heart (1987): "Cast. * Robert De Niro as Louis Cyphre" redirects here. I don't understand why the article mentions only Dante and Milton as examples of Lucifer in art. M.L. -- (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, allixpeeke. That was all I was looking for, an explanation. Now that you have explained your edit, I have no objections to re-adding the category. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool.  I took the liberty of re-adding it.  I’m happy this resolved both quickly and amiably.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed ODJR ref (misreading) from lead

I've removed this section from the lead as overweight, unworkable and contradicted by the main academic source on Slavonic Enoch:

The pseudepigrapha of pre-Christian Enochic Judaism, the form of Judaism witnessed to in 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, which enjoyed much popularity during the Second Temple period,[2] gave Satan an expanded role, interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to him, and presenting him as a fallen angel cast out of heaven[3] for refusing, according to Jewish writings, to bow to Adam, of whom Satan was envious and jealous of the power over the earth granted to Adam,[4][5][6] motives to which Christians were to add pride, which they mention more frequently than envy or jealousy with regard to humanity.[7][8][9]
  1. ^
  2. ^ Jackson, David R. (2004). Enochic Judaism. London: T&T Clark International. p. 2. ISBN 0-82647089-0. 
  3. ^ Berlin, Adele, ed. (2011). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Oxford University Press. p. 651. ISBN 0-19973004-0. ISBN 978-0-19973004-9. The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ... Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)." 
  4. ^ David L. Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Eerdmans 1992 ISBN 978-0-80283634-2), p. 15.
  5. ^ Tony Kessinger, The Devil Is in the Details (CrossBooks 2010 ISBN 978-1-61507462-4), pp. 32-35.
  6. ^ Michael J. McClymond, Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford University Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-19979160-6), p. 276.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cain was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference one was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference two was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The main problem here is The pseudepigrapha of pre-Christian Enochic Judaism ... interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to him which is supported only, possibly, by one verse in 2 Enoch which the editor of the standard edition says is a Christian interpolation.

The question of whether the passage in 2 Enoch, 2 Enoch 29:3 Here Satanail was hurled from the height together with his angels, which the standard scholarly work Charlesworth's editor says is probably a Christian interpolation, relates to Isaiah 14:12 needs dealing with way down in the article, not presenting as a large paragraph and fact in the article lead. There needs to some scholarly support for the claim that Jewish OTP literature interpreted Isaiah 14 in relation to a fallen angel before we present it as fact in the lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I approve and am pleased at your removal from the lead of that excessive material. The body of the article is the place for it. The editor who insisted on including it is no longer active on Wikipedia. Adding discussion on whether the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion was referring to 2 Enoch 29:3 (it doesn't do so explicitly) would have made the article even more top-heavy. Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Just so long as there's no suggestion in the article that the interpretation of Lucifer is Jewish rather than a later Christian misunderstanding no problem.

Angel Heart

Angel Heart (1987): "Cast. * Robert De Niro as Louis Cyphre" redirects here. I don't understand why the article mentions only Dante and Milton as examples of Lucifer in art. M.L. -- (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer. Thanks. M.L. -- (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As much as I love that movie, there needs to be academic works that focus on De Niro's portrayal. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Television story

The following idiosyncratic account seems to me unsuitable for inclusion in the article on Lucifer at least in the section dealing with views held by Christians (plural), not the fancies of a single individual Christian. But I open it for discussion here:

Theologian Dr. Jaerock Lee [Reference: "Mideast Israel Book Fair". The Associated Press. Retrieved February 20, 2011. ] says in his TV message that “Besides the duty of serving God the Father, Lucifer was in charge of music.

While serving God the Father for long ages, Lucifer watched what God did. Lucifer also saw the great authority of God the Father who governs the entire spiritual realm. Once Lucifer came to the conclusion that she could defeat God if all things went well according to her plan, she put her plan into action one step at a time. Using all her wisdom, Lucifer made a plot, won over many, and rebelled against God. Lucifer was perfectly defeated, and confined in the deep darkness along with those who followed her. Like this, the rebellion of Lucifer was brought to an end, and the peace was all over the spiritual realm once again. However, as God the Father began the Human Cultivation in earnest, He released Lucifer and the dragons so that they could reside in the second heaven.” [Reference: "Lecture on Genesis(18)". GCN TV. Retrieved 2009.12.11.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)]

Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I'm looking around and something has me curious and confused. You're referring to Lucifer as a female. Is this tied to a Television story of this Lucifer being in charge of music? My understanding of Christian theology isn't a main-focus study of mine, but I've read several transcripts and books of the nature. Also, the point about the dragons and a second heaven. Is this in accordance to the branch of Christianity, Mormonism, where there's (if I'm not mistaken) three branches of heaven? I'm looking forward to the input, I think this is a worthy subsection in the article for inclusion considering there are several branches of Christianity, and considering the sources we have for it seem to be legitimate. Thanks for opening up the discussion. Hopefully we can get others who have more theological background in here to accompany your obvious interest and investment in the subject as well.Complete turing (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one referring to Lucifer as a female. It's the author of that piece that was inserted into the article. Yes, he does repeatedly refer to Lucifer as female, except in the last word, "him", in the quoted extract, which somehow slipped him by. I don't know what sex he attributes to the "dragons and other angels" that he speaks of as beguiled by Lucifer. Perhaps as entertainment, you are looking forward, you say, to more input about this one man's idiosyncratic ideas, drawn out of his own head, but do you think they deserve inclusion in the article? Esoglou (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Taxil material

Ian, thanks for keeping this article on your watchlist and fending off undiscussed additions deletions. But actually I'm thinking that IP deletion of the Taxil stuff has a point, it is massively overweight. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of Isaiah 14 as fallen angel in OTP

"gave Satan an expanded role, interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15, with its reference to the morning star, as applicable to him, and presenting him as a fallen angel cast out of heaven[18]" needs expansion and full text citation. An interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 as applicable to "Satan" is at best an outlier in OTP, and needs fixing in specific book and time. It was not carried into mainstream rabbinical Judaism, and evidently unknown to early Christians who continued to use Lucifer as a title of Jesus. I have added (I think restored) the 2 Peter Vulgate use of Lucifer to refer to Jesus as the change in Christian usage of this word is the major point. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What is OTP?
What the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion says of the expanded role that the Jewish Pseudepigrapha assigned to Satan can be read here.
On what grounds do you state as a fact that the word φωσφόρος/lucifer/"morning star" in 2 Peter 1:19 refers to Christ? Esoglou (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Those are great questions. I did a cursory search for OTP on Google and came up empty for the context it's used in. Looking at the KJV of the bible at the relevant verse yield no mention of "morning star" whatsoever. It is just talking about Christ. It references him as the "day star" but that is not the same thing. Christ refers to Himself as the "morning star in Revelation 22:16. That's what I was able to dig up in a cursory search. I guess we will have to wait for In ictu oculi to clarify what s/he is talking about. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Esoglou, OTP means Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, such as the Charlesworth volumes. And yes exactly, as far as I can see that source ODJR says nothing about "Lucifer", but is talking about "(a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)". So specifically which OTP "misinterprets" Is 14:12 prefiguring Tertullian? On Lucifer in Christian usage for example the Anchor commentary series on "Lucifer" in 2 Peter 1:19 has a good summary of sources. Or see the refs I've added for the hymns.
Hi User:Jgstokes, thanks, what I meant is that the article needs to better sourcing for a pre-Christian identification of Isaiah's Lucifer with the Job Satan, or with the Gen6 sons of God material. Since most sources account this interpretation to Tertullian a pre-Tertullian Jewish source needs to be documented clearly. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary says: "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)". Isn't the whole idea of the demonic Lucifer based on that same (mis)interpretation of Is 14:12? So in what sense does the Oxford Dictionary say nothing of the figure to which the name "Lucifer" has been given?
I think the Oxford Dictionary is what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Questioning it would require citation of a reliable source that disagrees with it.
Do exegetes all agree that φωσφόρος in 2P 1:19 refers to Christ? The sources indicated here do not treat it as a closed question.
The use by speakers and writers of Latin of the word lucifer to mean the planet or as a description or name for various people does not necessarily exclude their use of the name "Lucifer" (in Latin) also for the demonic figure. The situation is radically different in English. Esoglou (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Esoglou, it's generally true that "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)" but to be of any value in an article we'd need to state which OTP. To be honest I'm a bit surprised by the claim, though since my own copy of Charlesworth is in storage and my current University library doesn't have a copy I can't check it via the index.
Yes, as far as I'm aware, all sources agree that Lucifer in 2P 1:19 refers to Christ or something related to Christ such as Barclay. If there's any source counting the 2Pe1:19 Lucifer as anything other than Christ/something related to Christ it would be interesting to have that alternative view and a source for it - but the one thing the 2 Peter 1:19 isn't is a fallen angel. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Then we agree. I can't imagine that anyone (other than someone who ignorantly took the Latin word lucifer to mean what the English word "Lucifer" usually means) could think that "donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris" referred to Satan/Lucifer. And interpreting the phrase as certainly calling Christ himself the mere morning star and not the bright sun is not unanimous. (I think old Gill rejected that idea and opted for interpreting it as referring to the signs of the return of Christ.) It would be ideal to have indications of what the contributor to the Oxford Dictionary based his conclusion on. But we have to be satisfied with something less than the ideal. Esoglou (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Then back to this claim that has found its way into the lede that the OTP has a reference pre-Tertullian to Isaiah 14:12 as a fallen angel. I have to say I can't find it in Google Books: for instance. The place you would expect to find a fallen-angel interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 is in the Enochic literature 1 Enoch, Jubilees - and yet there seems no evidence of one there. We could just leave it in the article without proof, even though the citation given doesn't support or document a specific reference, or we find someone whose Charlesworth isn't in storage....? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem then we are left with now is that we are claiming that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the pseudepigrapha ... on the basis of "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ... Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)."}" when (a) the cited quote doesn't claim that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the pseudepigrapha, (b) no other source does, (c) as someone fairly familiar with all the OTP, and with the Is14:12 tradition I doubt it does, I really doubt strongly that it does, but I don't feel confident to delete it without access to Charlesworth. So given that this content probably is wrong, what should we tag it with in the mean time? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Esoglou can I ask what specifically makes you think the contributor to ODJR is claiming that Isaiah 14:12 appears in the OTP? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The Dictionary describes successive stages of the picture of Satan: the first stage, as in the Tanakh; the third, in Tannaitic literature; the in-between stage is what you quote, beginning with "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ..." and ending with "Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)." What tag can we possibly put on a statement that has that as a basis? Can we actually go further and even delete the statement without first citing some source that contradicts it? It doesn't say that the Pseudepigrapha explicitly quote Isaiah 14:12. It only says that the picture of Satan that emerged in the Pseudepigrapha is based on their misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. Admittedly, harder to pinpoint a quotation for. (Of course, there is no suggestion that the name "Lucifer" or its equivalent in other languages was applied to Satan in the Pseudepigrapha.)
Would there be any help in writings about the Jewish-Christian Ascension of Isaiah? You can judge. I'm no expert.
Or is this of any help? Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The clip from the ODJR only opens a small box for me in Google Books not whole page, are you seeing whole page? The bit I am seeing "The notion of Satan as the opponent of God and the chief evil figure in a panoply of demons seems to emerge in the Pseudepigrapha ... Satan's expanded role describes him as ... cast out of heaven as a fallen angel (a misinterpretation of Is 14.12)."}" does not say that the Jewish picture of Satan that emerged in the Pseudepigrapha is based on their misinterpretation of Isaiah 14:12. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As I thought, I've now managed to access Charlesworth Vol.1 and the only references to Isaiah 14 are Christian interpolations. This is what we'd expect as Charlesworth's 2 Enoch contributor says p149 2 Enoch footnote Christian explanations of the origin of evil linked Lk 10:18 with Isa 14 and eventually Gen.3 so vs 4 could be a Christian interpolation. In the Byzantine tradition Satan's revolt took place on the fourth day, not the second as here. Jewish theology concentrated on Gen 6., and this is prominent in the Enoch cycle as in other apocalypses. I will add this to the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, added that in. Looks to me like 4 jobs needed now:

(1) merge all the etymology material into 1 section not 2.
(2) put Judaism before Christianity (even though Lucifer is a Christian interpretation)
(3) check that DSS has nothing
(4) get rid of the incorrect claim that Isaiah 14 is developed in the pseudepigrapha In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It isn't just a "clip". Click on the page number on top and you get the whole page, and indeed all the pages in the Google Books preview. To assist others too, I have now added to the mention within the article a link that goes to the relevant page and not in the form of a "clip". Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Esoglou, scholarship says that Second Temple ideas of fallen angels were based on Genesis 6 not Isaiah 14. If you want to add the claim that pre-Christian Jewish sources interpreted Isaiah 14:12 in relation to the fall of Satan then you need to do it either from Charlesworths OTP or some similarly scholarly expert source, or from a similar source on the DSS. You need to also specifically document the claimed Jewish text which thus interprets Isaiah 14 and cite from it and date it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion surely falls within the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, even if an outweighing source were also cited. But since the lead has been freed from mention of the matter ODJR was cited for and from other material unneeded in a lead, may we now let this discussion die? Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm coming at this without prior involvement at @In ictu oculi:'s request, skimmed the conversation before I got my caffiene, then mainly stared to the problematic part of the article and sources for it while getting caffeinated (instead of fully following the conversation), so some of what I'm going to say is probably going to overlap with stuff already said (but maybe that'll help with other people coming in, dunno, still pretty tired from moving furniture and cleaning the past few days).
Even though I only believed that the Satanic interpretation of Is 14.12 was a post-apostolic Christian invention, ODJR is RS enough that I imagine we'd almost need a retraction from them to actually remove something sourced to them. Schaff-Herzog (which I added a quote for in its citation) also states "Heylel (Isa. xiv. 12), the "day star, fallen from heaven," is interesting as an early instance of what, especially in pseudepigraphic literature, became a dominant conception, that of fallen angels." Schaff-Herzog does otherwise trace fallen angels to Genesis instead of Isaiah, though, with that quote in context being part of an overall development starting with Enochic interpretations of Genesis (p.399-400). That said, I am dissatisfied with how they do not state which text(s) this happens in (I suppose it's possible the exact text was lost or something, like the Q source).
In Charlesworth, a footnote for 2nd Enoch 29 calls the section a "form of the Lucifer myth" (vol 1, p. 148 of my copy), but mentions likely Christian interpolation. It deals with the creation of angels from fire, one group of angels deviating from serving God to trying to create his own throne next to Him, before God threw him from heaven. Neither text nor footnotes make any connections to Isaiah, however, beyond the footnotes mentioning Lucifer. The introduction to 3 Baruch (p. 658) also discusses the fall of Satanael, saying "he is probably identified with the figure in Isaiah 14:13f, who falls from heaven," citing influence from 2 Enoch. Were I to try and shove OR on the article, I'd use 3 Baruch as an end date for when the Christian interpolation of Satanail in 2 Enoch occured, and suggest that the interpolation could have been by a proto-Christian Messianic group. I won't, but it doesn't leave me opposed to mentioning 2 Enoch as the most likely example while noting that it's still probably Christian interpolation.
TL;DR: mention 2 Enoch as the most probable candidate (or the best example or something), while noting that it's just as likely a Christian interpolation, and cite Schaff-Herzog 399-400 to say that most of academia traces fallen angels to Genesis, with the Luciferian interpretation of Isaiah being a later development. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Can you tell is 3 Baruch the still partly Jewish Slavonic recension or the totally Christianized Greek recension? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for delayed response, been moving Granddad, still need to reacquire some stuff his neighbors borrowed. It's the Greek version. The intro mentions that the author plan(s/ned) on doing a translation of almost different Slavonic version later, but it's not in Charlesworth's OTP v.2. I'll try to see if I can find out if/where the author did the Slavonic, and if I can get ahold of it at some point. If the Luciferian fall is mentioned in the intro or footnotes for the Slavonic, that would give us more reason to mention it and 2 Enoch. My OR comment about interpolation was under the assumption that 3 Baruch's mention of Satanail was Christian, while the 2 Enoch interpolation could have possibly proto-Christian; but (without the Slavonic) I could just as easily see both being shoved in there by early Christians instead of proto-Christians. Since it's not our job to decide, I I'm for putting it all out there and letting God sort it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson, it would be quite amazing if that Slavonic source had anything relating Isaiah's king of Babylon to a fallen angel, rather than vice-versa. As long as we reflect scholarship that the source is heavily Christian interpolated there's no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Gaylord's full and finished translation of the Slavonic appears to be unpublished. Looking through OTP again, I see I slightly misread in my initial distracted skim of the intro: OTP includes an earlier draft of the Slavonic translation in parallel with the Greek, despite labeling and titling itself a translation of the Greek (though Gaylord also says the Slavonic is based on a lost Greek version). The intro later goes on to suggests Samael as the Jewish precedent for Satanael, rather than Isaiah's Lucifer (which it treats as Christian or, if pre-Christian, proto-Christian). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

the name/word "Lucifer"

I spent the previous 13 years observing the commandments inside the Bible and obeying more than I did before.

I found that in the original English bibles (the bibles that were written before Christopher Columbus was alive) did not have the name/word "Lucifer" in their copies. It wasn't until America was formed that someone removed some words inside their own bible copy and replaced those words with the name/word "Lucifer".

In doing that, they went against God because God said: (Revelation 22:18-19): "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, that are described in this book."

The original English bibles have this in Old Testament: (Isaiah 14:12): "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground and had laid the nations low!"

So, you see, someone removed the words "Morning Star" and placed the word "Lucifer" there and they were not suppose to do that.

The fact is, God never mentioned Satan old name (When he was a heavenly angel) because he lost his place in heaven and therefore, and as "The book of Revelation" says, he is only known as: The Dragon, Satan, The Devil and The Ancient Serpent.

It's a fact, the name "Lucifer" is bogus. Someone invented the name "Lucifer" to give people the impression that they knew more about Satan than others, they were wrong. God commanded: Thou shall not lie. Therefore, those people should not have invented the name "Lucifer" because it's been a lie all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclark1973 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Jesus the Lucifer

I may be wrong, and when I have time will need to look at article history, but I have the recollection that the information that the Latin word Lucifer was originally understood by Christians as / used in the Vulgate as, a title of Christ was placed more prominently in earlier versions of this article. As it stands there's an out of sequence hint in the lead, then buried down at the bottom of the article. Is it our job to cover this up? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of what is in the section "Latin word lucifer". Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, hidden at the bottom. It should be clearly in lead, it's the original and in the Vulgate main meaning of the term. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
By "the Latin word Lucifer was originally understood by Christians as / used in the Vulgate as, a title of Christ", do you mean that in the Vulgate the Latin word lucifer is used of Jesus? It isn't. And/or do you mean that the Latin word lucifer was originally understood by Christians as a title of Christ, and only later of anybody else? What reliable source says that? None. Esoglou (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Look in Google Books, plenty of sources say it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Then cite one or two that say Christians at first used the Latin word lucifer only of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Originally, that should be easy enough. Okay I will beef up this maybe next week. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Jesus referred to himself as The Morning Star in Revelations 22:16. This article states Lucifer means the morning star, so there is enough evidence to say in the article that Jesus is Lucifer, or at the very least referred to himself as Lucifer. I assume the Bible is acceptable to wikipedia as a reliable source. Here is the quote from Revelations 22:16 (NIV), "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."Arnold1 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)