Talk:Lucifer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Organization

This article strikes me as somewhat disorganized due to the variety of different uses discussed, with some sections containing repeated or overlapping information. If nobody objects, I may try to organize the information based on use of the term Lucifer - i.e., discssion of it's use in reference to Jesus, in reference to Satan, in reference to other Judeo-Christian figures like john the Baptist, each in their own sub-section under a larger Judeo-Christian heading. And then similarly have sections for basic etymology and use in other mythologies like Graeco-Roman and Caanantie. As of now, I find it very difficult to use this article for comparing historical usages of the term Lucifer OR for learning how it developed into a name for the Devil, because information on both topics is scattered piecemeal throughout the article. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the use of lucifer for Christ (only in Latin, never, I think, in English) is worth a section. Mention of it serves only to show clearly that the word does not necessarily mean the Devil. Only for the same purpose is its use in Latin for John the Baptist or for some poet's lady love worth a mention. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that, this article is more about the name "lucifer" than about the idea behind it. Especially in the Islam section, I see the contradictions. Is it about the devil, is it about the morning star? (in Islam they are both two seperate figures). If we focus on "lucifer the devil in Christianity", I would suggest to merge it with "Devil in Christianity", giving a section about the development of Lucifer and removing the Islam section (or transfering it to the corresponding articles (Iblis and Venus in Middle Eastern Tradition or something the like)). The Bogomilism could be a seperate section within the "Devil in Christianity" article, especially it already seems to encompass Catharism (who got some of their ideas from Bogomilism). It is only in Christianity, there the Devil was equalized with "the Morning Star".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Having worked on this now a bit I see your point. I'm wondering if maybe the confusion of this article is that it's trying to force several topics with the same name into one topic. Lucifer seems to be primarily two things - first, a Latin word meaning light-bringer or shining one or what have you. Second, by application of this, a name for the planet Venus in Ancient Rome, which was (only occasionally) personified in poetic form and never really thought to be a god. Third, a name for the Devil, based on what seems (by consensus of scholarship) to be a mistranslated phrase (or at least a poor translation choice) in the KJV Bible.

I recommend we go a step farther and make this a disambiguation page. The current Judaism, Christianity, Latin, and part of the Islam section should be merged into the article on Satan and/or Devil in Christianity, since that's really what they refer to, with a note on the DAB page that Lucifer can be a name for Satan in some religious traditions. The Canaanite section also belongs in Satan because it's talking about the origin of the "fallen angel" motif and its link to the apparent motions of the planet Venus. The Classical Mythology section seems like it should be its own article, something like "Venus (planet) in Mythology", maybe with some of the Canaanite material added (and it would need a significant section on Babylonian/Sumerian myth, e.g. from Inanna) and maybe merging with Phosphoros. We could put the Islamic morning star material here too. I would suggest merging all the morning star material into Morning Star but that is already a disambiguation page. Finally, we need a page for the modern occult/neopagan uses of the term Lucifer in reference to a being or deity distinct (at least somewhat) from Satan. What do you think? Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, to makes this a disambiguation page. If we merge it with "Satan", we should make clear the parts we move are well soures, since the "Satan" article is currently GA and I don't want to endager its status. For example, the Islam-section consits of merely three things, that are basically already mentioned in both the "Satan" article and its Main-article "Iblis". Only the notion of Iblis in relation to "light" is something new, but I am going to add a section in "Iblis" including this anyway. Thus the Islam-section about "the Devil" could be deleted entirely (the only relation between Iblis and Lucifer is their comparation, we could simply add "Iblis" in the "See also"-section of "Devil Christiantiy". The Canaanite section could fit into the "Historical development"-"Hebrew Bible" section of the Satan-article. The idea for a new "lucifer as "lightbringing-deity" sounds good, but I am undecided wether this can be explored without any link to the Christian Devil. It seems to me, that the "Lucifer distinct from Satan" is, even not seen as Satan, related to the Christian Devil or a new/re-interpretation of the Christian Lucifer. They both root directly in the misinterpretation of this myth. I would suggest it could also be a sub-section for "Devil in Christianity" called "protest interpretations" or "Western occultism", since in some writings (such as those of the Satanic Bible) Lucifer is intented to be a merely protest-figure, clearly intented to invert the Christian Devil (Such traces can also be found in Occultism, there "Jehova is "Satan" and Lucifer/Christian Devil the liberator). I think such as section would fit well to a Bogomilism-part, again the Devil is rooted in Christian tradition, but it is not the Devil of "mainstream-Christianity". Thus, I suggest, the "Christian Devil" would contain a section for "The Devil directly related to Christian traditions but differing incertain viewpoints such as occultism, bogolimism or Neo-Paganism, but I am uncertain wether or not, this idea is too daring. Otherwise, I think "Lucifer the liberator" could also have its own article with being mentioned in the Christian Devil article in "see also" and mentioned in the disambiguation page.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. As far as the Occultism stuff I was thinking more of Lucifer in Aradia and other such things rather than Crowley or LeVey type Satanism or Luciferianism, but that could probably go in other articles and just link to the relevant topics. I started creating a page for Venus in culture to consolidate historical interpretations of the planet and its related myths. Once we copy over the relevant material to Satan and/or Devil in Christianity, someone can turn this current page into a DAB. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think a "split-tag" would be necessary? I mean, probably there are other authorswho are not aware of our current discussing. I would think, since the basic idea takes ground, we should tag it with "splitting" or something the like and wait a day, before we merge the concent of this article with others. Regarding Aradia, I was not aware of them. Although I am interested in occulitism, my knowledge is merely of European and Oriental occultism. I do not know much about Lucifer in Aradia (heard about Aradia the first time). Yes, in the article "Venus in culture" we could take much content of the current article. We could even shorten the stuff we would take to "Satan" (just in case, it would interfere with the current build) and ust take over that is really necessary. It is also an article (Venus in culture), there the Islamic narrative about "Zohrah" could go (although I would suggest to rewrite it, if you want, I would try to do this, since I was also the one, who added this myth here in the first place). If there is no objecting by other users, I think we can copy all this and turn it DAB, yes.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As I saw, the splittag would even be displaced, since it is for articles with one certain content that can be split into two, but in our case it is one article about a name (that is not even in accordance with the wikipedia standarts) instead of a topic sorting into the corresponding articles.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many dab fixes you just created? Almost 650. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't know what a "dab fix" is, please see WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says what you are supposed to do before changing an article into a disambiguation page. Also, WP:MOSDAB discusses how disambiguation pages should be formatted. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Dinoguy2, your edit just doesn't work. There already is a disambiguation page for Lucifer. Yours is a duplication, and not an improvement. And you have simply deleted, not moved, much of the information. Where now is the sourced information on Isaiah 14:12? Is that not worth preserving? It seems to be the principal part of the article we are discussing. If you prefer, change the name of this article to make clear what is its main theme, and then move elsewhere (not necessarily delete) anything extraneous to that main theme. I am undoing your edit, at least provisionally, so that it can be discussed before (if I am wrong) becoming definitive. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, it seems like the best course of action is what I originally suggested, that we just organize this page in a way that makes sense. What should the topic of this page be? As of now it seems to cover a mishmash of etymology of the Latin word “Lucifer”, material related to the name “Lucifer” as the ancient name for Venus, the issue of mistranslation in Isaiah and subsequent folklore about the devil (all the Isaiah material is already covered in other articles by the way, including Satan, Devil in Christianity, and now Venus in culture), Lucifer as used in various occult traditions, plus some material about the Satan in Islam that has nothing to do with the name Lucifer. If we are not going to merge this with the dab page, then it should probably be renamed to “Lucifer (religion)” or something and leave the stuff about the planet and general stuff about the devil out of it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that exactly is it about? Can we at least remove the Islam section? I recently improved it, but the basic idea of Lucifer in Islam, was simply a comparation with Iblis, by an editor, and finally, Iblis is not Lucifer, nor did Iblis derived from Lucifer. Iblis is the same as Samael from Midrashim lore and Satanael from "Life of Adam and Eve", but not "the morning star", nor is Iblis "trying to usurp God's throne". Both figures derived from the notion of Satan, but evolved unrelated to each other. The Venus part is found in Venus mythology section and, although related to Venus, not realted to Lucifer as the Christian Devil.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. It sounds like Iblis does follow the basic pattern of all the Venus myths and is based on the Christian tradition of Lucifer's fall. Obviously, this would have been before the actual name "Lucifer" was applied by the KJV. But as it's a variant on the same mythological motif (the motions of the planet Venus seeming to aspire to the seat of heaven then being cast down by the Sun as a metaphor for pride before a fall), I think the argument could be made for keeping it. Maybe it should be moved to the new Fall from Heaven section as another example of the Venus myth. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we could put it in there: "his Jewish tradition has echoes also in Jewish pseudepigrapha such as 2 Enoch and the Life of Adam and Eve." since "life of adam and eve" is propably exactly the source, from which Iblis derived (if not, it would be the questions of bartholomew). As I know, Islam also do not relate Iblis to a babylonian king in any soure (I didn't read this passage from the Bible in any Islamic source either) nor is there a song about a "king" who is interpretated as reference to Satan in Islam (as far as I know). The Pharao is sometimes related to "the devil", but even if a historical person (such the "king" or in this case the "pharao") he is clearly seperate from Iblis. (for example Sufis refer to the two "most evil creatures: "Iblis" and "Pharao", but not that Pharao is Iblis or the like.) Furthermore, Iblis didn't tried to reach for the highest seat in heaven, he never tried to replace God in Islam. (In the Umm al Kitab, Azazel at least claims to be a Godbesides Allah, but still, it is unthinkable in Islam, that God could be overthrone. In Islam, God is a constant, saying Allah can be overthrown is like stating 1+1=3 for the Islamic conception of God. (for source, you could read about Amira El Zains work about the Jinn or overwise in the corresponding articles on this Wiki ("Iblis" and "Fallen angel") Therefore it lacks the basic motif of Lucifer (a being, that strives for the heaven and is cast out). Only the idea of "Shayatin" striving towards heaven, may resemble the idea of "striving to heaven and being cast down", but I would object this connection for these reasons: 1) The "shayatin" are rather ambigious, they can be demons, Iblis or jinn. If they are jinn, they are not heavenly beings, unlike Venus and Lucifer. 2) they to not striving for the highest seat or the boundary of the heavens, but only try to enter the gates of heaven, but are warded off by angels. 3) Tobias Nünlist mentioned an Orientalist (who wrote an enormous work about the Jinn-belief in Islam from 800-1500 unfortunetaly only available in German) relating this tradition to rather a Gnostic interpretation of heavenly objects. To regard this verse of the Quran as an interpretation of Lucifer would be a forced interpretation. Therefore, we don't have the concept of "a heavenly being trying to access the highest plane, thereupon being cast down". There is only a Satan-figure who seems to have the same origin. Accordinlgy I suggest to downlplay the significance of "Devil in Islam here" and mention him only in the "fall"-section as an idea, that was later influenced by this tradition. edit: I could not find much about "Lucifer, deity in Classical mythology either. Neither by Google Books nor by Google scholars. Not by entering Classical mythology neither by Greek deity or something the like.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal

I think that Lucifer needs to be split into Lucifer (mythology) and keep the Lucifer from the Bible in the current title . (Lucifer) The reason for my split proposal is due to the Lucifer in mythology is different than the one in the Bible. Felicia (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What mythology? Classical? Christian? Canaanite? Babylonian? Modern esoteric? Some say that the application of the term "Morning Star" to the king inveighed against in the Bible is an application to him of a mythological figure. Some maintain that the relative Christian mythology is in fact Biblical. The proposal needs greater precision. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The sugegstion was made over a month ago and there was no discussion, nor is the exact intention behind the proposal clear, can we remove the tag again now?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer is a Latin/Roman/Italian god; article over-emphasizes later Christian usage

Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god similar to the Greek god Phosphoros (possibly syncretized as most Roman gods were), and article has too far too much emphasis on his later incorporation into Christian mythology, so I've marked it as non-neutral. I won't consider it neutral until it's focused on description of that god in pre-Christian times and mentions his addition & alteration into Christian mythology as a secondary, minor note about later changed/derived versions. Wikipedia isn't 'Christopedia;' students/scholars of pre-Christian Greece & Rome may not really care, and it's important to have the full history of Western culture in articles pertaining to it through eary BCE.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The assertion that "Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god" is mistaken. Lucifer started as a name for the actual morning star. Personification followed later. Even when personified and thereby deified, the morning star has no "ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" stories that could act as a basis for Christian "Lucifer mythology". This has in Isaiah's picture of a fall of the morning star a much more natural explanation – indeed an obvious explanation – than the hypothetical origin in a "Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" divinity. What reliable source can be cited for the idea that "Christian mythology" about Lucifer and his fall derived from ideas about a Latin/Roman/Italian god?

In any case, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia. In Latin, the basic meaning in that language would come first, but – in line with "the principle of least surprise" – in English the by far commonest meaning in that language must come first. How would people react to you if you told them: "I saw Lucifer in the sky this morning"?

The insertion of the Louvre sculpture as the leading illustration is out of place, since a merely lateral sculpture within the image is only "perhaps" a representation of Phosphoros, the morning star. I have moved it to the Mythology section. Iúil (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure he did; though obscure, I've read about it from various sources, and here's one probably considered reliable (as another, top, encyclopaedia, don't recall it's citable here: ) 'Lucifer, ( Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn'--Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Lucifer | classical mythology.' So, because of that, I'm restoring to the top, the Roman sculpture of Phosphorus, which in his article, states Lucifer was their name for him.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've developed a (sub)section on classical mythology covering that aspect. and put at the start a neutral image that does not refer to the usual idea of what Lucifer means nor of course does not show a sculpture in the Louvre Museum that perhaps includes (the interpretation given first place in the description) Castor and Pollux or perhaps instead (a secondary interpretation) Phosphoros and Hesperos, a sculpture, therefore, only remotely connected with this article. Iúil (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The only comparable deity in Greek/Roman pantheon would be Phosphorus. Many mythological figures have similarteites. For example, both Azazel and Prometheus share the notion of introducing hodden knowledge. Although some scholars suggested, they might even derive from the same figure, they are both distinct, both in motif as well as in "back-story". We can not simply conclude that every type of figure is actually the same mythological entity. The source given states "Lucifer, (Latin: Lightbearer)Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (1608–74) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase “as proud as Lucifer". But we already have an article for that here "Phosphorus (morning star)". Of course we should mention and explain possible origin legends of the myth itself, but do not conclude that the fallen angel Lucifer is the same as the Greek/Roman Lucifer/Phosphorus, although both might be an itnerpretation of the morning star. Same for the "Category: Lucifer". It should rather be "Category: Phosphorus (mythology)" or something the like. Why changing the meaning of an article, than it is obviously about the Christian Lucifer, which played a significant role in in several Christian influenced cultures as a fallen angel? Wikipedia is not the right place to promote "news" or something "shocking" or "unique". It should be comprehensive yes. It should cover different views, including the mythological background, yes. To be honest, I think the article focusses too much on that "Lucifer" is NOT Satan, since in Medieval Christianity, they are indeed assocaited with each other. THis seems to be rather "synthesis of material". An article should not be about words but about its content, but it seems it rather foucesses on whter or not, Lucifer is a proper name for Satan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences). And since there seems to be no mythology associated with a deity called "Lucifer" directly, the sub-category Category: Lucifers children are also undue, probably Original research merging different deities/angels, who are associated with the Morning Star.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"but do not conclude that the fallen angel Lucifer is the same as the Greek/Roman Lucifer/Phosphorus"

It is what our sources do, and common knowledge enough to be reflected in pages like the Theoi Project. Where Eosphorus/Lucifer are considered the same deity with two names, not two deities with some similarities,

"than it is obviously about the Christian Lucifer" There is no Christian Lucifer, just a Latinized translation of a Hebrew verse. And the identification with Satan has been rejected by authories such as Martin Luther and John Calvin as reflected in the text.

There is no original research involved. Two of them are Lucifer's children in classical mythology, one is Lucifer's child in a neo-pagan tradition of Italy. And already covered in each of the article.

"And since there seems to be no mythology associated with a deity called "Lucifer" directly" Jumping into concusions again? Ignore its association with Greek mythology and Roman mythology to privilege Christian misconceptions? Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Martin Luther is no good arguement since he downplayed many mythological content of the Bible. Such as translating Leviathan as a sea-monster, the Seraphim as torches and so on. The King James Bible explicitdly calls the Fallen Angel as "Lucifer". Many Christian traditions use "Lucifer" as the personal name for the Devil. Many Demonological/Angelological works use "Lucifer" as a proper name among angels/demons. Wether or not, the application of "Lucifer" to an angel was undue or not, is not the matter of debate (although it should be discussed on the article) but it happened and Lucifer became a common name for Satan or the Devil. AS far as I remember John Milton also used Lucifer as a name for a fallen angel and he was already after Martin Luther. Since Martin Luther had no established doctrine of angels/demons, we can not rely on his personal opinion to determine whether or not Christians regarded Luther onwards Lucifer as a name or not. If there is a notable dispute of usage of "Lucifer" as a proper name in recent centuries, we can make a section for that. But I doubt that we will find them. This reminds me of a similar isue n Islam project: Since "Azrael" is not used neither in Quran nor in Sahih Hadith some Muslims opposed to apply the name "Azrael" to the Angel of Death. Nevertheless, this name was canonized in Islam. Similiar, although the name Lucifer is only a misstranslation, it became the name of the Devil.
• I am not ignoring the fact that "Lucifer" might have a sbeen pirit/deity before. But I do not get the relation between 1) Isaiah 2) Fallen angel Lucifer 3) Greek/Roman Lucifer, except they might all have an oririn in Venus myth. But a myth concerning the Planet Venus exists all over the world, even in Turkic and Hindu mythology, but with no relationship to Phosphorus, Isaiah, fallen angels or something the like. The "http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer" also relates "Lucifer" to the Enochian traditions, of an angel called Satanail, who opposed the "Prince of Light". I am checking further source, to determine how the pagan deity Lucifer is connected with the angel Lucifer and whether or not the Greek Deity Lucifer is even notable as a creature on his own. If the letter is true, I would recommand to make an entirely else article for Lucifer in Classical mythology.
• I can not find much about Lucifer in his "Classical Role" in the following source: "From Gabriel to Lucifer: A Cultural History of Angels", "Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages", "The Fall of the Angels". Albeit it mentiones that his name is related or similar to Heopshorus, they are, as I said before, not regarded as the same (That makes sense since they became two distinct entities). Christianity does NOT regard the pagan deity as Lucifer (Although Christians believed that Pagan deites were fallen angels in disguise), but simply applied a misstranslation of itnerpretation within the the Bible to their own corresponding fallen angel/Satan. "The Fall of the Angels" is the closest to your assertion, that in Classical mythology, "Lucifer" (here "Helel" is translated as Lucifer the son of Eos. But still Eos gives birth to Phosphorus, wh is not the Lucifer fro Christian traditions onwards, there he is a fallen angel).
• To conclude: I am not ignoring that there was a "Lucifer" Deity, but just disagree with that they are the same, just because they are both morning stars. Please provide something that identifies them with each other, apart from their name or their interpretation of the Planet Venus.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I found this [The Devil: What Does He Look Like?] on page 19 with a short notion abuot an ancient figure called Lucifer and that it seems New Ageer use Lucifer in a positive way (just as much many tend according to the source, to regard evil as either necessary or absent). I guess a New Age section is missing and we could add it here, also refering to "Lucifer" in his mytholigcal relation to something "non-satanic". But unfortunetally, the source does not speak much about it and turns back to Satan after this short reference.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) edit: Here is also soemthing about Lucifer and Satan as distinct, but here it is Satan who is a servant of Lucifer. The latter still a fallen angel [ https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/177831/una-theses-0159.pdf?sequence=1](I remember something vague that in Medieval Age, Lucifer and Satan were sometimes distinct, but one of them the keeper of hell, the otherone the ruler. Does anyone else here knows something abuot this tradition?)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer and Sub-Categories.

Recent edits created a Sub-Category for "Offspring of Lucifer" and a Lucifer Category. The issue I see here is, that this merges differnt myths together. We also have a Phosphorus article, this article is based on the Lucifer tradition that derives from it. Although both are the same in origin, I suggest we treat them distinct. For example, the notion of "Eos" is undue to Lucifer as a fallen angel. Neither Bogomilism nor Occultism (Especially not Christianity)regards Lucifer as the Son of Eos. It is even contradictionary to its representations as one of the first angels (that is a common motif, which derived from the Greek Lucifer). The Classical Mythology section shows us, how Lucifer evolved but it is not the Lucifer this articles focusses on. Therefore I suggest to keep the Eos and new Category: Lucifer out here and further suggest to rename the Category:Lucifer to something like Category: Phosphorus or Category:Venus (Greek Mythology).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to chime in here to note that I have no problem with the issues you outlined above. i believe all of that can and should be corrected, as long as it can be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. That said, I also think a discussion here about this is appropriate, and I'd caution both you and the other editor involved in the back-and-forth edits on this page to remember this rule. The back-and-forth reverts come close to a point of being concerning in terms of that particular policy. I would therefore additionally propose that no further edits be made in relation to this matter until there can be some kind of consensus regarding the concerns you laid out here. I did think about jumping into this issue myself, but the particular concerns are beyond my expertise. I am also a little leery about the portrayal of Lucifer as a "myth". Any Christian who believes in the Bible considers him to be anything but a myth, and the use of the term "myth" in that respect could be seen as not sufficiently neutral. These are just some thoughts from me based on what I have observed, and my intent in commenting is to hopefully stop an edit war and prevent problematic policy issues. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Any Christian who believes in the Bible considers him to be anything but a myth" Why? There are only a hand-full of references to Lucifer in the Bible translations, and they are not about a fallen angel. They are about an unnamed king of Babylon, a human:

• ""How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?'" "
• "For the unnamed "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed. They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began, or Nabonidus, and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib. Verse 20 says that this king of Babylon will not be "joined with them [all the kings of the nations] in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever", but rather be cast out of the grave, while "All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house", pointing to Nebuchadnezzar II as a possible interpretation. Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers. " Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree taht we should find a consens here first. "Myth" is used as "Mythology is the main component of Religion. It refers to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred on Wikipedia Religion and mythology rather than we use myth as a synonym for a "lie" or "fiction". We also have ategories such as Islamic mythology, while it is obvious Muslims do not regard it as a lie or fiction.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I am not sure which version of the Bible you are using, what I can tell you is that, those religious entities which use the King James version have a clear indication therein that Lucifer is not a myth, as there are numerous references to Lucifer, both direct and indirect, therein. It would be unwise, I think, to base anything in this article on references to only one version of the Bible, while excluding all others. Lucifer is also known in the Bible as Satan, and the Devil. So here are a few web pages I could find right off the bat that lists references to him in each of those terms:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/lucifer?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/devil

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/satan

And although I have pulled these pages with the references from the King James version, with which I am most familiar, I think you will find similar references in various places of other versions of the Bible. And with that in mind, it would hardly be subjective to pull assertions in this article from just one version of the Bible, as that might include details excluded in other versions. And I just ran another internet search for "Lucifer in the Bible", with the following results that are not specific to just one religion or school of thought:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS791US791&ei=_hecXP7TD4bW_wTj1regDg&q=lucifer+in+the+bible&oq=lucifer+in+the+bible&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l8.4793.9517..10085...5.0..0.312.2206.9j7j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67.s2lHIMhXGGU

These resources may be a springboard for any subsequent research you may choose to do on this. I would certainly suggest you look at however many of them you are able to before we talk about any wording that may not be neutral enough according to Wikipedia standards. But whether you do or not is certainly your choice. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

How exactly does a Latter Day Saints Movement Webpage matters? Three links for one source. If it is about the term "Mythology", on Wikipedia it is used not as "fictional". I will quote an explanation from the Category Islam mythology here: "Islamic mythology is the body of traditional narratives associated with Islam from a mythographical perspective. Many Muslims regard these narratives as historical and sacred and believe they contain profound truths. These traditional narratives include, but are not limited to, the stories contained in the Qur'an". Just as we have "Christian mythology". Otherwise we can not refer to mythology to anything. It is not ment judgmental.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not "three links for one source". More like three pages of definitions of Lucifer from a single religion's webpage. There is a difference. For Wikipedia terms, it is not neutral phrasing to describe a religiously-significant being as "mythological", especially when that idea and terminology are not verified by a reliable source. If you want to find such a source to verify that, we can discuss this further. Until that time, I'd recommend leaving the article as is. And anyone else reading this can feel free to chime in as well in the meantime. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Everywhere on Wikipedia we refer to religious/mytholgical figures as "Mythological", but I guess taht is not the main issue we have here. I am more concerned witht he ongoing edit, whether or not calling Lucifer the son of Eos or the like is appropiarte or not.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Lucifer is also known in the Bible as Satan, and the Devil. "

Not the same being at all. Lucifer refers to a king of Babylon, Satan to the figure making wagers with Yahweh in the Book of Job, and the Devil is completely absent in the Hebrew Bible. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sure what you said about the Hebrew Bible is correct. But limiting the material in this article to the interpretation of the entity Lucifer to a single Bible would be a mistake, and would not be neutral whatsoever. Some have knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, some (like me) have knowledge of the King James Bible, etc. In order to maintain the status quo of neutrality in this article, a careful balance needs to be struck between the various interpretations of Lucifer. Just some additional thoughts from me. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is indeed excessively restrictive to limit "Lucifer" to the meaning that has become predominantly attached to an early-17th-century translation (in a sense, a mistranslation) of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is obviously not (nor is Wikipedia about it) Hebrew Bible. It does not matter whether or not, that the Biible says. Lucifer is the Devil commonly but not exclusively identified with Satan. For example we find Lucifer as one of the archdemons in demonology classification as the demon of pride. I gave above something about Lucifer ditinct from Satan. Lucifer was already applied to Satan before the mistranslation first time by Origen (you can check the fallen angel or Satan oarticle for further sources).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is certainly not about the Hebrew Bible. What is it about? It is not the equivalent of an article with the title "Lucifer (Devil)". Lucifer is indeed commonly, but not exclusively, identified with the Devil/Satan. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Tertullian Adv Marc 2.X.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-29.htm#P4440_1434746 This refers to the cherub in Eden not Isaiah 14. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No reference in Adv Marc 5. XI either, removed as WP:OR, or just plain wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Tertullian says explicitly, with reference to Isaiah, "hic diabolus erit" (column 514A). Bealtainemí (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at this later. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is referred to as Lucifer in Latin in verse 2 Peter 1:19 in The Bible, why was this removed?

Latin:

"et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

English:

"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

As m editor mentioned, "This is the English Wikipedia. In English, the word "Lucifer" doesn't have the same meanings as the Latin word "lucifer".

Meanwhile in the article, it mentions that Lucifer means different things and is used in different ways such as meaning "The Morning Star", "planet Venus", "Satan", "The Light-Bearer", so why is the article hiding the fact that the word "Lucifer" was also used for Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19? Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bible wasn't written in Latin. The cited verse was written: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Furthermore it does not state that the φωσφόρος it speaks of is Jesus. The English translation you cite also does not use the Latin word lucifer and does not state that the "morning star" of which it speaks is Jesus. Read WP:OR. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually phosphoros (φωσφόρος) means Lucifer in Greek. By the way, it is referencing Jesus. 2 Peter is supposed to be a letter from the apostle Peter, talking about how Jesus is not a myth but the heard a voice from heaven saying "this is my beloved son"when they were with Jesus on the mountain (2 Peter 1:16-18). It's clear that they are referring to Jesus. Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lucifer (DC Comics) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Origen

Given that the idea was popularized by Origen, more properly sourced *facts* about Origen's interpretation are required. A large amount of fancruft towards the end of the article could be binned. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I must undo your edits. With fourth-century sources or later they make "Lucifer" a name for Christ and a Christophoric name for Christians until (!) in the first half of the third century Origen spoiled things by applying the name to the devil. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot just delete a large chunk of sourced material because you don't know this or like it. It is a well documented fact, and should not be removed because of later ideas. Were you not aware of this content? Or are you aware but have removed it from the article before? I only ask because I believe that this article used to contain information on the early Christian uses of the name as Christophoric. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Or if you're going to block this content maybe we need to move it wholesale to a separate article Lucifer in Catholicism for the Catholic understanding only? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sourced material? For instance, you say that the name "Lucifer", until Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) applied it to the devil, was a name for Christ as in the late 4th-century Vulgate, and that the name of Lucifer of Cagliari, who died well over a century later than Origen, was Christophoric. Is all this "a well-documented fact"? Bealtainemí (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's a well documented fact - outside Catholic literature of course. What fact are you disputing? Do you have a reliable source that contradicts any of the sourced information that you removed? (surely you didn't think that Lucifer of Cagliari, or the various other Christians with that name, were named after the king of Babylon?) I should remind you also the deletion of sourced material can be counted as vandalism, so unless you have any sourced information contradicting the sourced information you have deleted you should restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I await some, any, indication of sources, of any kind, that document it as a fact, that show it to be sourced information. WP:UNSOURCED. And, of course, I don't think that the two historical Bishop Lucifers and your unsourced "various other Christians with that name" were named after the Latinized form of Isaiah's nickname for the king you refer to, nor after the metaphor in 2P, rather than after the star, as the various people called Mercurius were named after another star. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Bealtainemi, I'm going to ask one simple question. If you only want Catholic teaching regarding Lucifer in this article, in which article do you propose the early Christian usage of "Lucifer" in a positive sense to refer to Christ be placed? For example the Lucifer hymns, Lucifer in 2 Peter 1:19, Lucifer as a Christian given name. Do we need a separate article Lucifer (Christ)? That would seem ridiculous to me, but I want to hear how you propose to accommodate these uses on en.wp if not in the Lucifer article? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin. In English, Christ is not called Lucifer in hymns or 2P 1:19. Nor is "Lucifer" a specifically "Christian given name". We know it was the given name of two documented Christian bishops, but it may have been theirs before they became Christians, as almost all the first Christians mentioned in the New Testament got their names before becoming Christians.

I certainly don't "only want Catholic teaching regarding Lucifer in this article".

Isn't the section "Other uses" quite enough? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So you have agreed to restore the information you deleted and are now only wanting it placed in a postcript the end rather than where it would naturally chronologically go? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course I have not agreed to restore that nonsense edit, which instead of talking first of "the more common meaning in English" of "Lucifer", chooses to talk of a meaning "Lucifer" never had or has in English. To speak of the use of the Latin (not English) word in the Vulgate, the nonsense edit gives precedence to the word's very last appearance in the Vulgate, ignoring its earlier appearances (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Ps 109(110):3, Is 14:12), in none of which it has the metaphorical meaning that the nonsense edit wishes to elevate to first place. It declares without source that the mention of the morning star in 2P 1:19 has no relation with its mention in Is 14:12, although in both places it is used metaphorically with reference in one case to Christ, in the other to an unclearly identified king. Without source, it declares that the reference to Christ "was the dominant meaning among early Christians as illustrated by the dawn hymn Aeterne rerum conditor". Early Christianity is the period of Christianity that ended with 325, but the hymn in question is attributed to Ambrose (c. 340–397). The nonsense edit also supposes that the Latin-speaking early Christians used their language differently from their contemporaries, for whom the usual or dominant meaning of lucifer was the physical morning star. Again without source, the nonsense edit declares that the personal name "Lucifer" was "Christophoric", whatever that means. Immediately after saying that this name was borne by Lucifer of Cagliari ((d. 370 or 371), who was a bishop, a Christian, the nonsense edit declares that the use of "Lucifer" as a Christian name was brought to an end by the "later" (later than 370?) identification of the Isaiah 14 figure with a fallen angel by the not later and not Latin-speaking Origen (c. 184 – c. 253), and cites as support the phrase "This notion goes as far back as Origen" in a source in which, unless I am mistaken, "this notion" means the idea that pride was the cause of the devil's fall. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Bealtainemí You inserted a Catholic source that's not accessible, or is it just me having this issue? Other than not having access, I assume it's entirely written in Latin as stated in the reference "Language=Latin", a language I don't understand. The source has been applied to "Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14" which is an opinion, an unnecessary insertion to the article that should be removed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand "which is an opinion, an unnecessary insertion to the article that should be removed". Do you mean that, unlike Origen's, Tertullian's opinion is unnecessary and should be removed? Surely you don't mean that, because the reproduction of Migne's Patrologia Latina is hosted on a site called "Documenta Catholica Omnia", it thereby becomes an opinion that must be removed! If I can remove the doubt that you have raised about the legitimacy of giving Tertullian's opinion along with Origen's, I'll replace the Documenta Catholic Omnia link with a link to one of the six Google-provided reproductions of the whole of volume II of the Patrologia Latina. Columns 230−524 of this volume contain the five books of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem. The Documenta Catholic Omnia site reproduces these columns separately from those that give other works of Tertullian. I'll also give a link to one of the English translations of the Adversus Marcionem. I apologize for the oversight by which I omitted a translation this time. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, you removed content concerning Origen. I have verified the source but the content itself needs to be better elaborated and honest. See Page 62. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll try to find out what is the content that you refer to. Perhaps you will help by identifying it for me. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Bealtainemí I read the source that I provided again. It never mentioned "Lucifer" but "Satan" which is more fitting to be applied at the Satan article. But it does note that the Vulgate translates the Hebrew name Helel to Lucifer which would be fitting in the lead of the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I never questioned Tertullian's views but this insertion you made in the article Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14. He wrote in Latin of course which I don't see why that matters though in this article, but "also understood bible verse Isaiah 14:14" is an opinion. Of course he had his own interpretations, and I'm sure many Church Fathers had their own interpretations. Overall, it's an unnecessary bias statement. JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Bealtainemí - let me make this clear that you do not get to talk to me, or indeed any other editor about a "nonsense edit" when your contribution is simply to have deleted information from the article about early Christian usage of Lucifer. It seems from your admission now that the information needs to be in the article that you simply were not aware of other Christian usage of the term.... Which does not indicate much expertise or competence on your part, does it?

Anyway, you can correct your deletions by indicating how you will allow the other Christian usage to be included in chronological order ahead of the Origen interpretation. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think that, "in chronological order", post-Early Christianity Vulgate was ahead of Early-Christian Origen, who does not call Christ a morning star? (Or that Tertullian, who also identifies the Isaiah 14 figure with the devil and doesn't call Christ a morning star, wasn't in his mid-twenties by the time Origen was born?) The article does deal with the application to Christ of the Latin word lucifer and does so in chronological order. If you have any well-sourced information about this usage that you want to add to the article, insert it at that point. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's up to you as page owner to put in the non-fallen angel Christian uses back into the article where you as page owner want. No one has time to debate with you where you put them. But 1 Peter, the hymns, the bishops, need to be in the article as notable verifiable sourced uses of Lucifer. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm by no means page owner. The sourced non-nonsense information on the use of the Latin word lucifer to refer to Christ and John the Baptist and on two bishops with the name Lucifer is already in the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you'll have no objection to moving it up to the etymology section where it can be seen before later Christian usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the "it" you speak of? What is the Christian usage that you speak of as earlier than the Christian usage evidenced already in Tertullian and Origen, who don't speak of it as a novelty? You surely know that the Vulgate and the Latin hymns mentioned and the bishops called Lucifer are all later than Tertullian and Origen. What is "the etymology section" that you speak of? All that can be said of the etymology of the word "Lucifer" is that the word derives from Middle English Lucifer and thereby from Latin Lūcifer, which in turn is composed of lūx ("light") + ferō ("bear, carry"). Bealtainemí (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is putting pre-Origin Christian uses *after* Mormon uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't know what are the supposed pre-Tertullian/Origen Christian uses of the word "Lucifer" that you speak of. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so even before I posted about 2 Peter 1:19, there was someone else and the rulers of this page tried to censor that reference and hide it from people so that they won't know the truth that Christ was referenced as Lucifer.

Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

NNPOV?

Once again, this article is out of historical order... does that matter? Currently the section on Classical mythology/religion (predating Christianity, right?) isn't the main focus... but you see from that, Lucifer was a Latin/Roman/Italian god, whether personified, or seen as a divine natural force (influenced by Greek Protogenoi which included personifications of planets.) There is no reason this article should emphasize a newer Catholic (and not worldwide other/non-Roman Orthodox Christian) characterization, of The Devil, than the original planet/force/character/god of Lucifer (unless someone uses this article as a basis for a Catholic & derived Christian Wiki.)--dchmelik (t|c) 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Major problems throughout: Needs a rewrite from scratch

Currently this article has a laundry list of problems. The most obvious issue is that it is extremely fixated on the term's use in Christian folklore with very little coverage of the entity's origins in pre-Christian Roman folklore (for which we still need an article—the closest we have right now is the closely related Ancient Greek folklore), specifically the folklore genre of myth. Additionally, while it briefly mentions the concept of the motif, it does next to nothing with it, and the article itself suffers from poor sources throughout. This isn't nearly as complicated as the article would lead one to believe: There existed a figure by this name in Roman folklore, specifically myth, and this deity's name was absorbed into Christian folklore. Of course, it doesn't help that we don't have an article on Christian folklore yet—from Wikipedia, one would never know that there exists a vast amount of material beyond Christian mythology, such as legend and folktale. It's an awkward situation but that doesn't mean that the article needs to remain a mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar

I have a question about this paragraph:

J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man, and that man may have been not Nebuchadnezzar II, but rather his son, Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar was gripped by a spiritual fervor to build a temple to the moon god Sin, and his son ruled as regent. The Abrahamic scriptural texts could be interpreted as a weak usurping of true kingly power, and a taunt at the failed regency of Belshazzar.

Laney, J. Carl (1997). Answers to Tough Questions from Every Book of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-8254-3094-7. Retrieved 22 December 2012.

Google Books is giving me "No preview available", so I can't check the source myself. But the issue is, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, and it was Nabonidus who built a temple to Sin. It's been argued that the two kings are conflated in the Book of Daniel, and maybe that's the starting point of Laney's argument? But if so, that needs to be clarified in the article. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias POV in Freemasonry section

There are all kinds of sources for info that Lucifer is worshiped by 33 degree Freemasons. Why does the Freemasonry section focus on talking about a single book as if it is the only source of this info? A good primary source is the 1898 work Luciferianism And Satanism In English Freemasonry by L. Fouquet. It's pretty damning and written by a 33 degree mason. Also part of the blue degrees mandate is to spread propaganda about masonry, and that includes editing Wikipedia to assist in the concealment uncomfortable facts, presumably. It should also be pointed out that most masons haven't the faintest clue what goes on for those holding the 33 degree. They have been led by design to they THINK they know what freemasonry is all about, but the vast majority of masons are only the support system; the ignorant smoke screen that exists for the concealment of the inner group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:C00:FD7B:178F:E691:B8FC (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As the devil section

Linking Isaiah 14:12 to Luke 10 is wrong. It's a fact Isaiah 14 is talking about king of Babylon as seen in Isaiah 14:3. The king of Babylon is Sargon ("King of Assyria") found in Isaiah 20:1. It's absurd Isaiah 14 is talking about Satan. Satan is not the king of Babylon. This wikipedia section is incorrect information and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:E500:E83E:5D4F:69A6:2715:28BB (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not-Related to a fallen angel in Christianity

Greetings, pointing to WP:NAD, I would suggest to remove the section claiming that the term "Lucifer" is not necessarily related to the devil, to be removed, since this article should be about he figure associated with and not the term itself. Maybe parts of the article might be moved to the Wiktionary project?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would an article on an ancient God be related to Christianity? Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe VenusFeuerFalle is referring to the section #Uses unrelated to the notion of a fallen angel. The point is that the article is about morning-star deities, not about the word "Lucifer" itself, so discussion of unrelated uses of the term is out of place. Dan from A.P. (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't get why the article focuses so much on the name Lucifer. Sometimes the article feels like it is written by someone, who holds the name sacred. Does this pssage holds any encyclopedic relevance? "Origen was not the first to interpret the Isaiah 14 passage as referring to the devil: he was preceded by at least Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who in his Adversus Marcionem (book 5, chapters 11 and 17) twice presents as spoken by the devil the words of Isaiah 14:14: "I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High".[78][79][80] Though Tertullian was a speaker of the language in which the word "lucifer" was created, "Lucifer" is not among the numerous names and phrases he used to describe the devil.[81] Even at the time of the Latin writer Augustine of Hippo (354–430), a contemporary of the composition of the Vulgate, "Lucifer" had not yet become a common name for the devil" I mean, whether or not early Christians may used "Lucifer" as a proper name, it became one.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct on the name is not of isaiah, its actually starts in rome, what is the relevance? lucifers real name is lugh or lug king of kings god of skills, rising sun, war and the celts. Upon interacting with the celts and learning of their cheif god of the time. the romans gave him their own name to do as they always done, which is adopt and act as though he was a part of theirs all along and associated him to being a varient of apollo.

Now fast forward to rome becoming christian and celts still at the time holding fast to lug, morrigan, finn ect. With only oral tradition. The christians started to try converting celts but at first it was a hards sell because jesus wasnt the only one who died in their early 30s via murder and came back too the world of the living and performed inhuman abilites (in some ways more he embodied the son of god more than jesus did and lug was said to have been reincarnated by the morrigan into his son cuchulain, after being murdered). Now that frustraited and worried the new roman christian leaders thinking that lug's story may spread and jesus's did and destroy their rightous work. They then started taking a new route that would become a standard way for the catholics and christians which was propaganda, deception, agression and like always for the old romans combining and acting as if it had been that way all along. So since celts didnt write anything down lug became a secret name and lucifer had be popularised as well as demonified being the devil who was worshiped by pagens(which was wöden) and had horns (helmet) and a long straight spade tail (gae bulg his spear) and red skin (hair) bkah bkah blah. When in reality he was most likely a man on the status of japanese emporer. So there you go there's the connection of lucifer from celts to roman peitas/hedonism to roman christian to us today. ChasenL (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Lucifer in Islam

Who is lucifer in Islam? 2407:D000:F:2466:D0CF:B835:B4A1:1FEE (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The Latin name Lucifer doesn't appear in the traditional Middle Eastern religious writings, which motly used Persian or Arabic. The personification of "the morning star" could best be seen as Zuhra, a woman who convinced two fallen angels to revel the password to ascend to heaven, whereupon she tried to raise up to the divine spheres but was eventually punished by God and imprisoned in the "star" Venus.

The Christian figure Lucifer derives from the concept of the devil and the figure Satan. Islam developed their own version of Satan called Iblis, whose name before the fall is Azazil. Although there are similarities between the Islamic version of Azazil and Lucifer, they are ultimately distinct due tot he cultural context.

Only once I found a scholar who identified an angel called Nuriel with Lucifer. This scholar thought that Nuriel might have been adapted by Muslim writers from Christians. "Lucifer" couldn't be found. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)