Is Lucifer actually the son of God in disfavour?

[Zephrelial]

Perphaps this topic will sound a bit unusual and maybe weird to some of you.However,I am up for analyzing a theory of mine;derived from and based on certain comments on Catholic sources which is of course the Christian God's Bible itself.I think it is possible to argue that in this thread,within the reasonable limits since the subject is a delicate one.

I've been thinking of this sometime as theology is one of my main interest areas.As most of us know the two of the holy books(Qur'an and the Bible) of 2 greatest monoteist religions which are Islam and Christianity are quite open to comment as in some verses,the messages that are given within are most suited to be commented and are commented differently various men of religion.

Catholics of TWC please correct me if I am wrong but Jesus is assumed as the Lord himself in flesh and blood,and his was a sacrifice at the crucifix in order to repent the sins of mankind.And Jesus,Gesu is often referred as the son of God.

My theory is that Lucifer was the son of God.Or at least were given such a position,if such a position ever exists.I base my theory on the Bible itself and by my own commendations of the verses Ezekiel,which Lucifer is mentioned and described.
First I quote here the verse Ezekiel 28:12

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say

unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of

wisdom, and perfect in beauty."

These lines are the powerful expressions of the Lord,explaining the attributes and distinctive parts of Lucifer briefly.This verse is not quite arguable and quite clear that by God's perspective that the virtues and perphaps the physical beauty of God himself resonates in Lucifer's essence.
I have pondered upon this verse and I had a strange feeling that I kind of felt that here God is speaking in a fatherly manner and tone.But the feeling was kind of vague and not too strong.

Then here is the second verse that dedicated and pious Catholics will recognize. Ezekiel 28:13

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy

covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and

the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the

workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the

day that thou wast created."

This verse is that I gain the most clues and creates tickles through my spine.Here in this verse not only some other attributes of Lucifer is defined by God(like the beauty of his voice) but here we see an explanation that how much dedication,how much of God's divine power to create excellence ,superiority and beauty was utilized in Lucifer's favour.
It is also expressed that many precious stones was to be Lucifer's covering,that he was deemed worthy of those precious stones,to be honoured in such a way.

These lines reminds me of many examples from people whom I knew,fathers of my friends,they sometimes told their sons what kind of preparations were made in their rooms(in our case I assume the child room as the Garden of Eden which Lucifer was created by God's will by a lightning) How they (mother and father) awaited their son's or daughter's birth with eagerness and they decorated the rooms in nice colours,with toys(which are like the precious stones for a baby no doubt).

There are many angels such as Michael and Gabriel that are under the command of God,but obviously none are given such care nor a position.This verse according to me shows a special bond,that could be expressed from a point of an Omnipotent(Lord) being as far as it could be expressed.Naturally one such great as God can not clearly quote that this is my son,or this is my favourite one,but it is implied.

Note that my arguement here is not the later episodes,Lucifer's rebellion against God,or his fall from grace.It can be clearly perceived from the "full" title of the thread.I position my arguement at the very beginning.In life there are sons that are really special,talented or beautiful but somewhere they quarrel with their fathers,this doesn't prove that they WERE their sons.
There is a saying that goes "Look to the father and take the son.." which implies the resemblance and similarity between father and son,logically thinking Lord is the embodiment of perfection,virtue,wisdom and power.He's immortal and wield extreme power,He has host of angels at his command,but none are so significant as Lucifer,nor were they granted such high position as he was the highest angel in Heaven.The prophets of God were mere mortal men,a mortal man can not be the son of an immortal,on the other hand Lucifer was granted all excellent qualities of the Lord.
As a result,it is a strong possibility that Lucifer is the true son of the Lord...

[Farnan]

Ummm...you got it all wrong.

Those were the words to be said to humans not Lucifer. Son of Man = human being.

Also Tyrus = Tyre. Son of man = the prophet Ezekial

Here is the full section of the Bible so you get it in context:

2 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, [a] turquoise and beryl. [b]
Your settings and mountings [c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.' "

What the passage is saying is that God raised the City of Tyre to great height, but Tyre grew wicked and betrayed his trust and will fall because of it.

Also John 3:16:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[Poisoner]

Interesting theory.

[Farnan]

Interesting fact: Lucifer means light-bearer and refers to the King of Babylon. The reason it is associated with the Devil is due to Dante's Inferno. The KJV is the only protesant Bible that has the word Lucifer in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

[Zephrelial]

Interesting fact: Lucifer means light-bearer and refers to the King of Babylon. The reason it is associated with the Devil is due to Dante's Inferno. The KJV is the only protesant Bible that has the word Lucifer in it.

What exactly is your point Farnan,might I ask?

[Farnan]

What exactly is your point Farnan,might I ask?

Your entire premise is wrong, utterly completely wrong.

The passages you use to describe are a warning to the King of Tyre, who was not the devil (ask any historian, I think if the King of Tyre was a fallen angel someone would write it down.) The part that mentions Lucifer, which is a latin and not Hebrew word, is section referring to Babylon and thus does not have to do with a fallen angel. Thus your theory has a false premise, thus is false.

It is the same as someone making an astronomical theory using the premise that we live in a terracentric solar system.

[Zephrelial]

Your entire premise is wrong, utterly completely wrong.

The passages you use to describe are a warning to the King of Tyre, who was not the devil (ask any historian, I think if the King of Tyre was a fallen angel someone would write it down.) The part that mentions Lucifer, which is a latin and not Hebrew word, is section referring to Babylon and thus does not have to do with a fallen angel. Thus your theory has a false premise, thus is false.

Judging from all these I believe you evaluate Lucifer,completely as Satan,a being who suddenly started a rebellion in Heaven?
And it does not possess any qualities I claimed?What is the King of Tyre doing in the garden of Eden,and then perphaps you will merge this verse and say that it was the King of Tyre again who spoke those words:

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

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

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

Isaiah 14:12-14

[Farnan]

Judging from all these I believe you evaluate Lucifer,completely as Satan,a being who suddenly started a rebellion in Heaven?
And it does not possess any qualities I claimed?

First Lucifer != Satan.

Second, Satan is the highest Angel in Heavan, who grows ambitious and attempts to take complete control. He leads a good many of the Angels in rebellion. God wins and imprisons him in the lake of fire. Eventually Satan is let free as he finishes his sentence, tries to lead humanity into rebellion, loses again and is permanently locked up. I'm not sure of Satan's relation to the Antichrist, I am almost sure they are different figures. I'm almost sure the Antichrist/Beast is human.

The verse you describe refers to the King of Babylon. Also, those prophecies use a good deal of metaphor.

[Farnan]

You're falling into a trap I call Bible Mining.

When you mine you look for a specific mineral and throw away all the rock around that mineral to get to it. Bible Mining is the same thing, you look to for verses that prove your point and throw away the verses around them that give them context.

[Zephrelial]

You're falling into a trap I call Bible Mining.

When you mine you look for a specific mineral and throw away all the rock around that mineral to get to it. Bible Mining is the same thing, you look to for verses that prove your point and throw away the verses around them that give them context.

There are actual some different methods of examining the Bible.One may examine the verses seperately or view them as a whole,context.Also let's not forget that eachone of us has varied perceptions and a level of IQ,EQ.

I may agree with certain points with you,when I interprete the verses and the context as well by a Catholic Oriented,a more strict and maybe narrow point of view.

I mean to give no offense,just wanted to point out these aspects as well.I am not Bible Mining,just stated a theory that's all.You think my theory is downright wrong,I think that It MAY be right.Nothing is 100 percent right or wrong,all is quite relative especially in cases of theological matters.

[fieldmarshal]

I just took the book of Revelation last semister in college, and according to the Bible, Satan is not an angel, hes a powerful being, a creation before man, according to the Bible the other name for Satan is the Accuser(Rev 12:10), and the reason he got thrown out of heaven is because he accused jesus and his followers falsely. he was right about Adam and Eve, he was right about Job, he was right about David, but he was wrong about jesus, he was wrong about paul. But he wouldnt admit he was wrong, and hence he was thrown out of heaven, because of his pride. Hes been locked away into the abyss till judgement day. He cannot use his powers anymore to decieve people(Rev 19:20) so that means, God cannot use his powers either because there is always a balance. if satan cant use his power then neither can God, and besides Mircales have never worked to bring faith, as seen in the OT.
As for the Anti-Crist, he is a christian, but then turned against the Church, the Anti-Christ is never mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

[Farnan]

I just took the book of Revelation last semister in college, and according to the Bible, Satan is not an angel, hes a powerful being, a creation before man, according to the Bible the other name for Satan is the Accuser(Rev 12:10), and the reason he got thrown out of heaven is because he accused jesus and his followers falsely. he was right about Adam and Eve, he was right about Job, he was right about David, but he was wrong about jesus, he was wrong about paul. But he wouldnt admit he was wrong, and hence he was thrown out of heaven, because of his pride. Hes been locked away into the abyss till judgement day. He cannot use his powers anymore to decieve people(Rev 19:20) so that means, God cannot use his powers either because there is always a balance. if satan cant use his power then neither can God, and besides Mircales have never worked to bring faith, as seen in the OT.
As for the Anti-Crist, he is a christian, but then turned against the Church, the Anti-Christ is never mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Yes the Anti-Christ is mentioned by the name of the Beast.

Also, the idea of a balance is a view that is not embraced by mainstream Christianity in any aspect. It is more of a view of a heresy that took place in Medieval Southern France.

[Zephrelial]

Yes the Anti-Christ is mentioned by the name of the Beast.

Also, the idea of a balance is a view that is not embraced by mainstream Christianity in any aspect. It is more of a view of a heresy that took place in Medieval Southern France.

The thread has gone considerably off-topic but still there is some valuable information ongoing regarding Christianity and the Bible,which is good and beneficial at the sametime for everyone.

[David Deas]

Farnan is right.

I wrote this a while ago. It is relevant to what he's saying.

Satan is one of the most interesting Biblical topics.

Traditionally, the Church teaches that Satan was an angel named Lucifer who fell, cast from the Heavens with his army of treasonous angels, and from that point forward he would forever act as the influence of evil in the face of the goodness of the Lord.

Wrong.

A long time ago the Bible made a lot more sense than it does today. Though Yahweh originally claimed himself to be the author of all things, today you find much of the Church trying to separate Yahweh from evil by ascribing that deity to someone or something else, namely Satan. However, when discussing Satan, one important aspect to remember is that, consistent with his original claims of being the author of all things, Yahweh originally stated himself as the author of evil. That deity, just as all other deities in existence, belongs to the Creator.

A lot of people don't know this, but the first time the word "satan" was used in the scriptures, it was used in reference to Yahweh himself. The word "satan" is a Hebrew word that simply means adversary, opponent, or accuser. It is not a proper noun. It is a title which may be temporarily worn by any subject whenever the context is appropriate. That is why just about every type of subject in the Bible (animals, human beings, holy men, kings, nations, spirits, gods, and even Yahweh himself) has been referred to as "satan" at some point or another in the scriptures.

The Book of Job is responsible for the false theory that the Satan character somehow works in unison with the Lord to accomplish certain things. There are several problems with this outlook. The most obvious is that it places this Satan in Heaven carrying on a casual conversation with God. That violates every known chronology. If you're versed enough in the Bible, you understand that Satan has never even seen Heaven. If you are a Church going layman, then "Lucifer" was kicked out of Heaven long before humans were created. Either way, there can't be any such thing as the modern characterization called "Satan" casually chilling out in Heaven with his buddy God discussing humans, maybe even over a light beer.

What the Book of Job does is do, however, is illustrate the etymology of the word "satan" almost as well as the lone scriptural incident where "satan" applies to Yahweh himself. In this story, one of the select beings allowed into Heaven assumes the role of adversary opposite of Yahweh by questioning the faith of Yahweh in Job as a servant. This satan, this opponent, this accuser, or this slanderer would have simply been any random Joe Schmoe Angel in Heaven, or perhaps wandering spirit. Nevertheless, with Yahweh's permission, this "satan" is allowed to torment Job in a way that tests the limits of his faith towards Yahweh.

The legend of Satan as Lucifer, former angel of Heaven, originates from a misrepresentation of an account referring to the fall of the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar.

The acting passage from this account reads the following:


"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning. How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.....For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." - King James Version.

"How you have fallen from the heavens, O Heleel [the Shinning One] son of the morning, You have been cut down to the ground, you who have laid low the gentiles [nations]"! "For you have said in your heart, 'Let me go up to the heavens, let me rise my throne above the stars of El, and let me sit in the mount of meeting on the sides of the north." - The Scriptures.


This passage does not refer to a fallen angel named Lucifer at all. The entire record refers to king Nebuchadnezzar. The word "Lucifer" refers to King Nebuchadnezzar, who desired to be the king of all kings, even higher than God himself. There was never an angel named Lucifer, or Satan who was cast out of Heaven.

As it was originally understood (as the Hebrews understood it, and still understand it today), Satan would be, at most, the collection of people across the world choosing to perform sinful, negative acts. The only place in the Bible where Satan is described is in the Book of Revelations, where Satan is described in figurative language as a multi-headed dragon with several horns, who was carrying a harlot named "Babylon" on it's back. Satan in that scene was represented by a certain group of people and negative state of affairs.

Our modern concept of Satan comes mostly from play writes. The devil being this guy sitting on the throne of Hell with this pointed tail and pitchfork is not of scriptural origin. Nonetheless, it becomes not a question of whether Satan is real, but a question of what Satan is like.

Farnan is exactly right about that passage on Satan.

[Zephrelial]

Farnan is right.

I wrote this a while ago. It is relevant to what he's saying.



Farnan is exactly right about that passage on Satan.

Note that I based my theory on the generalised teachings of the Church.Assuming that Satan was before called Lucifer,and had a place in Heaven as the head of the angels.
Also in the passage the words used and the expression doesn't evoke the feeling that a King is being referred to,but rather an another being.Moreover,in the verse the name "Nebuchadnezzar" is not mentioned,but Lucifer is mentioned.
According to this interpration,the King falls from the Heavens,but his Kingdom and reign is on Earth therefore he can not fall from Heaven even as a metaphor this doesn't corresponds too well,I believe this interpration is a simple and not well-thought out one.

[Curtana]

In the middle ages the Bogumils, Cathars and various other harmless innocents were tortured and burned at the stake for saying exactly this. Best keep your mouth shut – you never know what borderline crazies are lurking ominously.

[David Deas]

Note that I based my theory on the generalised teachings of the Church.Assuming that Satan was before called Lucifer,and had a place in Heaven as the head of the angels.

Ok.

Also in the passage the words used and the expression doesn't evoke the feeling that a King is being referred to,but rather an another being.

Sounds like an apology from some chumpy ass Church.

Anyhow. Yes it does. I posted the acting passage, but all you have to do is read the scriptural account. The entire account refers to the King of Babylon.

By using the word "feeling" you openly admit your own subjectivity, no doubt unwittingly. Unfortunately for that, the identification of metaphor is actually objective.

Moreover,in the verse the name "Nebuchadnezzar" is not mentioned,but Lucifer is mentioned.

Read the scriptural account. As I mentioned earlier, I only posted the acting passage.

According to this interpration,the King falls from the Heavens,but his Kingdom and reign is on Earth therefore he can not fall from Heaven even as a metaphor this doesn't corresponds too well,I believe this interpration is a simple and not well-thought out one.

Don't do that.

The passage clearly identifies his association with the Heavens as one originating from his heart. In addition to that, there was more than one Heaven, or type of Heaven. Their eventual confusion and convolution with resurrection, as well as the Kingdom of God is a separate discourse that would derail the thread if we dug into it here.

[Ummon]

"Then Satan took him to Jerusalem to the roof of the Temple. "jump off," he said" and prove you are the Son of God for the Scriptures declare the God will send his angels to keep you form harm, "they will prevent you from smashing on the rocks below."

Jesus retorted "it also say not to put the Lord your God to a foolish test!"

And no, bogumils and cathars were not innocuous people. They were perhaps directly non-harmful, but surely not innocuous.

Also, all proper quotes on Satan may be found in the NT, obviously.

[Farnan]

Oh I believe Satan as a tempter, but I don't believe in concepts such as people saying "And then Satan took control of my life and I went down the awful path of drug abuse, alcoholism and promiscousity." No Satan did not take control of your life, you screwed up and your at fault.