Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

buckeyematt2 wrote:I don't think "Lucifer" in Is. 14:12 was actually intended as a "name" for the devil. "Lucifer" is actually just a transliteration of the Latin word for "morning star" - the KJV translators just duplicated the term used in the Latin Vulgate because the Hebrew word is used only once in the Old Testament and they didn't know what to make of it. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators, but even he was uncertain about the meaning of the Hebrew word. But at least he made an attempt at a translation.
Apart from the discussion about 'double fulfillment' it seems this explanation above stands on it's own-

George are you suggesting that the name of the Babylonian King was Lucifer? I suppose one could imagine that the early church writers & fathers were not 'inspired' if they did not have the Holy Spirit. If we conclude only the original foundational Apostles alone possessed the Holy Spirit, then we might as well conclude none of us can be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth.

I suspect, that Jesus, spending 3 solid years with the disciples explained so much more to them than they wrote down- especially of the Old Testament meanings- since this is all they really had to expound on- I'm sure Jesus explained so much to them that was passed down- but whether they ended up making as big of deals out of some of these passages, as we do in our 'discussions' may explain the lack of a lot of writings about it.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

TeleBodyofChrist wrote:
gcdonner wrote:Today in the bible study I was teaching, I was asked about Satan and Lucifer, whether they were the same entity.
There is widespread belief amongst Christians, that Lucifer is a name for satan or the devil. I wonder where that idea comes from?
The name Lucifer is used only once in scripture:
Isa_14:12  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!
In the context it is referring to the king of Babylon. It means day star, morning star or light bearer.
I understand that some of the apostolic fathers associated this passage with Lk 10:18
Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 
I find no justification for it, do you?

A similar leap is also made of the passage in Ezek 28 about the "anointed cherub". There are some pretty fantastic sermons preached tying all these things together, but are they justified or are they taking these passages out of their intended context and forcing them into fanciful and imaginative interpretations?

What say ye?
I honestly do not know where this comes from. I was taught this as a child and every Christian I grew up with thinks this. I was told the devil has many names. I remember being confused when I read the bible for myself.

I was also told the devil was the serpent in the garden of Eden. I remember asking as a child how the serpent in the garden was the devil. I was told the devil was controlling the serpent to make it deceive Eve because Satan is the great deceiver or something to that effect.

The scripture in Gen. 3 did not say all of that so, I am not sure where all of that came from.
Apostle John used some of the names in Revelations:
Revelation 20King James Version (KJV)

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

He didn't mention the name "Lucifer" here but as you noted, many names are ascribed to 'satan' and from my understanding, (not my own private interpretation) but what has been taught to me by the East is that in the passage that GC mentions, the king of Babylon is not Lucifer, but is being compared to him- and I think that Matt (I use his name because I love that name, it's my son's name! Matthew) anyways he explained well the translation of the name itself-
when answering people's questions like this sometimes it can do more harm than good to claim to really 'know' the answer to something that is 'seemingly' obscure if in doubt- I can accept an answer such as 'there are many interpretations so it is something I feel unsure about. I'd rather hear that from a humble soul than to be led into a false interpretation or doctrine-out of a need to give an answer lest people assume I guess at things. Who can honestly claim to know it all? On this side, that is-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Josh »

Valerie,

Do you really think the early church fathers were inspired? If so, let's consider that John Chrysostom taught very strongly against any kind of theatre / drama / acting.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:Valerie,

Do you really think the early church fathers were inspired? If so, let's consider that John Chrysostom taught very strongly against any kind of theatre / drama / acting.
It probably depends on what one's definition of 'inspired' is-
If the Holy Spirit, who is imparted to a Christian at their Baptism by the laying on of hands, is the guide to truth (among many other characteristics of the person of the Holy Spirit) then by inspiration, He would guide into truth, correct?
Do you believe that if one becomes born again, the Holy Spirit dwells in them? If not, why not- if so, what all would that entail besides fruit and gifts of the spirit? Yes, I believe the early Church fathers were given the 'most' interpretations and actually many teachings were handed down from the Apostles. I realize there would be much debate 'here' on that, but that matter has been settled for me and I have peace about that.

But in regards to Lucifer- I consider this article explaining the angelic realm and his name is mention in the list at the bottom (where it should be)

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Archangel
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Josh »

Okay, Valerie, then are you going to follow Chrysostom's instructions? He was extremely against anything resembling theatre / drama would have been completely against TV or YoUTube.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:Okay, Valerie, then are you going to follow Chrysostom's instructions? He was extremely against anything resembling theatre / drama would have been completely against TV or YoUTube.
I am not sure what he said about it- could you please share that Josh? Then I can get the text for what he was conveying about it- naturally as a Christian, the idea of 'sheer entertainment' shouldn't be something we pursue-
however a teaching documentary or a 'parable' which is purposeful, may not in fact fall into the category of what John Chrysostom is referring to- as Sudsy & I shared those youtubes, it was purposeful for the UK to 'glean' from- I'm not sure you can really compare the two. I'd have to know what type of theatre, drama, entertainment that was happening at that time. Documentaries I don't believe would fall into that category if there is a Christian message conveyed- or chance to help someone see the light (Light)
0 x
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by gcdonner »

Valerie wrote:
buckeyematt2 wrote:I don't think "Lucifer" in Is. 14:12 was actually intended as a "name" for the devil. "Lucifer" is actually just a transliteration of the Latin word for "morning star" - the KJV translators just duplicated the term used in the Latin Vulgate because the Hebrew word is used only once in the Old Testament and they didn't know what to make of it. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, knew Hebrew better than the KJV translators, but even he was uncertain about the meaning of the Hebrew word. But at least he made an attempt at a translation.
Apart from the discussion about 'double fulfillment' it seems this explanation above stands on it's own-

George are you suggesting that the name of the Babylonian King was Lucifer? I suppose one could imagine that the early church writers & fathers were not 'inspired' if they did not have the Holy Spirit. If we conclude only the original foundational Apostles alone possessed the Holy Spirit, then we might as well conclude none of us can be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth.

I suspect, that Jesus, spending 3 solid years with the disciples explained so much more to them than they wrote down- especially of the Old Testament meanings- since this is all they really had to expound on- I'm sure Jesus explained so much to them that was passed down- but whether they ended up making as big of deals out of some of these passages, as we do in our 'discussions' may explain the lack of a lot of writings about it.
Lucifer was not the "name" of the king of Babylon except in descriptive terms. It was a metaphor, just as Babylon, Egypt and Sodom were used for the city of Jerusalem in the book of Revelation.
The early church fathers were not inspired in the same way that the writers of the NT were otherwise their writings would have been included in the canon of scripture. Their writings are fraught with error, which the NT writings are not (in the original autographs).
It is not a matter of being filled with the Spirit, but a matter of God's purpose in giving special revelation to the first century church, otherwise we would be reading the book of Valerie today... :mrgreen:
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by gcdonner »

Valerie wrote: I honestly do not know where this comes from. I was taught this as a child and every Christian I grew up with thinks this. I was told the devil has many names. I remember being confused when I read the bible for myself.

I was also told the devil was the serpent in the garden of Eden. I remember asking as a child how the serpent in the garden was the devil. I was told the devil was controlling the serpent to make it deceive Eve because Satan is the great deceiver or something to that effect.

The scripture in Gen. 3 did not say all of that so, I am not sure where all of that came from.
Apostle John used some of the names in Revelations:
Revelation 20King James Version (KJV)

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

He didn't mention the name "Lucifer" here but as you noted, many names are ascribed to 'satan' and from my understanding, (not my own private interpretation) but what has been taught to me by the East is that in the passage that GC mentions, the king of Babylon is not Lucifer, but is being compared to him- and I think that Matt (I use his name because I love that name, it's my son's name! Matthew) anyways he explained well the translation of the name itself-
when answering people's questions like this sometimes it can do more harm than good to claim to really 'know' the answer to something that is 'seemingly' obscure if in doubt- I can accept an answer such as 'there are many interpretations so it is something I feel unsure about. I'd rather hear that from a humble soul than to be led into a false interpretation or doctrine-out of a need to give an answer lest people assume I guess at things. Who can honestly claim to know it all? On this side, that is-[/quote]
The writer of the Revelation gives the names that are applicable, and it is quite revealing that he doesn't use the name of Lucifer. There is no indication in the original passage that the king of Babylon is being compared to Lucifer, but rather that he is being called Lucifer as a metaphor of his own imagination that he was the epitome of the realms of the earth, thinking to himself that he was the greatest. I suggest a reading of Nebuchadnezzar's experience in the book of Daniel (4:28-37)for more insight into what is going on in this passage. The passage here in Isaiah may be indeed a reference to Nebuchadnezzar or his heir Belshazzar. The allusion is much more probable than that of being applied to the adversary, who is no where in sight in the context of this passage.
Would scripture use the same metaphor for Satan that it also uses for the Son of God? Here Nebuchadnezzar as aspired to greatness, but been brought down low as a result.
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5221
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by ohio jones »

gcdonner wrote:
Valerie wrote:I suppose one could imagine that the early church writers & fathers were not 'inspired' if they did not have the Holy Spirit. If we conclude only the original foundational Apostles alone possessed the Holy Spirit, then we might as well conclude none of us can be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth.
It is not a matter of being filled with the Spirit, but a matter of God's purpose in giving special revelation to the first century church, otherwise we would be reading the book of Valerie today... :mrgreen:
We are; 313 chapters so far. ;) The difference is that none of us (with the possible exception of John Hurt) place her writings on the same level as Paul's.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Lucifer & the Anointed Cherub

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote:I am not sure what he said about it- could you please share that Josh? Then I can get the text for what he was conveying about it- naturally as a Christian, the idea of 'sheer entertainment' shouldn't be something we pursue-
however a teaching documentary or a 'parable' which is purposeful, may not in fact fall into the category of what John Chrysostom is referring to- as Sudsy & I shared those youtubes, it was purposeful for the UK to 'glean' from- I'm not sure you can really compare the two. I'd have to know what type of theatre, drama, entertainment that was happening at that time. Documentaries I don't believe would fall into that category if there is a Christian message conveyed- or chance to help someone see the light (Light)
I'm not saying what you shared is wrong - I'm just saying Chrysostom was 100% dead set against it. Here is his homily, Contra ludos et theatra.

There were no exceptions for documentaries or "educational" drama. The modern notion of finding a way to put it in a "category" where it is OK for various reasons is what Chrysostom rails against.
0 x
Post Reply