Who is Lucifer? Who is the Devil? Who is Satan?

[Freddy]

These three characters are the same force in human nature as it evolves though time. In other words, if one went to a primative fourth world culture, the darkside would be quite narrow in affect and extent. It would probably be lumped into a unity principle of nature, i.e, Lucifer. If we go to the other extreme, there is far more distinction, polarization and far more variety of affect due to culture being much more complex, i.e., Satan, Devil.

 

The bible talks about this evolution and genesis in Genesis. When Adam was alone in the garden of Eden, all was good in the world, with Lucifer providing motivation for change, i.e., morning star. After Eve appears, things progress the same way until the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil appears in the garden. Lucifer becomes Satan and creates a departure from the natural progression of things.

 

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is connected to laws and belief systems based on good and evil. Such law programs the mind with two data grids, the good and the evil. The reason this occurs is connected to the creation of memory. Memory, when created is assigned an emotional valence. The good side of the law is assigned a good feeling and the bad side of the law is assigned a bad feeling. Depending on the emotion one feels, the data assigned will become most conscious.

 

Before the tree of knowledge of good and evil appears, there wasn't this polarization in the human memory grid. It was paradise and only a good emotional valence was assigned to the evolving memory. For example, a lion killing only feels joy for finding food. He does not judge his behavior with human morality before acting. The symbolic Satan is implicit of a secondary negative emotional assignment being assigned to certain types of behavior which gets more and more expanded as humans create more and more laws of good and evil.

 

If one looks at patholical cases, where the emotions of the person are stuck at fear, all this fear assigned data consolidation, can become the conscious memory. This consolidatio can even become personified in their psychosis. This is Satan or the Devil in a symbolic sense. If one can calm then down with talk or even drugs, and shut off the fear, that memory organization become depotentiated. If a more positive emotion can be induced, such as love, it will hook them up with the good side of the law. This data organization is often personified as Christ. This projection may still be pathological, for such people, but at least it would make them harmless.

 

In normal psychology both data consolidaitons exist side by side, as one shifts emotional valence between that assigned to good and evil. The shifting back and forth as one assess reality is often personificed as Christ and the Devil both helping and tempting one.

 

In modern culture, there has been a reassignment with respect to the emotional valence attached to traditional behavior. For example, sex is no longer attached to the darkside like culture previous had it. Essentially the darkside is now mostly violent in nature. This is focusing Satan into the Devil. In other words, Satan is connected to the fine lines between good and evil. But the Devil is personified as solid evil. This more focused personification of the darkside memory can lead to extreme unconscious compulsions from the darkside.

 

For example, 20-30 years ago there were gangs. They were often violent but killing was not as common as today. A good beating or knifing was about as far as it would go. Today, due to reassignment of evil, the darkside is darker. The gangs of today are able to go farther before they feel the same level of darkness.

 

Where in Genesis is the name Lucifer used? Or morning star? The only mention of Lucifer,"a Babylonian king", in the OT or NT is found in Isaiah 14:12. Last time I checked Genesis says the "serpent" spoke to Adam and Eve. Not that I believe any of this nonsense, but Genesis does not mention a Lucifer, Satan, or the Devil.

From Wikipedia:

"Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus. The word Lucifer was the direct translation of the Greek eosphorus ("dawn-bearer"; cf. Greek phosphorus, "light-bearer") used by Jerome in the Vulgate, having mythologically the same meaning as Prometheus who brought fire to humanity. In that passage, Isaiah 14:12, it referred to one of the popular honorific titles of a Babylonian king; however, later interpretations of the text, and the influence of embellishments in works such as Dante's The Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, led to the common idea in Christian

mythology and folklore that Lucifer was a poetic appellation of Satan."

[Southtown]

I can't rep you again, but thanks for that info, Freddy.

[Dyothelite]

Turtle, I might not agree with you on every level theologically, but I agree with the tone of your viewpoint.

 

As a theologian of sorts, I get so sick of people threatening people with their beliefs because they feel so strongly about it.

 

First of all, to declare with certainty that you know God, his will and power, even if its through scripture is to claim divine knowledge. Only, a prophet or divine incarnation in any religion is ever allowed the authority to declare with certainty the true nature of the divine.

 

You can declare your beliefs because of your scriptural research but if you claim to be declaring absolute truth you are claiming Divinty. Unless you are claiming to be Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha or the like, don't declare absolute truth based on your knowledge. You can declare that scripture states this as truth but don't speak with personal authority.

 

And even I will admit, if you claim knowledge of spirits, angels or devils, you might when get on Seroquel or other anti-psychotic prescriptions (I had to..hahaha). There's a thin line there.

 

Freddy you are correct sir, Satan was only a prosecuting figure that sought out the sins of man on Earth, in Jewish theology. Especially in Job. It was Christian theology that equated the snake in Eden to Satan and called Satan the tempter. Which by the way bothers me a little, sounds like entrapment. "You want this.. I know you do." Then when you take it.... he acts as the prosecutor as well. Some say it is because he was jealous that sinful humans got the love of God, but who knows?

 

Does anyone know when the Devil got his horns and cloven feet?

 

One more thing: This is America we won our right to make inappropriate jokes, but we also have to have responsibility with that freedom. If I wanna make a joke about Jesus and its funny he'd probably laugh at it, but nobody likes to be disrespected even if its our freedom to do so.

[Turtle]

Turtle, I might not agree with you on every level theologically, but I agree with the tone of your viewpoint.

Melody or chords? :lol: Zydeco or Bach? I don't know all the same things Socrates didn't know, but I seek the same level.

 

... You can declare that scripture states this as truth but don't speak with personal authority.

 

And even I will admit, if you claim knowledge of spirits, angels or devils, you might when get on Seroquel or other anti-psychotic prescriptions (I had to..hahaha). There's a thin line there.

Ockham's razor thin. :eek: First to the idea of 'authority'. Here I refer you to Stanley Milgram's seminal work Obedience to Authority , by which information I have since reading, taken to habitualy challenging the validity of 'authority'.

As to the idea that personal knowledge of spirits, demon, angels, etcetera ad nauseum, is merely psychotic (or some such other deviant description), I do not hold to that. While that may be the case, others causes may suffice such as shamanic practices. I find particulary interesting the studies of the brain coming from the real-time imagers, wherby I think we will come to the root of such supernatural experiences. After all, who does not relish an inspired dream? :naughty:

 

Does anyone know when the Devil got his horns and cloven feet?

No, but it's an intriguing question.

 

One more thing: This is America we won our right to make inappropriate jokes, but we also have to have responsibility with that freedom. If I wanna make a joke about Jesus and its funny he'd probably laugh at it, but nobody likes to be disrespected even if its our freedom to do so.

 

This goes to the issue of authority I mentioned above, inasmuch as respect has some predisposition in it. Disrespecting someone who doesn't like it is exactly the point, because it challenges them to defend by what authority they have a right to be offended. ;)

[Dyothelite]

1 Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that spiritual awareness was mere psychosis.... but it is a thin line. Seeing "ghosts", hearing voices of spirits.... its a thin line. Dream states are a good example.

 

2 The Devil first got his horns during the days of the Knights Templar. When King Philip IV took over in France in the year 1312. He pressured Pope Clement to order the interrogation and persecuction of the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar were a group of knights originally commissioned by the Pope to protect safe passage to the Holy Land, feed the poor, help the sick etc. etc. They grew in power and wealth and were essentially robbed of their wealth and power by King Philip IV who felt threatened by them.

 

They were tortured until they said they worshipped the Devil, and the image that was used to describe the Devil was the Roman god Pan, a horned cloven-foot god of nature and fertility. This was the beginning of the Devil with horns and goat like.

[Turtle]

...They were tortured until they said they worshipped the Devil, and the image that was used to describe the Devil was the Roman god Pan, a horned cloven-foot god of nature and fertility. This was the beginning of the Devil with horns and goat like.

 

Excellent! I love a pragmatic historical perspective. :naughty: You give we Capricorns a fair shake out for the fins we stand on. :lol:

[Dyothelite]

Excellent! I love a pragmatic historical perspective. :naughty: You give we Capricorns a fair shake out for the fins we stand on. :lol:

 

 

I noticed your posts in the Astrology thread. I posted something you might like in there. I noticed you said something about an astronomy program. Guess what you're actually not a Capricorn.

[Turtle]

I noticed your posts in the Astrology thread. I posted something you might like in there. I noticed you said something about an astronomy program. Guess what you're actually not a Capricorn.

The Devil you say? :eek: :naughty: I did see it yes...I don't recall what I said so I better review. Have you studied the Mayan astrology in any degree? You may like something in it. Ninety-one bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-one bottles of beer... :lol:

[Freddy]

1 Yeah I didn't mean to suggest that spiritual awareness was mere psychosis.... but it is a thin line. Seeing "ghosts", hearing voices of spirits.... its a thin line. Dream states are a good example.

 

2 The Devil first got his horns during the days of the Knights Templar. When King Philip IV took over in France in the year 1312. He pressured Pope Clement to order the interrogation and persecuction of the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar were a group of knights originally commissioned by the Pope to protect safe passage to the Holy Land, feed the poor, help the sick etc. etc. They grew in power and wealth and were essentially robbed of their wealth and power by King Philip IV who felt threatened by them.

 

They were tortured until they said they worshipped the Devil, and the image that was used to describe the Devil was the Roman god Pan, a horned cloven-foot god of nature and fertility. This was the beginning of the Devil with horns and goat like.

 

Here is a link concerning the Knights Templar and a horned devil. Not sure how accurate it is. Nice picture of the Baphomet is there.

http://www.crystalinks.com/baphomet.html

[Dyothelite]

Yeah this is a quote from that site Freddy:

 

"How did this belief come to be? Since King Philip of France sought to own the vast Templar wealth, he along with his puppet Pope Clement V had the Templars captured and tortured. During these tortures they made many confessions, among these, the disclosure that they had worshipped an idol said to be the Baphomet."

 

I first heard it on the History Channel I think.

 

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28mythology%29

 

Look at the picture of Pan on the left. Horns and cloven feet

[Dyothelite]

OOOOOppps I messed up.... Pan is a Greek god, not Roman... sorry

[Turtle]

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28mythology%29

 

Look at the picture of Pan on the left. Horns and cloven feet

 

Und eine grosse schwanstucher! :doh: B) The Devil made me say it. B) B)

[Southtown]

Dyo, have you seen or read The Da Vinci Code? Check this out:

 

http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_differentdvc.htm

[Dyothelite]

Dyo, have you seen or read The Da Vinci Code? Check this out:

 

http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_differentdvc.htm

 

Personally I learned all I wanted to about that study from the History, Discover Channel.... and research.

 

Jesus is the perfect character for science fiction conspiracy stories..... surprised Dan Brown was the first to do it and get rich.

 

I just wasn't all that impressed with the historical speculations. Plus think about it if Jesus did have a blood line there wouldn't be like one family....over 2000 years the genes would create thousands of families, and if they were alll related to Jesus they fell short of their genetic potential.

 

What I think would have been a better "what if" story..... still wanna write this one so don't steal my idea here (hahaha). What if in front of Pilate they chose Jesus over Barabus and Jesus lived to see the final destruction of the temple in 70 CE by the Romans? Would he have joined the revolution or taught peace?

[Southtown]

They almost accomplished that in The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), except that he chose not to be crucified, which was also a good idea for fiction. But I believe theology is already rich enough in the area of speculation, and not rich enough in the area of historical scrutiny.

 

I saw a special on the Science Channel where some dude was looking for the Holy Grail, taking cue from the DVC movie, and following up on the suggestions from Dan Brown. Very enlightening. I'm more inclined to believe most of what Dan Brown wrote, because it's a fact that the Catholic (aka Universal) Church came straight from the sun-worshipping Roman Empire.

 

The irony is that, even if the DVC was completely accurate, it wouldn't have the impact that Dan claims, because

1. the Torah doesn't say anything about rabbis and marriage. That comes from the Talmud which Jewish elders invented to interpret the Torah for the people. (Think infallible papacy.) So Jesus would not have transgressed God's law, but man's.
   (Matthew 15:1-9; see also Karaite Judaism)
2. The Tanakh does not claim that the lineage is annointed, but an individual from that lineage.
3. The individual must also fulfill not only Jewish law (who is currently temple-less) but also be crucified.
4. And last but not least, Jesus' authority is not provided by Jewish law (the Levitical priesthood), but from the order of Melchizedek.
   (Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7)

In other words, Dan Brown's thinking correctly identifies the Catholic Church as power-grabbing pagans who distorted the story and supressed the followers of Jesus, albeit inadvertently. And Dan Brown also accidentally paves a straight path into Revelation, where the Jews rebuild a temple, and another sits in the holy place (where the ark usually resides) and claims divinity. Such an individual would have to be from a certain lineage.

[Freddy]

They almost accomplished that in The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), except that he chose not to be crucified, which was also a good idea for fiction. But I believe theology is already rich enough in the area of speculation, and not rich enough in the area of historical scrutiny.

 

I saw a special on the Science Channel where some dude was looking for the Holy Grail, taking cue from the DVC movie, and following up on the suggestions from Dan Brown. Very enlightening. I'm more inclined to believe most of what Dan Brown wrote, because it's a fact that the Catholic (aka Universal) Church came straight from the sun-worshipping Roman Empire.

 

The irony is that, even if the DVC was completely accurate, it wouldn't have the impact that Dan claims, because

1. the Torah doesn't say anything about rabbis and marriage. That comes from the Talmud which Jewish elders invented to interpret the Torah for the people. (Think infallible papacy.) So Jesus would not have transgressed God's law, but man's.
   (Matthew 15:1-9; see also Karaite Judaism)
2. The Tanakh does not claim that the lineage is annointed, but an individual from that lineage.
3. The individual must also fulfill not only Jewish law (who is currently temple-less) but also be crucified.
4. And last but not least, Jesus' authority is not provided by Jewish law (the Levitical priesthood), but from the order of Melchizedek.
   (Genesis 14:18-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7)

In other words, Dan Brown's thinking correctly identifies the Catholic Church as power-grabbing pagans who distorted the story and supressed the followers of Jesus, albeit inadvertently. And Dan Brown also accidentally paves a straight path into Revelation, where the Jews rebuild a temple, and another sits in the holy place (where the ark usually resides) and claims divinity. Such an individual would have to be from a certain lineage.

Brown committed fraud. He took the quasi-historical information from two books wriiten several decades ago. They were Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Prophesies by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Brown took their theories and fictionalized them into a book. Fact is the Priori of Sion documents from Pierre Plantard were frauds. The Merovingian royal French line were just that and nothing more. The only parts that were Brown's were the characters he created and the story of how they found out about the original material laid out in the books cited above. The idea that anything connected with The Davinci Code or the other books is based on facts is nonsense. Research the above books and see for yourself.

[Dyothelite]

Brown committed fraud. He took the quasi-historical information from two books wriiten several decades ago. They were Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Prophesies by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Brown took their theories and fictionalized them into a book. Fact is the Priori of Sion documents from Pierre Plantard were frauds. The Merovingian royal French line were just that and nothing more. The only parts that were Brown's were the characters he created and the story of how they found out about the original material laid out in the books cited above. The idea that anything connected with The Davinci Code or the other books is based on facts is nonsense. Research the above books and see for yourself.

 

Thats pretty much why I never bothered to watch it. I knew I wouldn't gain any real knowledge.

 

To Southtown, the reason I brought up the destruction of the Temple in 70CE was that the Messiah that Jews were waiting for was someone who would restore the lineage of King David and literally fight a revoluition against occupying forces and restore the State of Israel. Jesus could have lived to see that final battle in 70CE and its interesting to think how he would have handled it a a teacher of true non-violence.