Lucifer = Satan ?

But did you know that the name SATAN is actually a Hebrew word for "THE ACCUSSER??" Where did I know that? From Anne Rice book "MEMNOCH THE DEVIL".(am an Anne Rice fan, you can tell)

---------
"Don't used the name Satan. Please. Don't use any of the following: Lucifer, Beelzebub, Azazel, Sammael, Marduk, Mephistopheles, et cetera. My name is Memnoch. You'll soon find out for yourself that the others represent various alphabetical or spiritual compromises."—Memnoch the Devil

"Read the Bible and you'll find that Lucifer's name as God's favorite Angel was Lucifer. When he was damned to hell he assumes the name of Satan."

Hmm do not follow this advice, it's painfully slow and boring, in other words it sucks. The old stories of the norse gods is alot more entertaining than the stories in the bible. If it's for education you're reading then scrap everything religious right away.

"Civilization is a *beep* failure" - Serj Tankian, System of a down

Like many people who harp on The Bible, you obviously haven't read it yourself. If you had, you'd know that there's nothing there about "God's favorite angel". In fact, "Lucifer" is only mentioned once (Isaiah 14:12) and it's not at all obvious that this is a reference to Satan. Most Christians now believe this interpretation, but it wasn't even a popular idea until the late Middle Ages.

This stuff is WAY older than christianity. And no, it is not certan that Satan and Lucifer are the same thing. In fact, it's more likely they are different beings. Recently their names have become interchangable, this was not always the case.

Two wrongs don't make a left hand turn.

sry not everyone believes christianity is mythology, probably just you

Satan is the Christian Devil. Lucifer is an older pagan god. Even within the Italian Mythology of Diana (the Moon) and Lucifer (the Morning Star) courted and gave birth to Aradia; The Queen of the Witches. Of course the tale has more to it than that…

Lucifer is a pagan god, one of the hundreds of names for the Horned God. Of course Hollywood fans and Christians who only believe what they hear and does no research of their own will argue this. That's fine...

In Hebrew, 'Satan' is still an angel. He is an angel of temptation. The malevolent spirit is Asmodeos, not exactly the all encompassing evil, but still an evil. Just an interesting thought. Forgive any misspellings.

In Hollywood: Lucifer and Satan are THE devil. Most Christians that I have encountered, they are the devil as well.

To certain informed individuals, they are very different. And of course the image of Satan is a horned man with the feet of a goat... but this is also the depiction of a pagan god. From what I understand, the church took the image of the pagans and said to the sheep, "Hey, this is what the devil looks like. And he has a few names now... He's bad and anyone who follows anything that looks like this has to be evil. So don't listen to them, don't read their books. Just invoke the name of God and prey for these lost souls.' Or something like that...

I cannot abide the ignorance of some. Assumptions suck. Educate yourselves. Don't go on anyone else’s hear say. And please don't take my word for it. Do your own research. You’ll probably find something I haven’t and correct me. I welcome it!



Silence is not an acceptable answer.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I did a little research on my own and concluded that I know defer that Lucifer and Satan were never meant to be considered as one. Lucifer meaning the bearer of light doesn't quite live up to the prince of darknesses persona. Another example of poor translation found in NKJV.

Not only is PiousMcGing completely correct he has given a beautifully concise and effective answer to this query. Interestingly hinting at the very changes of 'office' that Satan (for want of a better term) takes within the pages of the bible itself. The truth is the modern christian's concept of Satan will indeed link him to all those names because the modern version is an amalgam of identity.

Satan is a concept and not an individual despite attempts at a literal interpretation the very nature of the name Satan suggests that Jesus responds to a more generalised force/concept. All the other names for satan have pretty much evolved from a selection of angelic names, old faith gods and some are plain made up. The second point is most important as it is no accident that the Church developed an archetype of satan/devil as one which incorporates the other faiths that it wished to demonise (literally and at the highest level)... So Pan, Bacchus, The Celtic Horned God, Baal, Beelzebub on many more become synonymous with the greatest evil in a crafty slight of hand. One then declares the ancient gods worship as the equivalent of worshiping Satan. A claim often and unfortunately all to often still made.

Satan/Devil as a concept developed as a secondary office to the throne as a way of devolving certain responsibilities from the throne. A monistic faith primarily the Jews had a God that wrecked havoc and vengeance as well as offering clemency because he was almighty. After the extended slavery to the Babylonians the Jewish people began to side-step a little on the uncomfortable thought that their God was directly responsible for the evils they were suffering and hence a previous lieutenant of God (one that stood in heaven an tempted Job and God's request) was demoted to take on the impossible role of providing positive evil in a world that a benevolent all powerful God is apparently in full control of. The very existence of a Satan/Devil creates the problem of evil...

OH btw - given we all understand the modern archetype of Satan whether or not he is useful I would add that Viggo has given the best performance of him on screen bar none. And (being raised Irish Catholic - 'shudder' -) His line about all that time you thought I was hiding under the bed and "I was" ... is so perfect it makes the movie. Satan in modern times is a boogie man. This concept and that of Satan's Hell is used to scare people into piety and practices a religion of fear rather than love. THAT is my adversary - all those that approach me with fear rather than love… Lucifer … just another name for an idea rather than an entity. When someone points at the dark and chooses to name it the name will reflect their fear and not what is actually there … hence with every new spectator our universal adversary develops yet another name. For example, I thought I heard a lot of people say he was now called George Bush on top of the rest - lol

This is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bible says very little about Lucifer or Satan, and people have elaborated these couple of sentences into complex stories about the devil and hell. Some stuff (like the name Samael) probably come from the Jewish Talmudic commentaries on the bible, but they are also just commentary not scripture.

In fact the bible doesn't even say clearly that there is a hell or that a fallen angel rules over it. That mythology has been built up by the catholic church and others over time to scare people into obedience. There are some places where Jesus talks about people being cast into Gehena (the garbage dumb outside Jeruselem where criminals' bodies were thrown). Revelations says the antichrist will be thrown into a lake of fire, but the bible never says that regular people will go to hell if they are bad. In fact, Revelations says that Christ will raise some worthy people from the dead, so strictly speaking only the Adventists seem to really believe what the bible says.

And all of this assumes that you think christian mythology is correct, while countless other stories about gods and devils from other cultures are incorrect.

I guess the debate is moot. In all reality whether we call the Devil Satan or Lucifer it all boils down to the same thing. Just as Christ had many names so did the Great Deciever.

the whole concept of the devil is pointless ...if there is a god (ill just say there is for the sake of this argument)....how could anything oppose his will?

ill answer that it cant nothing could. end of debate.

Maybe in a more comical and layman's terms, Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.

I think your quote hits the nail on the head where it talks about tradition, interpretations, and giving it "Biblical authority".

It's too tempting from our modern 20/21st century educations to think of the Bible as a single coherent work. It's not. It is a collection of works written (and rewritten, borrowed from and editted), over hundred if not thousands of years, by people who may not have even read the works of their predecessors. Then comes along the collation of the Bible as we know it today in the 4th century CE (AD) and for the next 1600 years theologians tie themselves in knots trying to make coherent sense of it all.

It it were a work of Hollywood, it'd be long overdue for a remake!!

Si