Lucifer is not the proper name of Satan

truthuprootsevil said:

I don't believe there are many Christians that actually think Lucifer is the proper name for Satan _ there isn't a proper name given to the devil written in biblical Scripture. Is Satan actually his name or Satanial...... I was told Satan actually works for God which was the ancient Jewish belief. It is his job to test man. Differences between ancient Jewish views VS modern Jewish and Christian views. Either way he's working against mankind.


The devil is identified by the term Lucifer or name, the dragon, the serpent, the fallen one, even as god of this world, Samuel, and a few other forms of identification.
Satan | Definition, Meaning, Scriptures, Role, & Facts | Britannica https://share.google/HnWDohMwqxyPMFkEs
In Judaism it is sometimes understood that, as adversary, Satan acts as something of a divine prosecutor for God; the two figures are not seen as antithetical

Who is Satan? | Aish Who is Satan? | Aish

Jews for Judaism | Do Jews Believe In The Devil? Do Jews Believe In The Devil?

What is the Jewish View of The Devil? - Jew in the City What is the Jewish View of The Devil?

Click to expand...

I can agree with both of those points of view, having studied the topic at length. Per Job, Satan is clearly subordinate to God, despite any theories of rebellion. His original sin, as far as can be told from Scripture, was that he lied to the woman. He was put in the garden by God. But he overstepped what he was permitted to do. In Zechariah, we can also see him functioning in a prosecutorial role. It wasn't until after the resurrection and ascension that his place was no longer found in heaven.

Good post.

AFrazier said:

I can agree with both of those points of view, having studied the topic at length. Per Job, Satan is clearly subordinate to God, despite any theories of rebellion. His original sin, as far as can be told from Scripture, was that he lied to the woman. He was put in the garden by God. But he overstepped what he was permitted to do. In Zechariah, we can also see him functioning in a prosecutorial role. It wasn't until after the resurrection and ascension that his place was no longer found in heaven.

Good post.

Click to expand...

Thank you

It has been put forth by some that the seducer of Eve, the angel who tried to tempt Job, are different angels, as well as the one called Lucifer who is the one casted out of heaven. That the early churches just combined them all into one the devil...... What are your views???

Have you ever read The book of Enoch?

I'm quite sure you know it was never included with the Bible.

Most sources say it was written between three and one BC. Also discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls. Making it an actual part of Hebrew belief..... In Enoch Book 1 he names the seducer of Eve.
First Book of Enoch | Summary, History, & Facts | Britannica https://share.google/FIu7dkb6SIPzyNRWn

Chapter 68 – The Book of Enoch Chapter 68 – The Book of Enoch

In Christian theology Christ said he beheld Satan fall from heaven as lightning.... The book of Revelation speaks of Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven down to earth which is the fall from heaven........ And there is Jude verse 6 where it speaks of the Angels who are held in chains of darkness in the Euphrates - that they are the ones that LEFT their first estate, implying differences between those that were cast out and those that actually left who are the ones of Genesis 6. Please give your views, I am always seeking new perspectives on who is who.

truthuprootsevil said:

Thank you

It has been put forth by some that the seducer of Eve, the angel who tried to tempt Job, are different angels, as well as the one called Lucifer who is the one casted out of heaven. That the early churches just combined them all into one the devil...... What are your views???

Have you ever read The book of Enoch?

I'm quite sure you know it was never included with the Bible.

Most sources say it was written between three and one BC. Also discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls. Making it an actual part of Hebrew belief..... In Enoch Book 1 he names the seducer of Eve.
First Book of Enoch | Summary, History, & Facts | Britannica https://share.google/FIu7dkb6SIPzyNRWn

Chapter 68 – The Book of Enoch Chapter 68 – The Book of Enoch

In Christian theology Christ said he beheld Satan fall from heaven as lightning.... The book of Revelation speaks of Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven down to earth which is the fall from heaven........ And there is Jude verse 6 where it speaks of the Angels who are held in chains of darkness in the Euphrates - that they are the ones that LEFT their first estate, implying differences between those that were cast out and those that actually left who are the ones of Genesis 6. Please give your views, I am always seeking new perspectives on who is who.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm intimately familiar with 1 Enoch. The academic consensus, particularly in the field of Qumran studies, is that it was composed around the third century BCE. At the very least, it predates the Qumran secession, because their calendar system with its 364 days is very clearly built on its principles.

Whether or not it should be considered scripture is debatable. 2 Peter and Jude both quote from it. But whether they were quoting from it as holy writ, or just as a generic source for their argument (to make a point), is not clear.

In Revelation, you'll note that Satan isn't cast down from heaven until after the ascension of Christ.

Those who left their natural estate, I agree with you. These are the Genesis 6 "sons of God" who mated with human women. Enoch discusses this in detail.

Jesus' comment that he beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning, in my honest opinion, is emphatic idiomatic praise. The disciples had all been sent out. When they returned, they were all excited. They had healed, cast out demons, etc. And joining in their revelry, Jesus tells them that he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightning. It's like praising your kid for hitting a good ball in his baseball game. "You really knocked it out of the park." The alternative is that Jesus is a buzz-kill. In the midst of their revelry, he just pops off with this anachronistic statement that has no viable place in the conversation or scenario. What he is saying in that instance, in my opinion, is, "You guys did great! I saw Satan falling from heaven like lightning. BUT, don't be happy that the demons are subject to you. Be happy that your names are written in the book of life." Praise with modesty and moderation. But that's just my view of it.

AFrazier said:

Yes, I'm intimately familiar with 1 Enoch. The academic consensus, particularly in the field of Qumran studies, is that it was composed around the third century BCE. At the very least, it predates the Qumran secession, because their calendar system with its 364 days is very clearly built on its principles.

Whether or not it should be considered scripture is debatable. 2 Peter and Jude both quote from it. But whether they were quoting from it as holy writ, or just as a generic source for their argument (to make a point), is not clear.

In Revelation, you'll note that Satan isn't cast down from heaven until after the ascension of Christ.

Those who left their natural estate, I agree with you. These are the Genesis 6 "sons of God" who mated with human women. Enoch discusses this in detail.

Jesus' comment that he beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning, in my honest opinion, is emphatic idiomatic praise. The disciples had all been sent out. When they returned, they were all excited. They had healed, cast out demons, etc. And joining in their revelry, Jesus tells them that he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightning. It's like praising your kid for hitting a good ball in his baseball game. "You really knocked it out of the park." The alternative is that Jesus is a buzz-kill. In the midst of their revelry, he just pops off with this anachronistic statement that has no viable place in the conversation or scenario. What he is saying in that instance, in my opinion, is, "You guys did great! I saw Satan falling from heaven like lightning. BUT, don't be happy that the demons are subject to you. Be happy that your names are written in the book of life." Praise with modesty and moderation. But that's just my view of it.

Click to expand...

Thanks very insightful.

Another question you said Satan was cast out of heaven after the Ascension of Christ and if when Jesus walked the Earth he made the statement he beheld Satan fall from heaven as lightning isn't that referring to the same event?

I asked because in my studies there are many Christians who believe that the war that took place between the devil and his angels and Michael hasn't occurred after Christ walked the Earth in flesh or is occurring now or will at some point before his return...... It and there are also many Christians who believe the war took place before Adam and Eve were placed on Earth . Some even preach the correct translation in Genesis 1 is the earth became void and without form meaning that the war took place and broke up the Earth and God put it back together.

Tohu wa -bohu, Earth “Was” or “Became,” Waste and Void? – Robert Clifton Robinson Tohu wa -bohu, Earth “Was” or “Became,” Waste and Void?

It is clear that those who were originally responsible for the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, believed that the text of Genesis 1:2 is describing the total destruction of the earth which occurred prior to the re-creative days of verses 3-31.

In other words, the text of Genesis 1:2, in the opinion of Akiva: God is indicating that the darkness which is described by this verse is indicative of a judgement of God which caused the darkness and desolation of the earth.[5]

truthuprootsevil said:

Thanks very insightful.

Another question you said Satan was cast out of heaven after the Ascension of Christ and if when Jesus walked the Earth he made the statement he beheld Satan fall from heaven as lightning isn't that referring to the same event?

I asked because in my studies there are many Christians who believe that the war that took place between the devil and his angels and Michael hasn't occurred after Christ walked the Earth in flesh or is occurring now or will at some point before his return...... It and there are also many Christians who believe the war took place before Adam and Eve were placed on Earth . Some even preach the correct translation in Genesis 1 is the earth became void and without form meaning that the war took place and broke up the Earth and God put it back together.

Tohu wa -bohu, Earth “Was” or “Became,” Waste and Void? – Robert Clifton Robinson Tohu wa -bohu, Earth “Was” or “Became,” Waste and Void?

It is clear that those who were originally responsible for the correct interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, believed that the text of Genesis 1:2 is describing the total destruction of the earth which occurred prior to the re-creative days of verses 3-31.

In other words, the text of Genesis 1:2, in the opinion of Akiva: God is indicating that the darkness which is described by this verse is indicative of a judgement of God which caused the darkness and desolation of the earth.[5]

Click to expand...

That would necessarily imply that the sun and stars were destroyed as well. Their creation followed the creation of a void and dark earth along with the heavens. So, I would have to disagree with that take on it, just based on the context. I could accept the possibility of an inhabited earth prior to the creation of Adam and Eve that was subjected to judgment. One could argue Genesis 1:28, for example. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth . . .," by which one might infer that it was previously populated. But the Hebrew there is "מָלֵא," which simply means, "to fill," with nothing about it that suggests re-filling. So, there's that. But, again, the sequence includes the creation after the condition of the dark and void earth, and the creation sequence is where light, the sun, the moon, and the stars are introduced. I don't find it a credible interpretation based on those criteria.

For the fall, Rev. 12:5 "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." This can refer to only one person.

Immediately following, Rev. 12:7–10 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." The devil was cast out following Christ's ascension. It was with the coming of the power of God's Christ that the accuser of the brethren was cast down, who before then had a place in heaven, accusing us day and night before God. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

The other points you raised are dipping our toes into points of eschatology. There are strong opinions on that topic in both directions. A futuristic war between the devil and Michael would suggest that Satan is in heaven still, since he has a place in heaven until Michael defeats him. I don't think I can agree with that.

Thank you for i

AFrazier said:

That would necessarily imply that the sun and stars were destroyed as well. Their creation followed the creation of a void and dark earth along with the heavens. So, I would have to disagree with that take on it, just based on the context. I could accept the possibility of an inhabited earth prior to the creation of Adam and Eve that was subjected to judgment. One could argue Genesis 1:28, for example. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth . . .," by which one might infer that it was previously populated. But the Hebrew there is "מָלֵא," which simply means, "to fill," with nothing about it that suggests re-filling. So, there's that. But, again, the sequence includes the creation after the condition of the dark and void earth, and the creation sequence is where light, the sun, the moon, and the stars are introduced. I don't find it a credible interpretation based on those criteria.

For the fall, Rev. 12:5 "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." This can refer to only one person.

Immediately following, Rev. 12:7–10 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." The devil was cast out following Christ's ascension. It was with the coming of the power of God's Christ that the accuser of the brethren was cast down, who before then had a place in heaven, accusing us day and night before God. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

The other points you raised are dipping our toes into points of eschatology. There are strong opinions on that topic in both directions. A futuristic war between the devil and Michael would suggest that Satan is in heaven still, since he has a place in heaven until Michael defeats him. I don't think I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

Thanks again, I love to hear different perspectives to gain a better understanding of views. Be Blessed

AFrazier said:

Yes, I'm intimately familiar with 1 Enoch. The academic consensus, particularly in the field of Qumran studies, is that it was composed around the third century BCE. At the very least, it predates the Qumran secession, because their calendar system with its 364 days is very clearly built on its principles.

Whether or not it should be considered scripture is debatable. 2 Peter and Jude both quote from it. But whether they were quoting from it as holy writ, or just as a generic source for their argument (to make a point), is not clear.

Click to expand...

The Book we know as 1 Enoch is a compendium of different manuscripts. The 364-day calendar section is jammed into the midst of another story, which resumes again after the interpolated passage. My bet is, someone from the Qumran sect put it there to try to legitimize it by attributing it to Enoch.

The passages quoted and paraphrased by Jude, Peter, and Moses all come from the first (and I believe legitimate) record of Enoch. Not as a "generic source" (what does that even mean?), but as Holy Writ. Otherwise these biblical authors were deceived, and not inspired by the Holy Spirit, something I do not accept. It is like the case of Jesus directly quoting from Daniel, while the so-called "academic consensus" says that the Book of Daniel was not composed by Daniel. A complete non-starter.

WilliamLhk said:

The Book we know as 1 Enoch is a compendium of different manuscripts. The 364-day calendar section is jammed into the midst of another story, which resumes again after the interpolated passage. My bet is, someone from the Qumran sect put it there to try to legitimize it by attributing it to Enoch.

The passages quoted and paraphrased by Jude, Peter, and Moses all come from the first (and I believe legitimate) record of Enoch. Not as a "generic source" (what does that even mean?), but as Holy Writ. Otherwise these biblical authors were deceived, and not inspired by the Holy Spirit, something I do not accept. It is like the case of Jesus directly quoting from Daniel, while the so-called "academic consensus" says that the Book of Daniel was not composed by Daniel. A complete non-starter.

Click to expand...

By "generic source," I am equating it to them citing it as a secondary source. Paul alludes to Plato and others. It's not out of character for learned men to cite sources other than holy scripture to make their arguments. You'll have to provide solid evidence of interpolation for the calendar portion. You'll also have to prove Moses cited Enoch. The consensus in the peer-reviewed literature is that it is third-century BCE. If you want to contradict that, I'm all ears, but I only acquiesce to facts.

AFrazier said:

You'll have to provide solid evidence of interpolation for the calendar portion. You'll also have to prove Moses cited Enoch.

Click to expand...

You are telling me what I "have to" do? Pretty arrogant.

AFrazier said:

The consensus in the peer-reviewed literature is that it is third-century BCE. If you want to contradict that, I'm all ears, but I only acquiesce to facts.

Click to expand...

"Consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" is not at all any evidence of facts.

Re: Moses, Genesis 6:1-2 is partially a paraphrase and partially a quote from Enoch 7:1-2. Jude 14 conjoins quotes from Enoch 2:1 and 26:2. Jude says his quote is a prophecy of Enoch. You are in effect claiming that Jude was deceived by a 3rd-century BC forgery.

And I should believe you and not Scripture?? Don't think so.

WilliamLhk said:

You are telling me what I "have to" do? Pretty arrogant.


"Consensus in the peer-reviewed literature" is not at all any evidence of facts.

Re: Moses, Genesis 6:1-2 is partially a paraphrase and partially a quote from Enoch 7:1-2. Jude 14 conjoins quotes from Enoch 2:1 and 26:2. Jude says his quote is a prophecy of Enoch. You are in effect claiming that Jude was deceived by a 3rd-century BC forgery.

And I should believe you and not Scripture?? Don't think so.

Click to expand...

That's a really petty and childish response.

I've read the literature that I'm talking about. You haven't provided any source material. They provide hundreds of works on the subject. They fully analyze works I suspect you don't even know exist. They are college professors with decades in the field. To think that your amateur opinion somehow trumps that without any qualification of argumentation or evidence is what's arrogant. You say it's not evidence of fact, when, in fact, that's exactly what it is. They are works that collect the evidence together and make conclusions based on that collective evidence.

And yes, if you want me to take you seriously, you "have to" provide evidence. Your fiat position that Moses is quoting from Enoch is not proof. That's what they call speculation. And it's a speculation that requires the book of Enoch to have existed prior to Moses, which you can't prove, and which the linguistic, philological, paleographic, archaeological, cosmological, historical referential allusion, and history-of-science comparisons show to be impossible.

I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to show an ounce of respect for actual scholars who have dedicated their careers to these studies.

AFrazier said:

That's a really petty and childish response.

Click to expand...

It was your demand that was childish. "Would you" works much better than "you'll have too." Basic etiquette.

AFrazier said:

I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm asking you to show an ounce of respect for actual scholars who have dedicated their careers to these studies.

Click to expand...

All that you have provided is hearsay evidence. How many of these same scholars say that the Book of Daniel was not composed by Daniel? I would bet a lot of them.

You still have not responded to my twice-asked statement and question:

WilliamLhk said:

Jude says his quote is a prophecy of Enoch. You are in effect claiming that Jude was deceived by a 3rd-century BC forgery. ,,,should I believe you and not Scripture??

Click to expand...

Please state for the record whether or not you believe that Jude was inspired by the Holy Spirit, or was deceived in what he wrote about the prophecy of Enoch.

WilliamLhk said:

It was your demand that was childish. "Would you" works much better than "you'll have too." Basic etiquette.


All that you have provided is hearsay evidence. How many of these same scholars say that the Book of Daniel was not composed by Daniel? I would bet a lot of them.

You still have not responded to my twice-asked statement and question:

Please state for the record whether or not you believe that Jude was inspired by the Holy Spirit, or was deceived in what he wrote about the prophecy of Enoch.

Click to expand...

Yes. I think Jude incorrectly used Enoch as Scripture when it is not. It was composed in the third century BCE. It was not composed by the actual Enoch. It is an apocryphal and pseudepigraphal text. Jude also cites the Assumption of Moses, which is likewise a first-century Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal text. Should we count that as Scripture also? Being angry and trying to belittle me in your pedantry isn't going to get you anywhere. Calling me arrogant doesn't make you right.

In fact, if you can't discuss this in a civilized manner, I would ask you to please stop talking to me. I'm not your child. I'm not beneath you. Nor am I arrogant for insisting on proof of your assertions when they conflict with the work of actual, published scholars. If you have proper evidence that Enoch is a genuine Old Testament canonical work predating Moses, just show me the proof of that. Scholars date it to the third century BCE through a variety of academic disciplines. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. If you disagree with that, then you don't know how scholarship works.

AFrazier said:

Scholars date it to the third century BCE through a variety of academic disciplines. If you say otherwise, the burden of proof is on you. If you disagree with that, then you don't know how scholarship works.

Click to expand...

The scribes and doctors of the Law -- the top scholars at the time of Christ -- assured their followers that Jesus was a false prophet and demon-possessed and a blasphemer.

No modern scholar has any proof that parts of the Book of Enoch were not written by Enoch, because the earliest monographs no longer exist. Everything these modern, so-called scholars claim to know is based upon secondary and derivative manuscript remnants. But these so-called scholars sure are good at blowing their own horns about their preeminence. Just like the Pharisees of old. And like of old, there are plenty of gullible individuals nowadays who slavishly believe their pronouncements.

WilliamLhk said:

The scribes and doctors of the Law -- the top scholars at the time of Christ -- assured their followers that Jesus was a false prophet and demon-possessed and a blasphemer.

No modern scholar has any proof that parts of the Book of Enoch were not written by Enoch, because the earliest monographs no longer exist. Everything these modern, so-called scholars claim to know is based upon secondary and derivative manuscript remnants. But these so-called scholars sure are good at blowing their own horns about their preeminence. Just like the Pharisees of old. And like of old, there are plenty of gullible individuals nowadays who slavishly believe their pronouncements.

Click to expand...

Comparing modern historical researchers to first-century Pharisees is just another emotional ad hominem deflection. It doesn’t change the factual reality. Dismissing standard historical methodology as 'hearsay' because the original autographs don't exist is a self-defeating argument. If we reject all history built on surviving manuscript fragments and linguistic profiles, then your claims about Moses and Enoch are equally unprovable. The peer-reviewed academic consensus stands on concrete material evidence, like the Qumran fragments. Since you still have not provided a single piece of historical, linguistic, or manuscript evidence to back up your timeline, the burden of proof remains entirely unmet. If you find any actual data, I’m all ears.

Furthermore, let me make a statement of observation. It is clear to me that you are not a scholar of any level of real education. If you were, you wouldn't argue the things you argue. I know, based on your responses, that you haven't read any of the material on this subject. The scholars who have researched this field have dedicated countless hours to studying and restoring the fragments, deciphering the text, recovering lacunae, etc. The fact that you even have a copy of Enoch at all is a testament to their expertise. For you to write off their expert conclusions blindly without even reading about their findings, methods, or disciplines is the height of hubris.

For clarity, it is not my position that their arguments and conclusions are without flaws. Anyone can be wrong. Indeed, I challenge consensus opinions all the time. But there is a right way to challenge a conclusion. That way is to present the competing argument objectively, acknowledge the strengths and evidence presented, and then counter them with stronger evidence, or with arguments that offer better understandings than their own conclusions about the evidence presented. If all you're doing is countering them with ad hominem attacks and deflections that don't address their work, you aren't engaging in true scholarship. That just makes you a hack. And to be frank with you, what makes your word, based on no evidence whatsoever, more evidentiary than theirs? What makes you right and them wrong, when they're the scholars, and you're nothing more than a person benefiting from their expertise with neither acknowledgment nor appreciation?

You really should take a step back and reevaluate your humility.

AFrazier said:

You really should take a step back and reevaluate your humility.

Click to expand...

Ditto!

Not one mention in your long diatribe about the testimony of the Holy Spirit!

Not one testimony in your long diatribe about the many differing Ge'ez manuscripts.

No acknowledgement whatsoever of how many, many times that "peer-reviewed academic consensus" has later proven wrong. Such as in the case of the historicity of the Book of Daniel.

Conversation over. Been revealing. Moving on.

WilliamLhk said:

Ditto!

Not one mention in your long diatribe about the testimony of the Holy Spirit!

Not one testimony in your long diatribe about the many differing Ge'ez manuscripts.

No acknowledgement whatsoever of how many, many times that "peer-reviewed academic consensus" has later proven wrong. Such as in the case of the historicity of the Book of Daniel.

Conversation over. Been revealing. Moving on.

Click to expand...

More deflection. No substance. Typical.