Lilith, Who is she and is she real?

[Hangman]

I have been hearing about a jewish character by the name of Lilith, and I was wondering about the questions stated above.

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[jehoiakim]

Lilith comes from the Kabbalah, which is ancient Jewish mysticism. The first recordings of her were not written on the bible and were not written until after Christ. So I think it is highly unlikely that there is any truth in it at all. Earlier "evidence" of her existence sometimes confuses her pagan deities such as Ishtar.

Lilith is popular with all these newage pagan peoples, it is at best speculative to think she existed

 

[7he4uthor]

:o

 

[jehoiakim]

could be but it is also speculative to assume the standard Christian response that Cain married a sister since sister no someone from another tribe. The scripture only give us a certain amount of information, to assume anymore is shaky ground. I wouldn't rule it out, but we just don't know. I have heard that all those female goddesses can be traced back to Babylon and Nimrod, but again that is speculative we don't have evidence or proof so I don't understand what the point of it is

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have been hearing about a jewish character by the name of Lilith, and I was wondering about the questions stated above.

When Jewish rabbis read Genesis they saw the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, to resolve the conflicting accounts they posited that Adam had two wives, to the first wife was given the name Lilith.

According to Jewish folklore, legends, etc, Lilith was Adam's first wife, created as his equal in Genesis 1; however she became troublesome and Adam divorced her, in response she became a she-demon that roamed the earth consuming children. In Genesis 2 God gives Adam his second wife, Eve, created from his rib as his helpmate.

Lilith is simply the product of trying to reconcile the two creation accounts in Genesis by speculating that Adam had two wives; everything else following that is simple folklore--and rather recent folklore at that.

Likewise, in the second temple period some Jewish readers of Genesis found it perplexing that Cain found a wife, when the text mentions only he and Abel as the children of Adam and Eve. The Book of Jubilees, an apocryphal text from this period, argues that Cain married his own sister; who while not mentioned in Genesis, is given a name in Jubilees--Awan.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[7he4uthor]

---

 

[7he4uthor]

:o

 

[AmyNMoore]

Lilith comes from the Kabbalah, which is ancient Jewish mysticism. The first recordings of her were not written on the bible and were not written until after Christ. So I think it is highly unlikely that there is any truth in it at all. Earlier "evidence" of her existence sometimes confuses her pagan deities such as Ishtar.

Lilith is popular with all these newage pagan peoples, it is at best speculative to think she existed

i have heard the same. It does make since. but who really knows. all we do know is that she was created by man. for ideas that long ago got repeated, and in doctrine became a "truth".

 

[ViaCrucis]

The concept of Lilith has its origins in ancient Near Eastern mythology, the lilitu were succubus-like demonic creatures. The Prophet Isaiah mentions them in passing in Isaiah 34:14, it's the only time the word is found in the Bible.

Later rabbinical sources attached "Lilith" with the supposed first woman mentioned in Genesis 1 (as opposed to the supposed second woman, Eve, in Genesis 2)--and from there gave her her own backstory, mythology, lore, etc.

These lilitu, in near-eastern mythology, as noted above, were near-eastern she-demons; malevolent spirits (the masculine version were lili).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[7he4uthor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8vairnOgxQ

 

[Alive_Again]

Why post something from someone called "Occult SIN"? God didn't make Satan. He made Lucifer, who became Satan. He fell out of Heaven. People try and say that the whole Satan thing is contrived, but that is incorrect.

As far as Lillith goes, it seems that many times the names of foreign gods and spirits in what we would consider fable, are actually names of devils. Angels (and devils) are not male and female, but they are referred to as "masculine and feminine.

There's really no part of what is presented in the world as "Lillith" that pertains to godliness.

 

[7he4uthor]

the video was informative for me

 

[Vince53]

As far as Cain getting a wife, you do realize that he might have been hundreds of years old when he murdered Abel. And it is possible that hundreds of years passed after the murder before he married.

Eve is the mother of all living, there cannot have been another race of people descended from a different woman.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why post something from someone called "Occult SIN"? God didn't make Satan. He made Lucifer, who became Satan. He fell out of Heaven. People try and say that the whole Satan thing is contrived, but that is incorrect.

As far as Lillith goes, it seems that many times the names of foreign gods and spirits in what we would consider fable, are actually names of devils. Angels (and devils) are not male and female, but they are referred to as "masculine and feminine.

There's really no part of what is presented in the world as "Lillith" that pertains to godliness.

It's worth noting that "Lucifer" is never a name given to the the devil in the Bible. It is a transliteration of the Vulgate's Latin preserved in English language Bibles.

Isaiah doesn't mention the devil, he mentions the very mortal, very human king of Babylon. Here in the text heylel ("shining one") is used as an epithet, a reference to Venus or "morning star" for its brilliance among the stars. The king being rebuked by Isaiah saw himself as high and lofty, among the stars, above the heavens, one of the gods. But that he would see his ruin, brought low, and left desolate, to be scorned by the nations.

The Hebrew heylel (related to halal, to shine, to praise, to boast and thus component of halaluyah, hallelujah) can be rendered as either eosphorus (dawn-bringer) or phosphorus (light-bringer). As eosphorus it appears in the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 14:12. Eosphorus is more explicit as "morning star", though phosphorus is used to mean the same.

In 2 Peter 1:19 the Greek text refers to Jesus as the phosphorus,

"And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star (phosphorus) rises in your hearts"

The Latin text translates the same passage as:

"et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris"

Here Jesus is, in the Latin, called "lucifer", that is, the phosphorus, the morning star.

Indeed the Latin word "lucifer" was used in Christian antiquity to refer to Christ, and is still used this way in Christian hymns, such as the Paschal Exsultet (Easter Proclamation), in the final stanza of the Latin hymn this is sung:

"Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat:
ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.
Christus Fílius tuus,
qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,
et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum."

In English:

"May this flame be found still burning
by the Morning Star:
the one Morning Star who never sets,
Christ your Son,
who, coming back from death's domain,
has shed his peaceful light on humanity,
and lives and reigns for ever and ever."

Again, in antiquity, "Lucifer" was actually a Christian name, it's the name of several bishops, for example St. Lucifer of Cagliari, a 4th century bishop. St. Athansius in some of his personal correspondences writes to a fellow bishop named Lucifer.

It wasn't until the middle ages that some exegetes saw imbedded in the text of Isaiah 14:12 a possible figurative, or more specifically anagogical sense--a more secret meaning behind the text. In such an anagogical sense some saw the figure being addressed as a mirror reflection of the devil's own pride and fall. And thus this sense has been maintained through succeeding generations.

But is it valid? Is reading this special anagogical meaning into the text a fair and proper form of exegesis? I don't believe it is. I believe it is eisegesis, it is reading into the text something that simply isn't there and never has been there. It is presuming something and then forcing the text to mean something the author never intended.

So, no, God didn't create a being called "lucifer" because there is no such thing.

There is Satan or the Devil (haShaytan and Diabolos) respectively. But the devil's name is not and never has been "Lucifer".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Intensive...