Were the Egyptians Satanic?

[In-Christ-Alone]

WHY spend so much time discussing the devil???

 

[The Liturgist]

If your not for God your are against him and in doing so are in the spirit of Satan. Satan is a Hebrew word and it means adversary so if you are against God you are his adversary thus also satan. So yes Osiris is in the spirit of Satan (but not Lucifer because that's not Satan's name, it's Latin for light-bearer)

That’s correct; the idea that Lucifer is the proper name for the devil is a Western misconception derived from the Latin language in which the Vulgate was composed, where certain passages regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and Satan’s expulsion from heaven and fall from angelic grace, used the word Lucifer to refer to “the morning star,” which was vastly preferable to the alternative Latin translation: imagine how confusing it would be had St. Jerome, when he was translating the Vulgate, referred to the morning star as Venus! It would have the downright sinister theological implication that a Pagan deity was created by God the Father before being rejected, which is just such completely bad theology as to be a joke. So St. Jerome had to translate it as light bearer, as I believe his predecessors did as well when translating the Vetus Latina, the original Latin translation of the Bible (which had some serious errors, but was not completely replaced by the Vulgate; we still use a liturgical phrase from it, “Gloria in excelsis deo,” which the Vulgate renders as “Gloria in altissimus deo.”

Lucifer was also not an uncommon name among Latin speaking Christians of the Roman Empire; there was a St. Lucifer who was martyred in one of the persecutions, for being a Christian, who obviously was neither the devil nor named for him, and there was also a prominent fourth century Nicene Christian bishop named Lucifer of Cagliari, who was controversial because of his outspoken support for Origen, who was strongly opposed by Jerome, and also by the Greek bishop St. Epiphanios. On the island of Sardinia, of which Cagliari is the pre-eminent city, this bishop is venerated as a saint, but not elsewhere.

 

[DamianWarS]

That’s correct; the idea that Lucifer is the proper name for the devil is a Western misconception derived from the Latin language in which the Vulgate was composed, where certain passages regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and Satan’s expulsion from heaven and fall from angelic grace, used the word Lucifer to refer to “the morning star,” which was vastly preferable to the alternative Latin translation: imagine how confusing it would be had St. Jerome, when he was translating the Vulgate, referred to the morning star as Venus! It would have the downright sinister theological implication that a Pagan deity was created by God the Father before being rejected, which is just such completely bad theology as to be a joke. So St. Jerome had to translate it as light bearer, as I believe his predecessors did as well when translating the Vetus Latina, the original Latin translation of the Bible (which had some serious errors, but was not completely replaced by the Vulgate; we still use a liturgical phrase from it, “Gloria in excelsis deo,” which the Vulgate renders as “Gloria in altissimus deo.”

Lucifer was also not an uncommon name among Latin speaking Christians of the Roman Empire; there was a St. Lucifer who was martyred in one of the persecutions, for being a Christian, who obviously was neither the devil nor named for him, and there was also a prominent fourth century Nicene Christian bishop named Lucifer of Cagliari, who was controversial because of his outspoken support for Origen, who was strongly opposed by Jerome, and also by the Greek bishop St. Epiphanios. On the island of Sardinia, of which Cagliari is the pre-eminent city, this bishop is venerated as a saint, but not elsewhere.

Lucifer is not Satan's proper name but we may properly refer to Satan using Lucifer. The name is a mis-nomor like tin foil is to aluminum foil. Tin foil doesn't have any tin in it yet we can properly refer to it as tin foil (the same with a tin can). it's when we start to analyze the name "Lucifer" and apply it to satan is where it comes into a problem. Lucifer is a superficial name of Satan and so we should only look to it superficially. If we want to analyze the names we should look to the original texts in their original languages.

 

[The Liturgist]

Lucifer is not Satan's proper name but we may properly refer to Satan using Lucifer. The name is a mis-nomor like a tin foil is to aluminum foil. Tin foil doesn't have any tin in it yet we can properly refer to it as tin foil (the same with tin can). it's when we start to analyze the name "Lucifer" and apply it to satan is where it comes into a problem. Lucifer is a superficial name of Satan and so we should only look to it superficially. If we want to analyze the names we should look to the original texts in their original languages.

I agree, except to the extent that we should I believe also phase out the use of this name, because it does disrespect certain martyrs of the early Church who were named Lucifer; it is tragic in my opinion that these holy martyrs, who died for confessing Christ before men and therefore, Christ confessed before the Father, now have their name soiled by an association with the devil which did not exist in their lifetime.

 

[Andrewn]

As for your original post regarding the Satan/Enemy, Lucifer means light bringer/lightning bearer and may also be a reference to the morning star.

"Daystar" is also the name of a Christian TV network .

Daystar Television - Spreading the Gospel by Television & Video

 

[Andrewn]

That’s correct; the idea that Lucifer is the proper name for the devil is a Western misconception derived from the Latin language in which the Vulgate was composed, where certain passages regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and Satan’s expulsion from heaven and fall from angelic grace, used the word Lucifer to refer to “the morning star,” which was vastly preferable to the alternative Latin translation: imagine how confusing it would be had St. Jerome, when he was translating the Vulgate, referred to the morning star as Venus! . . . Lucifer was also not an uncommon name among Latin speaking Christians of the Roman Empire;

Properly speaking, the Morning Star is Jesus:

2Pe 1:19 We also have the completely reliable prophetic word. You do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts,

 

[The Liturgist]

Properly speaking, the Morning Star is Jesus:

2Pe 1:19 We also have the completely reliable prophetic word. You do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts,

You are entirely correct. And the passage in question that makes people believe incorrectly the devil is named Lucifer is actually about how the Nebuchadnezzar, like the devil, had fallen from grace and no longer resembled Jesus Christ, due to having rejected God, turning from love and holiness to hatred and evil.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree, except to the extent that we should I believe also phase out the use of this name, because it does disrespect certain martyrs of the early Church who were named Lucifer; it is tragic in my opinion that these holy martyrs, who died for confessing Christ before men and therefore, Christ confessed before the Father, now have their name soiled by an association with the devil which did not exist in their lifetime.

Education is enough, the moment the name is removed we give it power. Better to see "Lucifer" for what he is, a lie.

 

[DamianWarS]

"Daystar" is also the name of a Christian TV network .

Daystar Television - Spreading the Gospel by Television & Video

The Latin text calls Christ lucifer (2 Peter 1:9) and the Latin church still calls Christ lucifer. The Latin text also uses the word lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. They are both good translations because lucifer is a proper Latin word with Latin meaning. The KJV use of Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 is not a translation, it just uses the Latin word. Some during the Latin church period the church built an identity of Satan around the name Lucifer but it's just a word and it conjures up no special power when we use it.

 

[Questioning Brother]

Satan isn’t even the name for the Devil. Satan comes from Shai’tan which meant adversary/enemy.

 

[DamianWarS]

Satan isn’t even the name for the Devil. Satan comes from Shai’tan which meant adversary/enemy.

All Hebrew words have Hebrew meaning, this includes names of people. So because the word Satan in Hebrew has Hebrew meaning doesn't eliminate it as his name. Lucifer is a far more questionable name than Satan is and NT use gives us a greater understand of the character of Satan.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So is Baal Osiris? I have heard that Baal is Satan, as well as Nimrod, and Beelzebub. I am just trying to figure out who these figures are as I am reading about them. I mean how many names does the devil have?

Ba'al was a generic title that meant "master" or "lord" and many gods were called "ba'al" among the various Semitic Pagan and other Levantine Pagan groups. It could also mean "husband" (in a very patriarchal "my lord" sort of way), which is why God Himself uses this word in reference to Himself in Hosea 2:16, that Israel would know Him as ishi, not as ba'ali. Ishi is closer to "dear husband" with an intimacy and famliarity, even more a dimension of partnership, a husband-as-companion; where as ba'ali "my lord" is formal, distant, a husband-as-master.

Nimrod was just a man.

And Beelzebub is a Hellenization of Ba'al Zebub, meaning which can be translated "Lord of the Flies", and was the name of an originally Phlistine god. Over time in the 2nd Temple period the Jews began to associate certain pagan gods with demons. In fact the Jews even borrowed a Greek word daimon (from which we get "demon") which originally referred to any divine or quasi-divine being in Greek mythology and religion (from nymphs to human souls to the gods of Olympus themselves), and used it to refer to evil spirits and fallen angels.

It is within this context that Ba'al Zebub came into Jewish usage to speak of a demon, or even a kind of arch-demons. The same is true with the word belial, which originally just meant something like "worthless", but only in the 2nd Temple period did it come to be used as a name to refer to the leader of fallen angels, aka haSatan; the devil. Which is why both Beelzebub and Belial are used the way they are in the New Testament.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

All Hebrew words have Hebrew meaning, this includes names of people. So because the word Satan in Hebrew has Hebrew meaning doesn't eliminate it as his name. Lucifer is a far more questionable name than Satan is and NT use gives us a greater understand of the character of Satan.

You're right of course. But Satan is still more a descriptor/title than a name in any proper sense.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

You're right of course. But Satan is still more a descriptor/title than a name in any proper sense.

-CryptoLutheran

so is every other Hebrew name. what may separates Satan as a proper name is haSatan which is used when referring to him that uses a definite article "the satan" or "the adversary". Perhaps the Hebrews had a superstition about his name and just referenced him as haSatan, almost like "he who must not be named". haElohim is used in the bible commonly translated as "of/with/by God" but not commonly "the God" so why isn't haSatan "of/with/by Satan"? Elohim is the plural of eloah and more literally can be translated as "power/powers" and was a word used for the divine or for high positions of power. Most translation choose to use it as an abstract title of God and in the same way Satan is used as an abstract reference to him. It may not be his given name by God but that's not the point of the Bible to reveal the naming process of angels.