Lucifer is not Satan
I accept the debate and would ask my opponent define these terms carefully. I will certainly be able to show that the bible is not merely using Lucifer as a reference to a king of Babylon but is using it to represent an elevated and supernatural being.
The name Lucifer appears only in some Bible versions, and only in Isa 14:12. First, the Bible tells us things about Lucifer that do not fit Satan's description.
(1) Isa 3-4 says: "And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"
Notice these words to Lucifer are addressed to the king of Babylon. It tells us that when the Isrealites return from Babylonian captivity (from the hard bondage), is when they will say "how hath the oppressor ceased." Satan himself had not "ceased" at that time, for 1 Pet 5:8 shows he was still active long after that time. The king of Babylon though, had ceased, for he fell to the Mdo-Persian army under Cyrus the Great at that time.
(2) Isaiah also says: "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming," "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isa 14:9, 15)
The Bible never says the Devil will go to hell (Heb. Sheol; Gk. Hades), but it does describe humans as going there. In fact, Satan's end will be in the lake of fire, not hell. (Luke 16:19-31; Rev 20:1-10) Note that in Rev 20:1-10, the Devil is bound for 1000 years, after which he misleads men for a while, only to be cast into the lake of fire. There is no mention of a hell for him.
(3) Isa 14:16 says: "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms."
So Lucifer is described as being "the man," Satan is not a "man," but a spirit being. Verse 11 even talks about his grave where "the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." This pictures a human death, not that of a spirit.
On the other hand, there are no good reason to think Lucifer is Satan:
(1) Symbolic language: The "heaven" from which Lucifer is said to have fallen in verse twelve is no less symbolic than the trees rejoicing and singing in verse 8. In fact, Lucifer mean "light bearer," which obviously must be sarcasm anyway, for the wicked king of Babylon surely was no genuine "light" in the Biblical sense. It sure would not be a good term to associate with the prince of darkness Satan himself. so in both cases this is more sarcasic, than literal; but notice that the heaven mentions here says nothing about God and the angels. It isn't pictures as being the heaven where spirit beings reside. Men on the earth are depicted elsewhere in the Bible as being in similar "heavens," so this is no good reason to assume it must refer to some angelic being. (Lam 2:1; Eph 1:3)
It must also be remembered that when Lucifer says "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High," he didn't actually accomplish these things, he was merely saying these things "in his heart." (Isa 14:13-14) So we don't have to look for a being who did these things, for they were not fully done. No-one is "like the most High." This won't be the first time a mere human (or human organization) attempted to do things describe in such heaven-like language. The "little horn," an early political power, is said to do similar. "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them." (Dan 8:10) Getting great up to "heaven" and casting stars of "heaven" to earth in no way makes the little horn a spirit being, similarly comments could be made about Lucifer. Another human who had such desires "in his hearth:" "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess 2:3-4) And we could go on, but surely, human beings have outrageous desires in their hearts, doesn't mean those desires indicate some invisible spirit being is being referenced.
(2) Double application: Those who argue in favor of Lucifer being the Devil claim that the text has a double application; but let me ask, on what basis do they do this? What criteria does con use to determine when a verse has a double application? The answer to this will be interesting.
(3) Even if we were to agree that a wicked spirit is being called Lucifer in Isaiah 14, this does nothing to prove that that spirit person must be Satan himself, for there are many evil spirits in the Bible whom have rebelled against God; so how does Con know it must be Satan? (1 Pet 3:19-20; Jude 6; Rev 12:4 a third of the stars of heaven) So even if the the text had a second application to a spirit being, Con would need to show us how he knows this being is Satan and not some other spirit. Satan is never called Lucifer in the Bible, nor is Lucifer called Satan in Isaiah 14 (the only place where the name is used for him), so how does Con arrive at his conclusion?
There is much more to mention, but I'll save it for after Con makes his first rebuttal, and presents his own evidence in favor of Lucifer being the Devil. In summary, I can confiently say that the identification of Lucifer as Satan is another tradition based purely one "speculation," or "assumptions," assuming that "only" the Devil could have the desires or was the only one to have the desires to ascend above the stars of God, and be like the most High, etc; and also assuming these things could not genuinely be said of men without needing further application, and so on. Sound Biblical doctrine is based on clear Biblical evidence, not doubtful speculation. I look forward to some clear evidence from Con in support of his case.
First I need to respond to a rule change in round 2, “The only rule for this debate is that the 66 books of the Bible must be trusted as reliable sources of information, as truth.”
I absolutely reject this attempt to shift the debate. Lucifer is a Latin word, the theology of Lucifer is predominately Catholic and comes from the Catholic translation tradition. I intend to pull in material from other canons. In particular material from the Old Testament of the Septuagint whose books don’t match the Protestant canon, the Pseudepigrapha, I reserve the right to apocrypha. And most importantly I certainly intend to pull in Catholic understanding. The doctrine of Lucifer my opponent is objecting to, came out of the late 4th to early 5th century translation, long before there was a Protestantism. I reject either a Protestant definition of the bible, sola scriptura or any other automatic assumption of Protestantism as begging the question.
That being said I can agree to focus on the 66 Protestant books of the bible and make my arguments mostly from those. There is plenty of material on Lucifer contained within the 66 Protestant books that Pro recognizes as scripture so as a courtesy I’m willing to keep the focus of the debate, though not the entirety of the debate there.
I think that Isaiah 14:12-15 is an excellent place to start the debate. However I think my opponent’s analysis is inaccurate due to lack of context. Derivation is not definition, while I agree with Pro that lucern ferre (lucifer) literally translated is “light-bearer” the term “light-bearer” is far better translated as “Morning Star” or “Day Star”. The Morning Star is the planet we call “Venus”. Venus lies between the Sun and the Earth. Which means it never “rises” high in the sky and can only be seen at dawn or dusk. It is however the brightest object after the moon in the night sky. So an issue of fascination in the ancient world, until the Ptolemaic system, was why Venus wasn’t visible during the night?
Lucifer is a Latin poetic term for the “star” we call Venus.
… vigil nitido patefecit ab ortu
Et iam Mygdoniis elata cubilibus alto
And now Aurora rising from her Mygdonian couch had driven the cold darkness on from high in the heavens, shaking out her dewy hair, her face blushing red at the pursuing sun – from him roseate Lucifer averts his fires lingering in the clouds and with reluctant horse leaves the heavens no longer his, until the blazing father make full his orb and forbid even his sister her beams) Statius, Thebaid 2, 134–150.
The mentions of Venus, day-star, morning star is all over the bible and the Latin Vulgate many times in keeping with Roman tradition translates as lucifer, for example 2Peter 1:19 the term Φωσφόρος (Phōsphoros) is translated by the Vulgate as Lucifer, “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris” (We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:)
So it is not that Lucifer only appears on one verse but rather the question becomes: why did the KJV translators retail this Latin term in this one verse while dispensing with it elsewhere? The reason is that the KJV translators knew Greek quite a bit better than Hebrew, and thus tended to be more aggressive in translating from the Greek for the New Testament while tending to defer to the Vulgate on Hebrew expressions. In Isaiah 14:12 they encounter, הֵילֵל בֶּן־שָׁחַר (helel ben-shakhar, “Helel son of Shachar”). This can be taken as a title and names, the treatment in some translations, but literally it means “Day star, son of the Dawn." Jewish lore has apparently always held this is part of the metaphor in Isaiah 14, and my opponents analysis was quite metaphorical so this should not be a point of dispute. In the Vulgate 14:12 is translated, “Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?” An English translation of the Latin would read, “How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who rose in the morning? How are you fallen to the earth, that wounded the nations?” Confronting this Latin, the KJV translators decided to keep the expression in its Latin formulation rather than translate and rest in the English and thus, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”.
Now I should mention that they were not consistent with this treatment of Lucifer in either testament. For example in Job 11:17, “ et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”, the KJV translators felt comfortable treating lucifer as a mark of brightness, “And your life would be brighter than noonday. Though you were dark, you would be like the morning.”
So if we are going to talk about Lucifer we need to address the original languages and the Vulgate not the KJV. Where the KJV uses Lucifer is mainly an accident of translation. “What should we make of the few places that the Latin word ‘lucifer’ manages to be retained in the English” which as my opponent correctly noted is 0 times in more modern bibles, is a uninteresting question, rather the question should be how to handle the references to Venus, the morning star, the day star in the bible and what imagery to draw from them.
So leaving behind the English for the rest of this debate we move to the LXX (the Seputegent’s) treatment of Isaiah 14:12 and note that they use the term:
Ἑωσφόρος (Heōsphoros) “Dawn-bringer” which is a dialectical version of
That is Greek god Phosphorus being tied to his Roman counterpart Lucifer. In Canaanite imagery we have the same play, Athtar, their name for the planet Venus, the son of El the high God attempts to steal the thrown of Ba’al (the Sun). There are scholars who have made the connection between the Hebrew version of Isaiah 14 and this legend. This romantic imagery of Lucifer, Phosphorus, Athtar for Venus and its astrological significance provides the context for Lucifer. The story of Lucifer’s fall is not written primarily in the bible it is written primarily in the night and morning sky.
The problem for Jerome in creating the Vulgate was how to disambiguate this conflicting imagery. The identification of Jesus with the Sun makes Lucifer his enemy while the imagery of Lucifer is absorb into the Jesus legend. So for example in Revelations 22:16 Jesus identifies himself as the Morning Star, but this time πρωϊνός is not translated as Lucifer in the Vulgate, but left as “morning star”: Ego Jesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis hæc in ecclesiis. Ego sum radix, et genus David, stella splendida et matutina. I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.
And it is this disambiguation that I will discuss in round 3 that identifies Lucifer with the Christian devil.
He says he will bring the apocrypha into the debate. Well, the point of this debate is to show that Lucifer (the one mentioned at Isaiah 14:12) is not Satan the Devil. So Con can bring in all the apocrypha he wants, but he has to prove that the Lucifer of Isaiah 14 is indeed Satan the Devil. I will respond to his use of apocrypha when he does use it, for I find that they have varying levels of reliability which would need to be addressed, it all depends on which ones he uses.
He also disregards the rule that the 66 books of the Bible are to be trusted as reliable? If that's the case why even engage in the debate at all? Why not just argue that the Bible isn't reliable to tell us who Lucifer is? If they aren't reliable, what makes him think the apocrypha is any different? Coming from an atheist? Come on, Pro!
Having established the use of Vulgate for Lucifer, in particular that 2Peter is speaking of Lucifer my opponent’s point (2) immediately falls, “The Bible never says the Devil will go to hell”. 2Pet 2:4 “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;”
Revelations 20:7 “When the thousand years end, Satan will be let out of his prison” explicitly identify Satan with devil cast into prison by God. As does Rev 12:7-9:
7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
I think connection between Satan and the Angel cast out of Heaven that “Peter” is citing here is directly from the Apocalypsis of Moses:
xvi 1 And the devil spake to the serpent saying, Rise up, come to me and I will tell thee a word
xvii 1 And instantly he hung himself from the wall of paradise, and when the angels ascended to
At this point I’m just going to quote the entire passage in the CCC on the fall. Since the CCC is arguably the most authoritative source in Christianity. We can debate the specifics but the fall of the angels is key to the Lucifer is the unfallen Satan.
II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil".267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".271
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God's reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275
266 Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24.
Once we establish that Devils are in fact fallen angels the passage in Isaiah becomes clear. The power beyond the king of Babylon is being addressed the ephemeral powers that are in conflict with God (Eph 6:12).
In the same way Ezekiel addresses the King of Tyre:
Moreover the word of the LORD came to me: Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (Ezekiel 28:11-19, NIV).
What mortal king is an anointed cherub? What mortal king was in Eden covered in precious stones? What mortal king walks among the stones of fire?
Pro's notion that “light bearer” is sarcastic has also been refuted. The title is used for Jesus, for Mary and for Lucifer in the same way. Lucifer used to be the right hand, the cherub that guarded the very holiness of God. His light on earth, the angel of the Lord, as we can see in the liturgy:
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
For Mary we here reference to Morning Star in her liturgy: http://www.preces-latinae.org...
Isa 14:12 being the only mention of Lucifer was key to the Pro whole case. The broader evidence shows Lucifer as God’s greatest angel who rebels and becomes Satan is supported by the Latin.
2 Pet 2:4 fails to put the Devil in hell for the following reasons.
(1) "Hell" is a mistranslation in this verse. The Greek word for hell, hades, is not used here; rather, the text uses "tartarosas," which means "having cast into Tartus." So the text is talking about Tartus, not hades (hell).
(2) The angels in Tartus are in "chains" (compare Jude 6), reserved unto the day of judgment; so they will continue to be in this prison until the day of judgment, unlike Satan the Devil who continues to be free in this world. (1 Pet 5:8) So the Devil is not among those imprisoned in Tartus, but is free for now to cause more havoc.
(3) 2 Pet 2:4 doesn't mention Satan; Con is merely assuming Satan must have been among them, he hasn't proved this. If "all" demons were sent into the prison, weather it be hell, Tartus, or otherwise, there would be no demons in the world today; but Scripture says different. So 2 Pet 2:4 isn't inclusive of "all" evil spirits, and Con hasn't shown him to be among them.
(4) 2 Pet 2:4 was talking about "angels," Con has not shown from the Bible that Satan was ever an "angel." How does he know he wasn't a Seraph, Cherub, or other spirit being? Our souls/spirits are not angels, so God is quite capable of creating spirits which are not "angels," and the Bible does "define" what angels are at Heb 1:14. Can he show Satan ever fit that description?
(5) Revelations 20:7 is interesting because vss 1-3 show that Satan is "yet" to be imprisoned, (Revelation is about the future 1:1), so he obviously wasn't with those already locked up in Peter. John was writing about the future, Peter was discussing the past. Further, vss 1-3 say he will be cast into the "abyss," not into hades (hell).
Let me add that none of these Scriptures Con uses ever say that Satan's name is Lucifer.
Rev 12:7-9 doesn't mention anything about Satan being Lucifer; Lucifer isn't even mentioned in the text. Lucifer fell from heaven in Isaiah 14, true, but that was in the past in Isaiah's time; Revelation is a record of the things that are yet to come to pass. (Rev 1:1) So Rev 12 is talking about events after John wrote this book. Satan's ousting from heaven was still future, thus, in Job's time he still had access to heaven. (Job 1-2) But since Lucifer fell from heaven long before John was even born, the fall of Lucifer and that of Satan are separate events.
Even if I were to grant the Apocalypsis of Moses place in the Bible canon, the passage he quoted from it still doesn't identify Satan as Lucifer.
Con gives a lengthy quote from the CCC which still doesn't mention the word "Lucifer" or seek to identify him as Satan. Then he claims that once we identify devils as angels the passage in Isaiah becomes clear, but Con has not yet proven that Satan the Devil in particular was ever at anytime an angel. Please keep in mind that the CCC (whatever that means) is not the Bible, but an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations can be wrong and are often debatable.
"The power beyond the king of Babylon is being addressed the ephemeral powers that are in conflict with God (Eph 6:12)."
Isa 14:3-4 says this proverb is against the king of Babylon; Con has not shown us where it says it was also addressed to some "power beyond" this earthly king. This is his assumption that he is yet to prove. Then he brings up Ezekiel 28 and asks:
"What mortal king is an anointed cherub? What mortal king was in Eden covered in precious stones? What mortal king walks among the stones of fire?"
(1) The king wore precious stones on his clothing. Does Con really believe that a spirit being wears jewelry? Hmmm…Please explain why Satan would be decked in emerald and gold; was he going to a fashion show? A king would walk up and down palaces overlaid in precious stones on the floor and walls, so he did walk up and down stones of fire. Sapphire is a firey stone.
(2) Verse 13 immediately says after describing his jewelry that "and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee…," (KJV) tabrets and pipes, in a spirit being?
(3) The king was anointed, so what? So was Cyrus. (Isa 45:1)
(4) Eden, or the "garden of God," is used figuratively to denote the prosperity and comfort in which some kings lived. The king of Egypt was also said to be in Eden (Eze 31:9-18), and from the way it is used here we can tell it's not meant to be literal anymore than in Eze 28.
The meanings given for "Eden" the garden of God according to Strong's Concordance….
H5731 ay'-den The same as H5730 (masculine); Eden, the region of Adam's home: - Eden.
H5730 ay'-den, ed-naw' From H5727; pleasure: - delicate, delight, pleasure. See also H1040.
H5727 aw-dan' A primitive root; to be soft or pleasant; figuratively and reflexively to live voluptuously: - delight self.
H1040 bayth ay'-den From H1004 and H5730; house of pleasure; Beth-Eden, a place in Syria: - Beth-eden.
(DRB Translation of Ezekiel 28:13)…. "Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God: every precious stone was thy covering…"
The phrase "pleasures of the paradise of God" is correctly translated because it was taken from the meanings given for "Eden". The meanings of "Eden" imply it does not necessarily mean a location, but can simply mean a condition of delight or pleasure; such as a symbolic "house of pleasure" (H1040). Therefore it could simply be a symbolic "house of pleasure" that the King of Tyre symbolically dwelled in with all manner of delight (H5730) and every precious stone.
(5) Other versions do not say the king was indeed a cherub, but that a cherub guarded him. Note how they treat Eze 28:14:
"I appointed a winged creature to guard your home on my holy mountain," (Contemporary English Version)
"I gave you your place with the winged one" (The Bible in Basic English)
"I appointed an angel to guard you" (God's Word Translation)
"I put a terrifying angel there to guard you" (Good News Bible)
So the king may not have been called a cherub at all.
(6) Even if I grant Con that Eze 28 points back to a spirit being beyond the king, he still hasn't shown me that this being is Lucifer or Satan. Nowhere does the Bible say Satan was a cherub, or that Lucifer is one, and how does he know there were not other spirit beings in Eden? So this is pure conjecture on Con's part. This is not proof.
(7) Fact is that even if there is a double application here in Eze 28, it doesn't prove there is one in Isaiah 14. The king of Babylon had desires in his heart to ascend above the clouds etc, how does that make him not a man? Do not mere men have such desires? Nor has Con shown me the heaven he fell from was the same heaven angels reside in. Such language is used elsewhere in the Bible for purely human entities such as the little horn ascending to the host of heaven and bringing the stars to the earth in Daniel 8:10.
"Pro's notion that "light bearer" is sarcastic has also been refuted. The title is used for Jesus, for Mary and for Lucifer in the same way."
Jesus and Mary are righteous, so they can be light-bearers, the king of Babylon and Satan are not, so they could not truly be light-bearers, it was sarcastic no matter which one its referring to.
"The broader evidence shows Lucifer as God's greatest angel who rebels and becomes Satan is supported by the Latin."
Where does the Latin Bible say Lucifer was an angel? Where does the Latin Bible say Lucifer is God's greatest enemy? Con hasn't shown us any of this, so he hasn't built a good case that Lucifer is Satan. Nor has he refuted my evidence that Lucifer is not Satan, such as where Lucifer is called a "man." I look forward to the next round.
Thank my opponent for his response. I’ll start by taking stock.
The original thesis was that the reference to Lucifer was a single point in the bible regarding a King of Babylon. In round 2 we proved there were multiple references centuries apart to Lucifer as an ongoing activity and that these latin references occurred within a context of other Latin writings both Christian and pagan which explicated what we know about Lucifer.
The second thesis has been an overall attack on the entire biblical doctrine of angels.
a) That Angels fell in a rebellion against God.
At this point the debate has moved well beyond the specific of Lucifer and Satan into a totally variant theory of angels. I’m going to give standard sources for the normative definition of and history of angels, the last 2300 years of theology, which prove a-d.
1) CCC has authoritative statements on angels: http://tinyurl.com...
No tie between Lucifer and Satan
Of course the most common tie belief between Lucifer and Satan is precisely what we have been talking about in the previous rounds. That Satan is often identified as the fake deity.
His very name plays into that theme.
Easter Vigil: Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.
Lucifer descends into the darkness and emerges the fake “Morning Star” of the sky that deceives those who do not have knowledge of the true “Morning Star” of Christ. Just as the Jews hunted after military messiahs like Bar Kochba, just as the pagans fell away to fake saviors like Dionysus, to fake teachers like Hermes Trismegistus; that is Lucifer.
Col 1:16, Heb 1:14 identifies Christ as the rightful leader of the angels. Lucifer is the leader of the angels. Revelations 12:7-9 dragon identified in verse 9 as Satan has a legion of angels in his command. And this leads to worship of the beast as a fake god (Rev 13:12). In Isaiah 14:13-4 Lucifer attempts to pass God, while in Genesis 3:5 Satan’s whole claim is that through knowledge, “You shall be as God”.
In terms of extra biblical sources, Summa Summa Theologica I.63.5.A (the section on the malice of the angels) is explicit,
Summa I.63.3.C identifies person of the devil with Lucifer. http://www.newadvent.org...;
... Hence Gregory says that he who sinned was the very highest of all. This seems to be the more probable view: because the angels' sin did not come of any proneness, but of free choice alone.... because there might be some motive for sinning in him also who was the chief of the lower angels.
There are similar comments in Augustine’s City of God that I’m cutting for length.
The Qu’ran 5 times identifies falling angel as Satan: http://www2.iath.virginia.edu...
Besides theology this theme is picked up on the most important literary works about the nature of Hell.
Milton in Paradise Lost is even more explicit: X.424-6:
Of Pandæmonium, Citie and proud seate
Know then, that after Lucifer from Heav'n
Dante’s Inferno ends with a visit to the 9th circle of Hell meeting Lucifer, Hell’s king
The Emperor of the kingdom dolorous...
Literal vs. symbolic
In terms of the biblical interpretation one of the issues that arises is an unjustified use in the Pro on what is symbolic and what is literal. The case takes parts of verses right next to one another and move from one view to the other. In particular the issue of jewels which he sees as literal while having been to eden is symbolic. Just to refute this argument we note that in Exodus 24:10 the language of gems is applied to God. In Rev 21:18-21 language used to describe “King of Tyre” gems heaven. Beryl, onyx jasper... As an aside, more evidence since the King of Tyre not been to heaven.
Saint Denis the Celestial Hierarchy (De Coelesti Hierarchia) and St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), following St. Denis divides the angels into three hierarchies each of which contains three orders. Their proximity to the Supreme Being serves as the basis of this division. In the first hierarchy he places the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.
If we want biblical evidence that Satan is the king of Hell: Luke 11:18, “ If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?” Or Matthew 25:41 “The devil and his angels.”
“The king was anointed, so what? So was Cyrus.”
This one is a partial sentences. Lucifer is an anointed cherub not just anointed. Cyrus was anointed as king not with a heavenly office.
Ordering of events:
There are a variety of claims about when various things happen in hell. Order of events is a property of matter. We live in space-time not just in space. There is no “before” or “after” or now from our perspective for things non-material. Even for the semi-material the order of events breaks down, faster than light travel with respect on one frame is travel backwards in time with respect to another.
"Hell" is a mistranslation in this verse.... So the text is talking about Tartarus, not hades (hell)
This was an the argument to drop 2Pet 2:4. The truth is that Tartarus is Hell while, Hades is just the afterlife. Tartarus is the realm of punishment for the wicked:
Now in the days of Cronos there existed a law respecting the destiny of man, which has always been, and still continues to be in ... he who has lived unjustly and impiously shall go to the house of vengeance and punishment, which is called Tartarus. (Plato, Gorgias http://en.wikisource.org...)
Because we have been differing so heavily on definitions:
I never denied a) That Angels fell in a rebellion against God, I believe they do at times rebel and earn the name "demons," that is, wicked angels.
I deny that b) That Satan led the [very first] rebellion. Says who that in every instance of angels sinning, that Satan was responsible? If he could sin off his own accord, why can't they? Since Lucifer is the king of Babylon, he couldn't have led any of them. But the specific rebellion of Revelation 12 was after John's day, for John says this was a prophecy to things to come. (Rev 1:1)
I deny that d) Seraphim, Cherubim ... are types of angels. The length of time a number of people believing a thing doesn't prove its validity, so all these centuries of theology don't prove a thing. If it did, Con should be a theist.
To prove that "Lucifer is the leader of the angels," Con introduces Revelations 12:7-9 which doesn't mention Lucifer, or call the Devil by that name.
"In Isaiah 14:13-4 Lucifer attempts to pass God,"
No he doesn't, he merely has these desires "in his heart" but the text never says he accomplishes or made the attempt. Even if he did, how would that make him Satan? Con is assuming Satan is the only one with such desires, but I have shown that isn't the case in my previous posts. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4; Dan 8:10)
"while in Genesis 3:5 Satan's whole claim is that through knowledge, "You shall be as God".
So anyone desiring to be like God must be Satan the Devil? Plenty of men with that desire in Bible times and in the world today; you'll have to do better Con.
Summa Summa Theologica I.63.5.A makes the "claim" that Lucifer is Satan, but doesn't back up that "claim" with Biblical evidence. Con cites Gregory and Augustine, but doesn't give us any solid argument from them to "PROVE" that Lucifer is Satan. They simply go by the ASSUMPTION that Lucifer is Satan without good evidence.
"The Qu'ran 5 times identifies falling angel as Satan: http://www2.iath.virginia.edu...;
The Qu'ran identifies this fallen angel as Iblis, not Lucifer; and in any case, I wonder how Con got the Qu'ran of Islam into the Bible canon? I thought he was using the Catholic tradition and their apocrypha; appears he has expanded his range. Since when did Milton's Paradise Lost become Scripture? And if it's an interpretation of Scripture, what evidence does it give for Lucifer being Satan aside from a mere claim? The same questions could be asked about Dante's Inferno.
Con has a problem with my shift from the literal to the symbolic in Isaiah 14, so if he takes it all as literal for a literal spirit being, then does he also believe that Satan literally is a "man" (Isa 14:16), that this spirit being literally has biological children (Isa 14:21), that he is covered in maggots and worms (Isa 14:11)? It is obvious to anyone reading Isaiah 14 that verse 8-9 at the very least are symbolic as well. Yet, the proverb was literally addressed to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4), so Isaiah is the one shifting from literal to symbolic, not me. Take it up with him.
Con uses Exodus 24:10 so show a spirit being can be adorned with jewels, but it doesn't say that God was wearing them as a covering; rather, that they were beneath his feet. It is quite likely God chose to appear on a spot in the mountain where precious jewels literally were found. Rev 21:18-21 describes a physical structure, not a spirit being, as having jewels. Since this city comes down to and is meant for the earth, we expect that it would have earthly jewels. Con has thus failed to prove that spirit beings wear jewelry; hence, my point stands that a spirit would not be wearing silver and gold ornaments; this is describing a human king in Ezekiel 28.
"In terms of the Lucifer is a man issue that's been fully refuted in round 2. Supernatural heavenly being, i.e. the spiritual representation of what we call the planet Venus. The same way that Jesus is the spiritual representation of the word of God"
Not according to the Bible. Jesus wasn't a spiritual representation of God in the form of man; he was God, and he was man. (John 1:1-18) Nergal (2Kings 17:30) and Nebo (Isa 46:1) as used in the texts supplied by Con are idol statues, this doesn't harm my argument in any way.
How does Con know chrubs and seraphs are angels? Because Saint Denis the Celestial Hierarchy and St. Thomas say so? What Biblical evidence do they provide to prove their case? Con wants us to accept their say-so, but such won't fly in this debate. Were they inspired of God as was Isaiah? (Isa 1:1-2)
I agree, the Devil is the ruler of the demons, now show me where the Bible says that Lucifer is the ruler of the demons and you'll have a good point.
"Unless you want God / Satan / Jesus.... bound to a particular location in space-time and unable to travel faster than the speed of light we can't order their events meaningfully."
Please clarify how this relates to Lucifer being Satan. John told us when Satan's outing from heaven would happen, shortly, after he wrote Revelation (Rev 1:1), Lucifer had already fallen according to Isaiah 14, hence, two different falls, two different people.
Con cites Plato to prove that Tartarus is the realm of punishment for the wicked, that Tartarus is hell, Plato was no Christian, nor did he say his writings were God's word and belong in the canon of Scripture. This was his own opinion, but the Bible doesn't support this view; only angels, and not departed souls, are mentioned as being in Tartarus. Also, 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 describe Tartus as a place of "darkness," no doubt, no fire is burning to light this place as is the case with the firey hell.
1) What are devils? The Greek word for "devil" is diabolos. It is used of Satan at Jude 9, and means "slanderer," or "accuses." Jesus said of Judas, "one of you is a devil (diabolos)." (John 6:70) 1 Tim 3:11 says wives shouldn't be "slanderers (diabolos)." In the last days men will be "false accusers (diabolos)." (2 Tim 3:1-3) So a devil is any being which accuses or sladers. Satan is only one, the main, devil.
2) What is Satan? Satan means "resister," or "adversary." The Hebrew word for Satan is used of men as well. (1 Sam 29:4 "adversary")…So a "satan" is an adversary, and Satan the Devil made himself into God's chief adversary by his actions.
3) How do you know Satan is a devil (the devil)? Cause the Bible says that he is. (Rev 12:9-10) It doesn't say he is Lucifer.
4) What are angels? The Greek word for "angel" is angelos, which means "messenger." Cherubim and Seraphim are never used in the Bible to deliver messages, so they are not angels in this sense. Neither does the Bible say that Satan ever served in this capacity. Further, Heb 1:14 says angels are spirits which "minister" to a specific group, "those who inherit salvation." Unless Con can show that Satan, Cherubs and Seraphs served in this capacity, he can't show them to be angels.
I'm out of space, over to you Con.
I thank my opponent for a good debate.
We have established the cultural context at the time of the KJV translation.
a) The use of Lucifer in the Vulgate.
In choosing to use the Vulgate’s Latin term “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 the KJV translators meant the pre-fallen Satan. There is just no question what they meant. They meant Satan, the devil by their use of Lucifer and that was the original thesis question what the KJV meant. That should end the debate.
Pro’s counter argument has been a more complex argument about whether all the sources are correct. Is there a good argument for the traditional position that Isaiah originally meant Satan?
In terms of that question this debate has shown that the answer is “absolutely!” The evidence for this is its wide spread acceptance among many different sources.
a) helel ben-shakhar, the Hebrew used, is literally “Day Star”.
b) Lucifer / Venus / Morning Star (Φωσφόρος) is a divine attribute throughout the bible.
c) The things said about the King in Isaiah 14 go way beyond the damage a mortal king could do. The sins are just “too big” even for a powerful king. How would a human know how to set his thrown on high in heaven like God? Even if he wanted to commit that sin how could he?
d) In particular, the Isaiah passage appears to tie to a contemporary legend about Athtar(Venus) attempting to steal the thrown of Ba’al (the Sun = Jesus). “Ascend to heaven above the stars” Satan’s big sin, a sin that a human king wouldn’t even know how to commit, the attempt to usurp God.
e) 2Peter explicitly makes the tie. The original counter argument presented by Pro for this evidence was based on this theory of the translation of tartarus which was categorically contradicted.
f) We see similar uses of other planets, including Isaiah himself in 46:1.
Finally the argument has come down to whether Seraphim and Cherubim are angels. I presented a lot of Catholic evidence that they were. My opponent simply asserted they aren’t. Here is a fully independent second position, the hierarchy is different from Saint Gregory’s: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I think the answer is that the overwhelming evidence supports the traditional position. This position has been the traditional position for good reason. My opponent’s alternative, a human king, falls apart quite quickly. His second line of defense amounts to “regardless of how many pieces of evidence exist the bible never say X explicitly”. Well many Christian doctrines he believes are not explicitly in the bible: none of the 5 solas, the trinity, the hypostatic union, his eschatology. None of those are explicitly in the bible all are drawn using inductive reasoning which amounts to, “this seems like the most likely theory based on the evidence”. And the traditional position, along with most other Christian theology meets that criteria. We wouldn’t expect a simple biblical statement that Lucifer is Satan since Satan is a Hebrew/ Aramaic word and Lucifer is a Latin one but we have exactly what we would expect.
There were a couple of counter arguments about the time of the fall of the angels that in Lucifer’s case it has already happened while it hasn’t happened in Satan’s. Which I addressed in round 4. Time is a property of matter there is no before or after when it comes to eternal beings. Entropy, a property of thermodynamics is what gives time direction. Satan and God don’t eat food and don’t release heat. They don’t engage in entropic reactions they don’t have a before or after. That’s applying human language to the divine. I’m not going to have enough space to quote systematic theologies on properties of the God, his being eternal but that’s how I’d respond. The one time challenge by Athtar of Ba’al in eternity is represented by a nightly manifestation in the sky.
The bible explicitly agrees with me on when the devil fell: 1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. John 8:44 identifies Satan as the, “Father of lies” that the sins of Satan predate sins of man.
I think it makes far more sense to see Isaiah 14 passage Lucifer is to “fallen from heaven” and “cut down to the ground” Ezek 28, Job 1, Luke 10, Eph 6, Rev 12 all attributed to Satan rather than two distinct falls.
As for Tartarus, I'll close by commenting it doesn’t matter if Plato was a Christian. The question was what the word Tartarus meant in Greek. Plato is essentially the most authoritative source for the definition. Just to provide another source, the first written use of it that we know of is in Hesiod’s Theogony (http://www.sacred-texts.com...) where Tartarus is the realm of the deep, an alternative to Gaia (the earth) where man and the good Gods live. In the 3rd generation of the god’s when the evil titans are overthrown by the good gods they are cast into Tartarus. The analogy to the Christian doctrine of the fall of the angels is pretty clear and hence the reason the bible uses the term.
If Pro wanted to argue Plato was wrong in his understanding of a Greek term, I think he needs to provide some pretty substantial evidence.
In my opponent’s translation he has quoted Strong. As an aside Strong agrees with Con’s thesis, “The scriptures representations of the progressive rage of the great adversary, from his first assault in Genesis to his final overthrow in Revelations, join with the testimony of Christ just mentioned, to forbid any other conclusion than this, that there is a personal being of great power, who carries on organized opposition to the divine government. ( Systematic theology: Good and Evil Angels).
Apocalypse of Moses
I’ll close with another piece of evidence I didn’t have room for in round 4. In terms of ancient texts Apocalypse of Moses (verse 8 identifies serpent with Satan) and speaks of fall:
XIII The devil [Satan] replied, 'Adam, what dost thou tell me? It is for thy sake that I have been hurled from that place. When thou wast formed, I was hurled out of the presence of God and banished from the company of the angels... I will not worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me.... When the angels who were under me heard this, they refused to worship him. And Michael saith, 'Worship the image of God, but if thou wilt not worship him, the Lord God will be wrath with thee.' And I said, 'If He be wrath with me, I will set my seat above the stars of heaven and will be like the Highest.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|