HINT. IT ISN’T LUCIFER.
All the pundits agree that at the very top of the global power pyramid, the individuals up there all worship Lucifer. Or Satan. Which is the same thing according to the Christians in the pack that dominate the debates on this. I scratch my head over this “fact” due to what I know of old Lucifer. If these supposed Lex Luthor level super-criminals actually do believe in Lucifer then they must really be as Robert Anton Wilson characterized them.
They must really actually be the biggest dum-dums on the planet.
How so? Because they believe that Lucifer exists. We’re not talking about the Roman god and brother of Diana. We’re talking about the being that is clearly spoken of just once in the Old Testament.
Lucifer the Archangel who dared to raise his seat higher than God Himself and was cast out. This is the Party Line from Vatican Central. However, Lucifer was never there in the first place.
The proper name of Lucifer only appears once in the King James Version of the Bible. That reference is in Isaiah 14:12. The verse reads: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.”
“In spite of this rendering, the proper name “Lucifer” is not in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew “Lucifer, son of the morning” is helel ben shachar. It could be translated “Shining one, son of the dawn.” It is not a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.” (Knowles, Godward.org)
If this is the case, then how did the translators of the King James Bible come to decide that this Hebrew phrase, an epithet for the King of Babylon — apparently a tyrant who was arrogant enough to claim a throne higher than God’s — should be translated as a proper name instead? How did the whole theology surrounding the myth of Lucifer make it into Church Doctrine that is considered as gospel as the Gospels? The Story of Lucifer as the Church tells it can’t be drawn from this one apparently mistranslated phrase. So where did that story come from?
If a fabrication in doctrine were going to be drawn from any part of the Bible, the section of Isaiah Lucifer has been graphed onto would be a good place to make the insertion. The King of Babylon is a horrible tyrant and these texts are depicting God telling the prophet Isaiah what’s about to happen to the King at the hands of God. God really had to make an example out of this upstart, a delusional pipsqueak by all accounts clearly lacking the cosmic heft to pick a fight with the creator of the universe. It makes a good metaphor to suddenly use as a basis for the doctrine of the Fall of Satan.
Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, pinpoints the exact era that the Church began associating these passages in Isaiah with Satan: “We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name “Lucifer” does not find its way into a translation until Jerome’s time, some 150 years later.” (Knowles, Godward.org)
In 405 C.E. (A.D.), Jerome completed the Latin translation of the Bible, known as the Vulgate. For the first time, the proper Latin name Lucifer appears in Isaiah 14:12. Jerome was using Greek source texts to translate Isaiah, not Hebrew.
“When he translated Isaiah 14:12, Jerome did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, nor did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros, which term, by his day, had fallen largely into disuse. Instead he translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, by Jerome’s time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan. Earlier, Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14. Jerome’s selection of words may have been influenced by this theology.” (Knowles, Godward.org)
So what Jerome did is use a Greek word that the Septuagint (LXX) didn’t in his decision to translate this concept into Latin. The choice of translating as if the Greek was lukophos and not Heosphoros had the auxiliary effect of now associating the characteristics of Pan onto Bible passages that were being interpreted as referring to Satan, not the King of Babylon. It was perhaps this strategic word choice that has inspired our current mythological associations of Satan as physically looking like Pan.
The Church bases its doctrines about the Fall of Satan on the passage in Revelations Chapter 12.
Satan is cast out of heaven after a war along with one third of the angels.
Jerome’s Lucifer gave the Church a good anchor point in the Old Testament to “echo” the account in Revelations. It gave them a name as well.
Let’s examine the notion that Lucifer might actually be an angel that actually rebelled against Yahweh.
What do we know about angel names from the time that Isaiah was written?
The most obvious anomaly is Lucifer does not follow the strict formula all angel names conform to: Lucifer doesn’t end in “el” (aleph lamed). El is a singular name of God (plural Elohim). Every angel in every angelic hierarchy known contemporaneous with Isaiah being written ends in “el”. No exceptions. Lucifer cannot be the name of a legitimate Biblical angel.
Because of the Jerome translation, the Church has adopted the opinion that Lucifer became Satan after the Fall.
However, this cannot be. All advocates of the Bible-As-Literal-History School would attest to the infallibility of the Biblical Time Line as laid down in the Old Testament. If this is literally true, Lucifer cannot be Satan.
Flip any Holy Bible open. Go to the Old Testament Book of Job. Read the narrative in the opening chapters. The stuff that talks about Satan. Walking to and fro upon the earth, checking things out. Looking for good tests of Righteousness. He spots one. Old Job. Satan jaunts back up to Heaven. He strolls into the Heavenly Court, into the presence of God and brings Job to God’s attention.
What is to be gathered from this depiction?
Well, for one thing, that Satan is a member of the Heavenly Court. For another, Satan has the audience of God whenever he needs it. Therefore, Satan is not the adversary of God. Satan is the adversary which refines righteousness in the souls of men. For ever challenge, there are two sides. Satan takes the adversarial side of the contest. Satan is a very necessary part of learning and life.
What does this have to do with Lucifer?
Well, the Holy Church and the Holy Rollers all agree: Lucifer became Satan.
Again, causally, this cannot be. When Lucifer rebelled and was cast out, Lucifer was never to return to Heaven again. Being NTRed as it is known inside the military. Lucifer’s Rebellion took place prior to the events depicted in Job. Lucifer’s Rebellion was concurrent to the creation of humanity. In fact, it was the creation of humanity and the status humans were to have in relationship to angels that triggered the whole controversy in the first place.
So if Lucifer became Satan and Lucifer was cast out, never to return to Heaven, how can he as Satan go back to Heaven and have the ear of God whenever he pleases?
Either the myth of Lucifer is a fraud or the Book of Job is.
This author is voting on the Lucifer fraud being the more likely culprit.
The official Catholic myth of Lucifer echoes the story of an angelic rebellion depicted in the Book of Enoch, a Jewish text that dates from around 400 B.C.E. (B.C.) This text was written thousands of years after Isaiah was written. The concepts of the Book of Enoch are unknown to the Hebrews of Isaiah’s time.
The story told in Enoch is about an angel who rebels for reasons similar to Lucifer’s. However, this angel is named Azazel, not Lucifer. See, even in 400 B.C., the Hebrew people were still sticking to the formula for all angelic names to follow. Lucifer makes no sense as a Hebraic based angel name.
A curious book about the Lucifer myth by Lynn Pickett, who brought us The Templar Revelations makes the case that Lucifer was a conspiracy by the Church to demonize the pagan cult of the great goddess.
I agree with the first part of her proposed thesis — that Lucifer was a conspiracy of the Church against something feared in the laity. However, I feel the conspiracy was more likely directed at attacking and dismantling the Renaissance and Enlightenment movements threatening the ecclesiastical world order of the time as it had never been threatened before, not at attacking the goddess.
The circumstantial evidence is there. The Church has motive and opportunity. It’s almost a crime.
Why I feel the Renaissance was the target and not the goddess is simple. Compare the virtues of the Renaissance and Enlightenment with the alleged errors of Lucifer. Could there be a correlation here? Was Lucifer designed to give the Church a Satanic tar brush to paint the Renaissance over with?
Okay, so I’ve just revealed why I think it is nutty to believe in Lucifer. The label of nutty applies equally to both hands of the path that stake claims over the metaphysical reality of a rebel angel named Lucifer. I have fairly demonstrated the history of what happened in the translation; that what is translated as Lucifer in the KJV isn’t present in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12. I have also demonstrated that the Christian doctrine of Lucifer becoming Satan is an error based on another error. The entire myth of Lucifer is a myth that should have never been in the first place, had the texts of Isaiah 14:12 been translated as actually written in Hebrew.
However, all we know at this point is that if the Global Elites really believe in Lucifer then they aren’t as smart as they think they are. The Lucifer thing is more likely smoke and mirrors being deployed to keep the domesticated primates in an uproar and chasing phantasms that don’t exist or matter.
I’ve said it before.
The truth is much worse than they’re telling us.
The story universe of my GREEN MAJIK novels reveals the True Identity of the Hidden God of the Global Elite.
It isn’t Moloch.
Lovecraft knows who He is. And so do I.
But on top of everything else, as an author, I had a duty not to use Satan – Satan is an overused and hackneyed device now in supernatural type fiction for playing the role of the Ultimate Heavy. It was a no brainer for me as to Who should be cast in the role of Supreme Villain in this series. Satan just isn’t scary enough for this job. Satan is fairly well a pipsqueak compared to Great Cthulhu.
Knowles, B. (n.d.). Who Is Lucifer? Retrieved December 10, 2015, from http://www.godward.org/hebrew roots/Feature Articles/who_is lucifer.htm
Picknett, L. (2006). The secret history of Lucifer: The ancient path to knowledge and the real Da Vinci Code. New York: Carroll & Graf.
Laurence, R. (2000). The book of Enoch the prophet. Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press.