Modern Luciferianism, Its ideology and Goals

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Argentbenign
As I explained later, there's indeed some connection between this things, yet this thread is not about that.

And it's all based on faulty premises, mistranslations and outright fabrication. Lucifer does not equal Satan and neither one is real.

If you know "that much", you probably you can give constructive view of the topic, instead of the three-liner comments you slack around. Person that slacks around like this either knows nothing ir is way above in his knowledge. Let's see it, Augustus. Anytime it's convenient for you. Make a thread, I'll read it and if it's good for anything I'll even flag it and give you thumbs, nevermind our theological disagreement.

originally posted by: Argentbenign
If you know "that much", you probably you can give constructive view of the topic, instead of the three-liner comments you slack around. Person that slacks around like this either knows nothing ir is way above in his knowledge. Let's see it, Augustus. Anytime it's convenient for you. Make a thread, I'll read it and if it's good for anything I'll even flag it and give you thumbs, nevermind our theological disagreement.

I already have a 2,500+ reply thread on the topic. But thanks for the suggestion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Convenient. May I have its name then, so I browse it?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

SnF as promised. However you are touching very basic concepts about Lucifer there. And I guess you would say that lucifer is a man-made, like Scarlett Johansonn says in the first quote of the OP about how humans preceive the world, however, that is a childish notion(or grandpaish; parkinson grandpaish). Emptiness and Fullness are one, we cannot deny neither assure one of them. They are intermerging in existence. From human viewpoint there is many gods, many perpetrators, from elevated viewpoint there is only one(insert tetragrammaton here). However you are still human, mate. Get use to it and release yourself from illusions, it will keep some time like this. Mark my word.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus I'll give it more time tomorrow.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: toysforadults
Oh god forbid someone isn't a scholar in ancient mythology right?

The fact that you think the Lucifer myth is ancient is even more troubling.

I'm quoting your post. This is an exact quote.

If it counts for anything the Lucifer myth is at least 1500 years old, if anything it might be older.

I am curious now, so will see. I believe it's mentioned in the Arabic version of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, Kitab al Magall, if not the Latin which is based off the Greek, the Greek MS being as old as the oldest extant Bible MS. for MS., give or take.

The fallen angel myth, on the other hand, is at least as old as Azazel and Leviticus, because he is the original fallen being, angel or not, he was important enough that God himself orders a yearly sacrifice to him.

Translated "scapegoat" in the KJV and other less modern versions, it's Azazel in the original and his mythology is as old as the book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, which is old, has nothing to do with Lucifer but I don't thought worth mentioning at least. Because Lucifer evolved from the Latin tongue it probably originates with a misinterpretation of the Vulgate, and either way I am pretty sure it is old enough to technically be ancient.

Before Lucifer were many fallen ones, the book of Enoch mentions 200 Watchers, the "Sons of Elohim" of Genesis, be they angels or not (technically they are not, are Grigori/Irim, something else, but fallen angel is catchy so...), are the source of all fallen angel myths.

Both 2 Enoch and Kitab al Magall, which definitely mentions the myth borrowing Iblis from Islam (the MS tradition is late, both cases), also both mention a "Satanael."

Fun chatting with you. I am desirous of inquiring the actual origins of the Lucifer myth. I am a Muslim, so Iblis, a djinn and not an angel, is definitely 'fallen', but given respite until Judgement Day for failure to obey God. Not for trying to usurp "The Most High God" a la (misinterpreted) Isaiah 14:12. Point being I'd be shocked if this Quranic account of Iblis was older than the Latin myth of Lucifer.

Shocked I tell you. Even though I know that Iblis isn't dependant upon the myth of a fallen angel, isn't an angel at all so can't be, I doubt it precedes the Lucifer myth.

Therefore it must be ancient. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia online:

"The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre Christian century."
It bases this on the second Book of Enoch, which is in Slavonic, and doesn't mean the literal word "Lucifer", just the myth attributed to Lucifer even today (sadly). And Satanael which it wonders if is meant to be (Samael?).

They quote a portion that matches the Isaiah misinterpretation, attributed to "Satanael", and regardless of MS. tradition scholars do date 2 Enoch to 1BC-1AD, generally.

Which qualifies "the myth" as ancient, which would make the Vulgate the origin of the word, and thus still ancient.

Sorry Augustus Masonicus. But the myth, the word itself, ARE ancient, I am wondering why you find it hilarious that a person (may or may not, I don't know for sure) think, correctly, that the myth is ancient?

I find it hilarious you mock someone for knowing something because you think it's modern!

It's been discredited in modern times and in Medieval times was most popular, but existed since ancient times in Judeo-Christianity.

Is likely based off the Greek myth of Phaeton.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I find it funny how all the main three have Satan in them, where as in his origins in Christainity he fell from his rank in the league of heaven, to being a classification of Shayatan Jinn that looks nothing compared to the top tier two in Islams classifications?

Judaism on the other hand, I think it just an a xenophobic expression of negativity.

a reply to: Specimen

Judaism on the other hand, I think it just an a xenophobic expression of negativity.

Can you back up your statement about this being xenophobic with verifiable facts??

a reply to: Disturbinatti

A godhead who represents ultimate evil goes back as long as recorded history. Many of these stories have been used interchangeably by different cultures.

Honestly arguing about the name of this godhead is borderline ridiculous, it really doesn't matter because what your discussing when debating this topic has nothing to do with the given name of this alleged entity but it has everything to do with the character of this entity which is what this thread is really about.

It's really annoying actually to sit and pick apart the origins of his name in a thread that isn't about that, from my understanding is that Luciferianism is being used in reference to a magical order or a more esoteric religious group acting in accordance with the will of the godhead of evil.

His attributes COULD be:
Chaos
Darkness
Death
Negativity
Confusion
Law of reversal
Lying
Lust

These traits would be how you identify the Lucifarian doctrine or the Satanic culture, I am sure there is more but please add.

Very interesting topic.

In addition, without using "Lucifer" as a proper name or at all, Tertullian and earlier in Greek, Origen, both attributed Isaiah 14:12 to the fall of Satan from Heaven, Augustine of Hippo, later also did.

What Augustus should have said was Lucifer as a proper name for Satan is not ancient. He would have been correct as the term Morning Star (although technically Helel=Shining One, Shachar is the Morning Star) was used to refer to Jesus (p) and still is in Latin, at least they say.

But as far as Isaiah 14:12 goes, the mythology of it referring to the fall of Satan, it is ancient.

a reply to: toysforadults

I was just settling an issue, it was stated the myth of Lucifer, not the use of Lucifer as a name but the myth itself, was not ancient.

It felt worth the time it took, about 5 minutes, then another 3, researching the origins of the myth based of Isaiah 14:12, its age, was worth it.

After all you made a thread about Luciferianism and it got sidetracked by that issue, I was doing you a favor.

Now it is put to bed and you can continue.

a reply to: Specimen

I don't really see what is so funny about 3 different religions with the same God have differences like the origins of Satan/Iblis.

They have to be different at some point or they would be the exact same religion, which they aren't.

Christianity, Biblically speaking, has NO origin story for Satan, obviously neither does Judaism.

Both misinterpret something to come up with one, Judaism turns the flesh and blood beast the Serpent into Lilith who consorts with Samael/Satan, but his origins are the same as the other angels, he is a Seraph.

Christianity hasn't a clue how to explain it so they don't. Lucifer is still used by the less educated, but it is rather...dumb. Even modern Bibles have removed the word because it's talking about a human.

No, I don't see what is funny about all that.

I find Judaisms tales in the Zohar of Samael and Lilith fascinating, but not funny. Islam and Iblis, same thing and the fact that Seraphim and djinn are made of fire is also interesting and more similar than different.

And since Catholics and Christians believe in Seraphim, i.e. St. Francis the "Seraphic Father", you are more confused pertaining to how to reconcile supposed differences so missing the similarities, fire being the major one.

Seraphim means "Blazing Serpents", they are spirits and not actually reptiles so it's more about their wisdom as both are symbols of.

And before Iblis rebelled, he was the #2 in all of Heaven. I believe the same is said of him in Christianity and in Judaism he was made that way, to do just that.

Angels don't have free will, at least in Islam and the Bible, in the Bible even Satan lacks free will.

Djinn are different. They have free will, which was what made Iblis so great compared to the angels. He roamed among them as in the book of Job.

After the creation of Adam Iblis rebelled and was given a deferred judgement until Judgement Day.

Most take the book of Job as mythological. Outside of it Satan, THE Satan, is mentioned maybe twice, and does nothing significant, doesn't even have to be Iblis as Islam has many shaitans/devils/adversaries, he is just the chief OF shaitans.

Most people say they are the same. I don't see N.T. Satan as the same being as O.T. Ha Satan, Belial was the name of a a demon like Satan according to Paul and the DSS and is more like "The 'god' of this world" character in them and in Jubilees. Mastema is what Satan is called in both cases so if Belial=Satan, it's not THAT Satan.

It's not so confusing in the Qur'an, pretty simple really. The Qur'an tends to make sense where the Bible does not.

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: Disturbinatti

I find it funny how all the main three have Satan in them, where as in his origins in Christainity he fell from his rank in the league of heaven, to being a classification of Shayatan Jinn that looks nothing compared to the top tier two in Islams classifications?

Judaism on the other hand, I think it just an a xenophobic expression of negativity.

That's not true about Judaism, you are confusing it with political Zionism.

Every religion thinks of itself as the correct religion. Even the Qur'an acknowledged the Judahites have a special relationship with God having recieved the first revelations through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and especially Moses Torah, disagrees with some of their ways but respects them and their/our Prophets.

All people are capable of evil, not all Jews are evil Zionists.

Zionists tend to be atheist, to be fair, and they are xenophobic as are some Chasdim in Israel, and some Christians in Arkansas, Arab Muslims in Arabia, Persians in Iran, etc.

It is not even a term suited for religion, it usually applies to nationality if I am not mistaken, but either way, it's not specific to any one of either if applied.

It's also not true of all Jews. There are anti-Zionist Jews, anti-Israel Jews, Rabbis even, because they know what is happening is wrong and aren't scared to speak on it.

Many are just too scared of being called anti Semitic, even though being pro Palestinian is being pro Semitic (Arabs, Palestinians in general, are Semites) and most Israelis are Ashkenazi (non Semitic Jewish).

The Zionists are Luciferian, in that chaos is their agenda and possibly goal. I see chaos but no order emerging from it. Bnai Brith (Jewish Freemasonry) has usurped... everything.

Most Jews aren't members though they just have an inordinate amount of power so it seems that way, that most Jews are like the Jews who aren't really Jews, but something else entirely. Call it Masonic, Luciferian, it doesn't matter.

It's not true Judaism, they are "sons of Cain."

a reply to: toysforadults

Sure, the use of gentile, meaning non Jewish is quite generalized and over used in ancient hewbrew parables . I'm aware of the fact there were alot Semitic people who could be open minded or merchants.

However the particular set of beleives Judaism has with the kingdom of Judah, which had no revrlance to Ideal, and the amount of conflict that been fought over the years where Greeks an Romans got involved. Not to mention how the old testament story of Moses never happened.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

If that Satan original story in Islam, it quite lame and lacks depth. Getting kicked out of heaven for those who are with out, in apparently Satan eyes for not doing a simple gesture. Also the fact that Islam does not deny the Adam an Eve story, which is a much older, and is even used by the Jews and Christians too?

Why do Jinn have horns then?

I want to help the OP stay on topic and it coincidentally happened as it often does when I read after discussing something, that I came across some pertinent information in the Zohar.

And coincidentally it helps explain the reason why SOME Israelis, Chasidim and other Kabbalists like Chabad-Lubavitch and others, are fanatics. Which will explain also why not all Jewish people think one way, i.e. xenophobic.

Most don't read the Zohar or even it's cousin the Talmud, aren't even aware of the contents. That I own and read it is something of a rarity being I am Muslim. But I don't limit my reading to one genre and have learned a lot from the Zohar.

Sefer ha Zohar 'Vayigash.'

59. When the Messiah will come with the renewal of the great hand, he will wage war against Amalek. ... war against Amalek will be fought with Judgement, and then Mashiach will come.

You can see that some fanatics have obviously taken this literally and believe that war could actually influence the decisions of Almighty God who sets the appointed times for everything at His Will, doesn't live according to time or need to change the plan set in motion because some book says "War with Amalek" will bring the Messiah.

Amalek is said by some Christians to be them, I don't see it. The Christian Zionists think building Herod's Temple again (thinking it's Solomon's, God's Temple) will "hasten the second coming" without knowing why. It's anti Gospel b.s. as the Messiah (p) said "Only the Father knows" regarding just such matters. Dates, times, when. Not even the 'son' knows.

64. Luz= "Terrestrial Jerusalem."
79. T.J. refers to "people who will be born in that Jerusalem" who "return to their Master in Heaven, but will also convert. They will have names of Israel only.

This refers to proselytes, no longer called proselytes but who have converted and "returned" to their "Master", born in a "Terrestrial Jerusalem" which is called earlier "Yosef" so I think refers to outside of Judea entirely, as Yosef ruled in Egypt.

This could only be referring to the Khazars who converted before the Zohar was written and were always considered proselytes (see Kitab al Khazari by Judah Halevi).

This justifies, in the eyes of fanatics, the taking of Palestine for the "Chosen people" who aren't even Semitic, never mind Hebrew or Israelite, Judahites.

This is how the mind of the God-less Luciferian interprets the Zohar, which is not read by just Jews. It's a big scam today to draw "goyim" into Kabbalah as it's own religion, big business. I bought some books for 15$ a piece, some pay hundreds of thousands even millions to the Kabbalah Center.

They wear a scarlet red string on their wrists thinking it wards off the evil eye/ayin ha ra.

It's actually the color of the whore of Babylon, red is always associated with evil. Dummies.

Back to the Zohar: Vayigash

77. '' Gladness of His heart" is the building of the Temple, may it be built soon in our days. ... On that day, Hashem will be one, and His Name/Shem will be one."

84. Israel will stir and make war against the Nations. Some will die.


Nations is what is the origin of the word "Gentiles", means Gentiles. Some will die refers to Israel for whom "there is a reward." "For those who died for my Name's sake.

Does anybody know how to day or pronounce Satan in Hewbrew?