Worshipping Satan

It does indeed. Previous to Milton having published "Paradise Lost", it was always agreed that the verse is speaking of the king of Babylon.

KJVIn elglish

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!

The original text traslation in latin

quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.

As it was in hebrew.

"Isaiah 14:12 (KJV with Hebrew) 'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!'

1 Helel was not a king but a god, god of the morning star ,as you can see in the bible his is calling him son of shahar, shahar was the god of the dawn in antic babilonian religion it's proven acurate that helel was the son of sahar.
Helel is the one who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods
just like the story in the bible where satan tryed to take over the kindom of god.

In context, there is no doubt that this is the case among serious biblical scholars.

That was long ago, the NIV translation is proven correct.

As mentioned, the original Old Testament passage concerns a prophecy of the fall of the king of Babylon. The word "Lucifer" is not found in it

No but the word helel is and translated means just that, and to be more reasuring his father's name comes right after that so that we can be to be sure he was refering to a god

There was no Babylonian god named "Helel". Scholars of Hebrew all agree that it is a reference to Tiglath-Pilaser, who was king of Babylon at the time Isaiah wrote it.

your hilaryos
www.whiterosesgarden.com/Nature_of_Evil/fallen_angels/FAngels_G-H/helel.htm
From the jews them selfs.
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Annual XIV, pp. 29-126

Helel - In Canaanitish mythology, a fallen angel, son of Sahar or Sharer, a winged deity. Helel sought to usurp the throne of the chief god and, as punishment, was cast down into the abyss. Cf. the Lucifer legend. The 1st star to fall from Heaven (Enoch I, 86:1) was Satan-Helel. This is an interpretation offered by Morgenstern, "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82" (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Annual XIV, pp. 29-126). However, in his Fallen Angels, Bamberger argues: "The more natural explanation is that the 1st star [that fell] was Azazel." Helel was head or leader of the nephilim (q.v.). Generally speaking, angels can have no offspring, since they are pure spirits; but when angels sin, when they "put on the corruptibility of the flesh" and cohabit with mortal women, they are capable of producing progeny. A case in point is the incident in Genesis 6. In the cabala and rabbinic lore there are numerous instances of such heteroclitish productivity. [Rf. Graves and Patai, Hebrew Myths.] (a)

Now that I made the connection I shall post some things later about lucifer and masonary.


[edit on 15-5-2007 by pepsi78]

So, the Isaiah passage does not connect, either historically or theologically, with the New Testament passages about the devil or the satan. By listening to the Old Testament passage on its own terms within its own context, we discover that Lucifer is not an Old Testament name for the devil or the satan. The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed at the downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly misreading Isaiah.

Link

Originally posted by Masonic Light

So, the Isaiah passage does not connect, either historically or theologically, with the New Testament passages about the devil or the satan. By listening to the Old Testament passage on its own terms within its own context, we discover that Lucifer is not an Old Testament name for the devil or the satan. The passage in Isaiah 14:12-17 is directed at the downfall of the arrogant Babylonian rulers who took Israel into exile. By beginning with the New Testament, by making assumptions not supported by a closer examination of Scripture itself, and by using external theological categories as a lens through which to read Scripture, we may end up badly misreading Isaiah.

Link

That conclusion was long ago, NIV is correct, jewish scholars and others came to the conlcusion that the traslation is correct.
I fully explained why and how.

Further more your source does not explain why, it just says that it's not related with out specifications, as I see you did not quote on your link source because you have no idea what to quote.

It's nice to just throw a link and hope it makes sence ?
Nice link it's not true because the link says it's not true whith out any explenations, it just says a bunch of people came to a conclusion.
Read about the NIV and why it's accurate, those statements that you posted is old stuff and not valid anymore simply because of newly found manuscripts, and further investigation of mythology.
Based on mythologycal characters facts and acurate translation the passage in the bible does not refere to a king of babylon



[edit on 15-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Than how come Jesus calls himself a 'morning star'?

Book of Revelation 22:16,

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.“

Originally posted by blue bird
Than how come Jesus calls himself a 'morning star'?

Book of Revelation 22:16,

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.“

But he sure didint call him self helel.
Big difference, helel is not a meaning but an actual god in babylonian culture.
I didint say that the morning star represents evil, what I did say is that helel a character of the babylonian culture was translated as lucifer in latin because of his name ment just that, there is no meaning to the word helel because helel is a name of a character, it's like his name is "venus" not that his name means venus.

If you can prove to me that jesus called his self helel then I rest my case.
My points are.
1 ishaia was not refering to a king.
2 the translation for the "name" helel in latin is lucifer and it is correct.

Jesus calls his self the morning star but his name is not the morning star.
His name is jesus.

Example:
I'm refelcting on things, but I'm not a mirror, my name is not mirror.

There are people that their actual name is satan, there is a hokey player in canada his name is satan stan I think.
The translation was done on his name and not on it's meaning of the name.
If your name is morning star then people will call you lucifer in latin.
for an example Indian tribes have names like this big bear, little wolf...exetera.

Thats what I sad earlier that the translation is actuly an identification rather than a translation, that is why it was done long time ago, way back, before 4th centruy.
here.His actual name is morning star.

Helel - In Canaanitish mythology, a fallen angel, son of Sahar or Sharer, a winged deity. Helel sought to usurp the throne of the chief god and, as punishment, was cast down into the abyss

[edit on 15-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Meaning: brilliant star (Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

Septuagint translation of "Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shaḥar" (= "the brilliant one," "son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa 1412ff). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek 2814; Ps 982), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job 387).

Source: wiki

To find the
answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in
Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of
Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter
of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who
during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention
of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate
that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the
Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a
fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to
whom they gave the name "Lucifer.

source

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Vol 1 page 229

"Lucifer, the rendering of the Vulgate for the Hebrew phrase helal ("day-star") in Isa. 14:12; the verse is rendered in the Authorized Version as: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king; the figure used may trace back to a Hebrew or Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18) fell from heaven like lightning; accordingly, Lucifer bacame one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology."

[edit on 15-5-2007 by blue bird]

Babylonian astral myth like the Greek story of Phaethon, in which the day-star is cast out of heaven because of presumption. The term Lucifer is never used in Jewish legend; but Christian writers identified Lucifer with Satan who, according to the gospels (Luke 10:18) fell from heaven like lightning; accordingly, Lucifer bacame one of the terms for the devil in Christian theology."

Well why don't we post the whole text.

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, 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.” (Isaiah 14:4, 5, 9-12).

I don't see how a king can rise above god, it's imposible to picture it.
First how does a mortal do that?
Who wanted to be above god?
How does a mortal king ascend in to heaven when he is not wanted there?



This king is unusual, not a human at all

Son of man take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him:... "You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, crysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy Mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in all your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the Mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor
So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out of you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and you will be no more.

God sends some one to deliver a message to king of tyre, in the message god tells the king of tyre that he was made perfect from creation shining, wise, and beautiful but that wicked was found in him, it also states that he was a chebru.
Satan was a chebru, chebru is a rase of angels, in the passage the king of tyre is described as a fallen chebru, nothing human about that.
On a second note tyre was part of babilon.

Who is the king of babylon?

And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

abaddon is now a location in what babylon use to be, you can check it on the map, curent iraq, iran.


It's clear that isaiah was not talking to a mortal at the time , I dont belilive he was refering to a simple human being, all the evidence just points in to another direction.

I stand to my opinion that translation was done correct.



[edit on 15-5-2007 by pepsi78]

found the map.
Abadan, in hebrew translated abaddon



[edit on 15-5-2007 by pepsi78]

damn, this escalated into full blown etymology.

Has anyone here heard of John M Allegro? He translated the dead sea scrolls in the late 50s, then in the 70s came across links to sumerian text. To avoid a false information due to paraphrasing, i'll quote the official website:

As a philologist, Allegro analysed the derivations of language. He traced biblical words and phrases back to their roots in Sumerian, and showed how Sumerian phonemes recur in varying but related contexts in many Semitic, classical and other Indo-European languages. Although meanings changed to some extent, Allegro found some basic religious ideas passing on through the genealogy of words. His book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross relates the development of language on our continent to the development of myths, religions and cultic practices in many cultures. Allegro believed he could prove through etymology that the roots of Christianity, as of many other religions, lay in fertility cults; and that cultic practices, such as ingesting hallucinogenic drugs to perceive the mind of god, persisted into Christian times.
To sum up, John Allegro believed the Dead Sea Scrolls raised issues that concerned everyone. It wasn't just a matter of dusty manuscripts and disputed translations - the story of the scrolls raised questions about freedom of access to evidence, freedom of speech, and freedom to challenge orthodox religious views. He believed that through understanding the origins of religion people could be freed from its bonds to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own judgements.

the point is, etymology is a rabbit-hole in itself, so debating the root of a word within the context of biblical text, is limiting how far back you can truly trace a word.

The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ." The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.
source

If we want to get really picky, I could point out that this topic is actually titled "Worshiping Satan' and the word Satan is another animal. A quick trip to the entry of "Satan" on wikipedia will drop a nice bit on the etymology of that word, however it's far too long to post here.

And what about Satan?
In all 45 books (OT) Satan appears 3x - in the Book of Job. And that Satan is God adversary...his job was to test people and accused them to God for their failures. Just doing God's will.


In OT - Satan - not once is defined as “rebel angel“ or “Devil“...it is just Persian dualism here....religion based on FEAR and nothing more! (( anyway , all this monotheistic religions are but plagiarism of plagiarism of plagiarism ))



[edit on 16-5-2007 by blue bird]

Originally posted by pepsi78

I don't see how a king can rise above god, it's imposible to picture it.
First how does a mortal do that?
Who wanted to be above god?
How does a mortal king ascend in to heaven when he is not wanted there?

The Babylonians considered their kings to be divine embodiments, sort of like the Egyptian pharoahs in the later dynasties who claimed to be children of Ra. When Isaiah wrote of the fall of Babylon, he used this as a metaphor by calling Tigleth-pilaser "helel" or "shining one", in reference to the pseudo-divinity of the kings.

However, that's sort of beside the point. The question regarded the Latin word "Lucifer", which was inserted into the scriptures by St. Jerome. We know that the Romans used "Lucifer" to refer both to the Greek solar god Apollo and to the planet Venus. Furthermore, we also know that using it in the Bible was a sort of inside joke, in order for Jerome to take a jab at St. Lucifer of Cagliari, a Christian theologian with whom he disagreed.

Regardless, "Lucifer" is now, and always has been, used by non-Christian philosophers of the classical school to refer to spiritual enlightenment, without respect to the fact that the word has been hijacked as "evil" by some modern Christians.

The Babylonians considered their kings to be divine embodiments, sort of like the Egyptian pharoahs in the later dynasties who claimed to be children of Ra. When Isaiah wrote of the fall of Babylon, he used this as a metaphor by calling Tigleth-pilaser "helel" or "shining one", in reference to the pseudo-divinity of the kings.

That does not connect with the angel on the bottom of the pit.


Further more the masonic concept of simbolical arhitecture comes from king tyre , we all know who king tyre is, it's satan him self.

As the king of tyre sends out an arhitect Hiram Abiff, the only one that knew the secrets of a Master Mason and the most secret of all the grand masonic word .
We find out that hiram was there to also teach , I have seen the documentary over and over on national geographic, he has all the secrets including the name of god, all this coming from "tyre" he dies" another lie" while being ambushed by some ruffians who demanded that he tells the secrets immediately.
This guy was full of secrets and masonic knowlege, sent by the king of tyre, of course we all know who king of tyre was.







[edit on 16-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

That does not connect with the angel on the bottom of the pit.

It's not supposed to.

Further more the masonic concept of simbolical arhitecture comes from king tyre , we all know who king tyre is, it's satan him self.

So a king can't be a god, but he can be a devil...man, this stuff just gets weirder and weirder.

This guy was full of secrets and masonic knowlege, sent by the king of tyre, of course we all know who king of tyre was.

Um....ok......

So a king can't be a god, but he can be a devil...man, this stuff just gets weirder and weirder.

Well that what I was refering to that isaiah was not refering to a human being.
A king can't be god but he can be the the devil........why is it so weird?

Well let's see.
Ezekiel 28:11-19

Son of man take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him:... "You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, crysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy Mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
You were blameless in all your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the Mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.
Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor
So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out of you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and you will be no more.

It's clear who this guy is, we know who the fallen cherub is, I've been over this before.

Um....ok......

Lol , you just don't want do get in to details.
When "king of tyre" sends his arhitect with all the secrets in him, he is the big bang of masonry, masons cherish him, what a hero.


[edit on 16-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Well that what I was refering to that isaiah was not refering to a human being.

But yet, it was always accepted by Hebrew theologians that Isaiah was talking about a man, in particular, Tigleth-pilaser. Why is that?

A king can't be god but he can be the the devil........why is it so weird?

Several reasons: first of all, the devil is primarily a creation of Christians, and Christians did not exist when Isaiah wrote his book. The Jewish concept of the adversary is not the same as the Christian one.

Secondly, Isaiah's writings are political in nature, and in context, it is easy to see that he is referring to the then-present Babylonian government, which he believed were oppressing the Jews.

It's clear who this guy is, we know who the fallen cherub is, I've been over this before.

But you missed an important factor: cherubs are make-believe, sort of like fairies and leprechauns. None of the above can be a king.

When "king of tyre" sends his arhitect

with all the secrets in him, he is the big bang of masonry, masons cherish him, what a hero.

The king of Tyre of the Masonic ceremony was the guy who sent craftsmen, tools, and building materials to Solomon. His name was also Hiram, and according to the Bible (in both I Kings and I Chronicles) had been a friend of Solomon's father, David, and assisted Solomon in token of continued friendship with the kingdom of Israel.

It was a 33rd degree mason who wrote in his memoirs that the 33rd degree is equatable to that of lucifer. and that the secret be kept from impure initiates. I forget his name.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Satan is basically a creation of Christianity, loosely based upon the deities of the ancients, especially the Greek Pan and Egyptian Set.

Real "orthodox" Satanism is a religion founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966. He was the first High Priest of the Church of Satan, and generated a large following among the counterculture.

hmmm.

I tend to agree with the first sentence which basically points to the fact that there is not true satanism...as Satan is really only 'satan' to Christians.

In other-words, the Jewish concept of Satan varies drastically from the 'devil' of Christianity. Of course others who hold the concept are those who were influenced by the Christian doctrine, etc. even if they did not grow up directly in a 'church', the American society by large is 'Christian'.

Christianity in its present form is relatively knew, many concepts in Catholicism, Orthodox, etc. are closer to Judaism...and a lot of teachings in todays 'church' is really modern creation. (rapture, the 'devil', eternal damnation', etc.)

So if someone were to worship 'satan' at the top level of a secret society, I highly doubt its what the majority of "christians" would call the 'devil'.

As for Anton Lavey, he is a joke and a show man.

So seeing that satan, the 'devil' is more of a modern day idea, would go to say that satan worship is new also, and as the above poster postulated, are those rebelling from Christianity. Again, if you are in America, your milieu is Christian, even if you did not grow up in church - meaning that you cant argue that someone was never involved in church and took it up - they are rebelling against their cultural milieu.

Not sure how well this reads...but it is as it is.

Peace

Originally posted by mastermind77
It was a 33rd degree mason who wrote in his memoirs that the 33rd degree is equatable to that of lucifer. and that the secret be kept from impure initiates. I forget his name.

Please refer to my above post.
Lucifer, etc. is quite different in Judaism then in Christianity, etc.
"the devil" is a modern day creation of a modern day Christianity. :-)

Peace

Originally posted by blue bird
And what about Satan?
In all 45 books (OT) Satan appears 3x - in the Book of Job. And that Satan is God adversary...his job was to test people and accused them to God for their failures. Just doing God's will.


In OT - Satan - not once is defined as “rebel angel“ or “Devil“...it is just Persian dualism here....religion based on FEAR and nothing more! (( anyway , all this monotheistic religions are but plagiarism of plagiarism of plagiarism

))

[edit on 16-5-2007 by blue bird]

Not so much plagiarism, but handed down oral tradition. In many cultures, including ours in the US up to a few decades ago, to speak of dark forces outside of church walls was inviting them. But, as to Satan not in the written word, he is spoken of freely amongst many churches and has been for centuries, That Old Devil.

As to being referenced as the Bearer of Light, it is a pun of cast words at Jesus' teachings on the ebb of the darkness that separates those in heaven from those cast in hell. Jesus' sayings on hell were not of fire, but anguish and loss. Wherein Satan would reign supreme over that region. I'd imagine the confinement would be bothersome, though. HaHa.

Originally posted by mastermind77
It was a 33rd degree mason who wrote in his memoirs that the 33rd degree is equatable to that of lucifer. and that the secret be kept from impure initiates.

It was?

I forget his name.

Wow...that's convenient.