Satan is not Lucifer.

reply to post by burnthemonkeyz1


I hope and pray that you will belong to a church or go to a Sunday service soon at least. It hurts to see you misinterperate the teachings of the Bible. Heck, I've only just started going to Church starting this past couple of weeks and I'm 34 years of age. I have a feeling you are younger.

Please take heed when I say that religion is not too much for you. But it is exactly what you need.

""""Some 'mothers' and some 'daughters', Sun!


and for example, my name may be Hannah, Ann, or Grace, Joan, Janis, or even John!
....but yet they all mean the same!

Or Lucretia or Lucifer or Luke or Lucasta....same thing, once again!""""



Just curious what you ment by your 1st statement;some mothers some daughters.its not very clear.

Not all names mean the same!!
Some may be derived from others,but there are still millions of names that have no connection to another.

"Satan isn't Lucifer"

That's what Satan would like you to think.

I see this thread is a festival of science. The human race will be a whole heck of a lot better off when we can forsake archaic terms like angels and demons. Reality is that there are intelligent humans and intelligent nonhumans; be they corporeal or ethereal. It's just science, biology, even though we don't have specific designations yet.

Originally posted by depth om
"Satan isn't Lucifer"

That's what Satan would like you to think.

What? Did you not read the chapter in context? For the tenth time a Minor Roman divinity is not the Procurator of the Divine Court. Lucifer isnt even Hebrew. It does not appear at all in the Bible.

Originally posted by Lightworth
I see this thread is a festival of science. The human race will be a whole heck of a lot better off when we can forsake archaic terms like angels and demons. Reality is that there are intelligent humans and intelligent nonhumans; be they corporeal or ethereal. It's just science, biology, even though we don't have specific designations yet.

Look at it this way. Imagine for an instance we are arguing over literary characters say out of something like Lord of the Rings or even Star Wars. This is a debate even an atheist could figure out from a literary standpoint. The Bible being one and Roman mythology being another source. No one in their right mind would say Sauron was Anakin Skywalker. Thats what this essentially boils down to. Who can read in context and who can be objective about it. Satan and Lucifer are from two different sources and religions.

[edit on 19/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

"...arguing over literary characters say out of something like Lord of the Rings or even Star Wars..."

No prob in that, of course. I've just been to a site or 2 where more impressionable minds actually take that crap seriously, though. Just being overly-cautious.

Originally posted by Lightworth
"...arguing over literary characters say out of something like Lord of the Rings or even Star Wars..."

No prob in that, of course. I've just been to a site or 2 where more impressionable minds actually take that crap seriously, though. Just being overly-cautious.

I take my faith seriously. I am also quite objective about it. I question things and search for the truth. The more I research and study the more I learn that humanity believes what ever it wants to believe. It as a whole doesnt look at anything objectively.

The Impact the Bible has had on Human history and civilization is one phenomena. The Influence and Impact the Children of Abraham has had on Human culture and history another phenomena.

So for me personally its not crap. It may be misunderstood or misinterpreted. My goal is to deny ignorance and stand up to those who spread it.
I'm not here to push my faith on others. G-d does not force His Covenant on anyone. I'm just correcting those who believe they follow the same faith but yet ignore or persecute the rest of it.

If a person wants to believe the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has an equal and an opposite. That there is a cosmic struggle of good and evil/light and darkness. I have a suggestion to them. Find another religion compatible with those ideas. Zoroastrianism and Mithraism would seem to suit those ideas. The entire Host of Heaven is there for the rest of the earth to choose from.




[edit on 19/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

Hi Mike,
what is your take on the Kabballah?
thank you in advance.
and Yes I know that there is nothing that is equal to God... nor can it have 'children' LOL.. sorry just had to (so many xtian fundies say.. you are a 'child' of satan).. when I had seen the uproar of the xtian lady in trading spouses.. ok, I am going off on a tangent. sorry.
thank you in advance for your reply.

Shalom (if you do not mind me using that)

The true complication lies not in whether or not satan is Lucifer because of the name or origin of the name written in Isaiah 14:12 but rather in the FACT that 'satan' is NOT a proper name...never has been used as such in the bible at all!

If two people are facing one another across the scrimmage line on a football field, then they are each being a 'satan' to the other one! That is the correct usage of the word, according to the Hebrew in which it was originally written - any one, Jew, Hebrew, or otherwise, who knows, will tell you that NEVER was there any particular being singled out and identified as 'Satan.'

That is something that has been far more misunderstood than the correct translation of Heylel...and actually, Jerome probably was sincerely trying to come up with the best he could considering he was taking a previously untranslated single instance of a Hebrew name and making it into Latin....something which makes no sense in the first place! And all nouns in Hebrew come originally from verbs...which is not the same as Latin or English...

Lucifer...or Heylel...is legitimately a proper name, albeit one that is mentioned just once, and it is from a noun which comes from a verb which means either to shine, to howl, or to boast....it is probably more suitable in English as Heliel - which would be the same name, in meaning, as Uriel which means 'the light of God'. Uriel was also often called Peniel which means 'face of God,' and that certainly is a very logical correlation! Although since the root word halal can also be used in the sense of boasting or praising or even howling....perhaps Heylel was 'the praise of God' - that would be the same as the name Judah, Jude, or Judas! Better yet - the 'shining praise of God.'

Gabriel = the strength of God
Deuel = the knowledge of God
Irpeel = the health or medicine of God
Jabneel = the building of God
Zuriel = rock or strength of God

See, that gives identity AND character to an individual entity in the form of being a particular manifestation of God's character - which is traditionally what the angels are understood to be!

And so - 'satan' is not NOR ever was a particular person but rather a role which any entity can take on or be assigned to perform....anyone who stands in opposition to another is a 'satan.'

Heylel was one who shines, a literal individual entity who was named according to a word originally not a name but through which the description became a name - just like the name Sandy or Rose or Lily and such. These are beings named according to something else that is named...but satan is not the same because it is a word that is a function - a verb, more or less, as opposed to an adjective or noun.....a 'satan' is one who opposes.

Perhaps your housekeeper is named 'Rusty' - you certainly wouldn't think her name was 'house-keeeper' just because she was acting in that capacity for you! Maybe she has red hair and so she is called Rusty....but the difference is not one that would confuse anyone that speaks the English language...you don't call the principle of your kids' school 'paddler' just because that is the means through which the might receive discipline from his hand! If he was out sick one day and a teacher took his place for the day...and gave your kid a swat for acting out...would that make the teacher's name 'paddler?'

In the experience of King David, it was God's anger which is unmistakably cross-referenced as the opposing force called 'satan' - raised up against one about whom it is written: he was perfect in his heart toward the LORD.

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
(2 Samuel 24:1)

The EXACT same incident is recounted in 1 Chronicles:

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
(1 Chronicles 21:1)

Basically God purposely caused David to do something that he knew he was not to do, in anger, which was take a census. In the verse in Chronicles it is phrased a bit different; to the effect that David wasn't tempted or tested but MADE TO do something that would displease God!

Temptation involves a choice - 'satan' is usually the source of that temptation...but if God is the one calling the shots and refining the ore into gold...then it leads us to understand that the idea of there being an agent of opposition or challenge appointed to a soul for a specific purpose - ultimately God's purpose for our own good...it is not an ENTITY but instead a FUNCTION. An ENTITY has a will - and can be anything from an archangel to a caterpillar....yet it acts which is evidence of will. And a function is something that must be manipulated through purposeful will/direction - an act that is caused not the cause of an act...

'satan' is a function - and that function is served by whomever God decides is going to fill the requirements...angels...people...God, himself.

Whomever was assigned to be a satan to Job remained nameless - perhaps it was Michael or Haliel or Peniel or Gabriel....who knows? For reasons hereunto unknown, it is not for us to know WHO but only WHY and what the end result was....

Job ultimately came out better in the end than he was at the point at which the rug was satanically pulled out from underneath him!

Maybe that time it wasn't God's idea but the idea of the one who ended up playing the part....it does give that idea, in reading it.

That would mean that ultimately it was a beneficial and well-intended thing from the get-go, regardless of the way it is written...and also we definitely must admit that there are NO literal reports, in the bible, of any 'satan' NOT doing the dirty work he had been assigned to!

When God is angered at us, it is justified and never turned into cruelty; and we can be certain it will eventually result in our betterment, no matter what it feels like for the duration!

God's evil is good and man's best good is ultimately 'evil' ...
because it arises out of our natural tendency to be selfish, and often petty, no matter what we TELL ourselves our purpose is (if it is our own purpose it is by default a selfish purpose!); whereas God is never selfish or petty towards us - and if we are granted mercy in his sight then certainly ALL of those who are his angels receive the same blessing!

These are principles expounded upon and explained all throughout the bible - and that is what we must understand before we think we are called upon to judge or criticize beings we don't even truly know that much about except through words of a language more than 2,000 years old!

Originally posted by constantine70
Hi Mike,
what is your take on the Kabballah?
thank you in advance.
and Yes I know that there is nothing that is equal to God... nor can it have 'children' LOL.. sorry just had to (so many xtian fundies say.. you are a 'child' of satan).. when I had seen the uproar of the xtian lady in trading spouses.. ok, I am going off on a tangent. sorry.
thank you in advance for your reply.

Shalom (if you do not mind me using that)

Shalom, there is no problem with wishing peace upon another person.

My take on Kabbalah. I think some of it is definitely inspired, but this modern New Age Celebrity driven mess that is all over the Internet is something else.

Originally posted by queenannie38
The true complication lies not in whether or not satan is Lucifer because of the name or origin of the name written in Isaiah 14:12 but rather in the FACT that 'satan' is NOT a proper name...never has been used as such in the bible at all!

If two people are facing one another across the scrimmage line on a football field, then they are each being a 'satan' to the other one! That is the correct usage of the word, according to the Hebrew in which it was originally written - any one, Jew, Hebrew, or otherwise, who knows, will tell you that NEVER was there any particular being singled out and identified as 'Satan.'

That is something that has been far more misunderstood than the correct translation of Heylel...and actually, Jerome probably was sincerely trying to come up with the best he could considering he was taking a previously untranslated single instance of a Hebrew name and making it into Latin....something which makes no sense in the first place! And all nouns in Hebrew come originally from verbs...which is not the same as Latin or English...

Lucifer...or Heylel...is legitimately a proper name, albeit one that is mentioned just once, and it is from a noun which comes from a verb which means either to shine, to howl, or to boast....it is probably more suitable in English as Heliel - which would be the same name, in meaning, as Uriel which means 'the light of God'. Uriel was also often called Peniel which means 'face of God,' and that certainly is a very logical correlation! Although since the root word halal can also be used in the sense of boasting or praising or even howling....perhaps Heylel was 'the praise of God' - that would be the same as the name Judah, Jude, or Judas! Better yet - the 'shining praise of God.'

Gabriel = the strength of God
Deuel = the knowledge of God
Irpeel = the health or medicine of God
Jabneel = the building of God
Zuriel = rock or strength of God

See, that gives identity AND character to an individual entity in the form of being a particular manifestation of God's character - which is traditionally what the angels are understood to be!

And so - 'satan' is not NOR ever was a particular person but rather a role which any entity can take on or be assigned to perform....anyone who stands in opposition to another is a 'satan.'

Heylel was one who shines, a literal individual entity who was named according to a word originally not a name but through which the description became a name - just like the name Sandy or Rose or Lily and such. These are beings named according to something else that is named...but satan is not the same because it is a word that is a function - a verb, more or less, as opposed to an adjective or noun.....a 'satan' is one who opposes.

Perhaps your housekeeper is named 'Rusty' - you certainly wouldn't think her name was 'house-keeeper' just because she was acting in that capacity for you! Maybe she has red hair and so she is called Rusty....but the difference is not one that would confuse anyone that speaks the English language...you don't call the principle of your kids' school 'paddler' just because that is the means through which the might receive discipline from his hand! If he was out sick one day and a teacher took his place for the day...and gave your kid a swat for acting out...would that make the teacher's name 'paddler?'

In the experience of King David, it was God's anger which is unmistakably cross-referenced as the opposing force called 'satan' - raised up against one about whom it is written: he was perfect in his heart toward the LORD.

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
(2 Samuel 24:1)

The EXACT same incident is recounted in 1 Chronicles:

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
(1 Chronicles 21:1)

Basically God purposely caused David to do something that he knew he was not to do, in anger, which was take a census. In the verse in Chronicles it is phrased a bit different; to the effect that David wasn't tempted or tested but MADE TO do something that would displease God!

Temptation involves a choice - 'satan' is usually the source of that temptation...but if God is the one calling the shots and refining the ore into gold...then it leads us to understand that the idea of there being an agent of opposition or challenge appointed to a soul for a specific purpose - ultimately God's purpose for our own good...it is not an ENTITY but instead a FUNCTION. An ENTITY has a will - and can be anything from an archangel to a caterpillar....yet it acts which is evidence of will. And a function is something that must be manipulated through purposeful will/direction - an act that is caused not the cause of an act...

'satan' is a function - and that function is served by whomever God decides is going to fill the requirements...angels...people...God, himself.

Whomever was assigned to be a satan to Job remained nameless - perhaps it was Michael or Haliel or Peniel or Gabriel....who knows? For reasons hereunto unknown, it is not for us to know WHO but only WHY and what the end result was....

Job ultimately came out better in the end than he was at the point at which the rug was satanically pulled out from underneath him!

Maybe that time it wasn't God's idea but the idea of the one who ended up playing the part....it does give that idea, in reading it.

That would mean that ultimately it was a beneficial and well-intended thing from the get-go, regardless of the way it is written...and also we definitely must admit that there are NO literal reports, in the bible, of any 'satan' NOT doing the dirty work he had been assigned to!

When God is angered at us, it is justified and never turned into cruelty; and we can be certain it will eventually result in our betterment, no matter what it feels like for the duration!

God's evil is good and man's best good is ultimately 'evil' ...
because it arises out of our natural tendency to be selfish, and often petty, no matter what we TELL ourselves our purpose is (if it is our own purpose it is by default a selfish purpose!); whereas God is never selfish or petty towards us - and if we are granted mercy in his sight then certainly ALL of those who are his angels receive the same blessing!

These are principles expounded upon and explained all throughout the bible - and that is what we must understand before we think we are called upon to judge or criticize beings we don't even truly know that much about except through words of a language more than 2,000 years old!

Ha Satan is a proper title like Angel of the Lord is proper. Satan and Malak alone are not proper.

You might want to go back and read Zechariah and Job.

If Jerome had a problem translating it "HLL", He should of left it alone like various other proper names that have just minor alterations due to pronunciation changes.







[edit on 20/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

How would that help? I assure you that I have studied these things in depth and there is no usage of the word melek in Zechariah which differs from any of the rest of the OT Hebrew application of that same word. It is used abundantly but it is not used with any sort of preference regardless of what the English translation is. The English translation makes too much variation that was never there, in the first place.

Your understanding of the language is incomplete - 'Shalom' does not mean 'peace', necessarily, especially when used as a greeting - it means something more along the lines of 'may you be complete/completed in happiness and/or well-being/good health.'

Also, there is no such thing as a 'proper title' - there are proper names and there are titles which indicate functions...and melek is a function not an appellation - no different than 'accuser' or prophet or 'dreamer of dreams', etc.

H4397
melek
From an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

As I said, above, all nouns in the Hebrew language are derived from roots that are verbs - a melek is about what someone DOES, not what they are called or named...whether it is translated as 'angel' sent by God or a messenger sent by Jezebel or Hezekiah...the word melek is used in the exact same way.

There is a lot of difference in the way the languages of Hebrew and English are used - especially considering the wide application of every Hebrew word in comparison with the many words we have for a single thing. By that, I mean that there are many meanings for one word in Hebrew and many words in English for one meaning.

Not to mention that the cultural viewpoint differs greatly and there is much misunderstanding which arises from trying to apply modern western understandings to the words of the Old Testament...

well, what about this:

rudolf steiner describes it as polar forces, the mankind between..
en.wikipedia.org...

Christ vs. Lucifer and Ahriman

Lucifer and his counterpart Ahriman figure in anthroposophy as two polar, generally evil influences on world and human evolution. Steiner described both positive and negative aspects of both figures, however: Lucifer as the light spirit that "plays on human pride and offers the delusion of divinity", but also motivates creativity and spirituality; Ahriman as the dark spirit that tempts human beings to "deny [their] link with divinity and to live entirely on the material plane", but also stimulates intellectuality and technology. Both figures "exert a negative and evil effect on humanity because man allows their influence to be misplaced and one-sided," yet their influences are necessary for human freedom to unfold.[2][5]

According to anthroposophy, each human being has the task to find a balance between these opposing influences; each person is helped in this task through the mediating being of the Representative of Humanity, also known as the Christ being, a spiritual entity which stands between and harmonizes the two extremes.[5]

Lucifer refused to go along with God’s decision to create, or rather to expand creation. Satan was one of Lucifer’s lieutenants, and he chose to follow Lucifer when the former left the circle of God.

Lucifer was created by God, and as all other beings created by God, Lucifer was given a spiritual flame, a spiritual potential. As all other beings, Lucifer was given free will. He was given the name, Lucifer, because his spiritual potential was to bring light everywhere he went. No soul is created in full perfection. The soul is created with a potential, but it is up to the soul to walk a gradual path that allows it to fulfill its spiritual potential and then go beyond.

In Lucifer’s case, he made the choice to abandon his spiritual potential and to rebel against God and God's purpose for creation. Specifically, Lucifer rebelled against the need to expand creation by creating the system of worlds in which you now live. As a result of this rebellion, Lucifer was cast outside of the original sphere of God. This was not God’s original will or intent, but it was the result of Lucifer’s misuse of his free will.

After Lucifer was cast out, he retreated to the lowest level of God's creation, namely the material universe. His spiritual potential was to bring light, but that light had to come from God. Since he cut himself off from God, Lucifer could no longer receive light directly from God. So he had to steal light from those who were receiving light from God. This then is the entire modus operandi of the dark forces who are using all kinds of clever schemes to steal light from human beings. One of these schemes is to cause people to feel sympathy for the Devil.

Sounds good, I guess - but it is just another man-made religion - religion is a great distraction and is useful only for keeping our human tendency for self-delusion going strong...

There is no need to provide spiritual sources for pride and the denial of our inner divine nature - we do that ourselves simply because our minds are currently limited in their false perception of mortality and powerlessness!

In general, we are too confused to even notice the blatant contradictions to the mainstream theological ideas related to Christ and what we THINK he came to do...

But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falls.
(Luke 11:17)

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
(Luke 12:51)

This is simple and forthright - Christ came to bring desolation...

Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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 first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript.
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. Did some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, decide 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?"

As mentioned already in this thread,in Roman astronomy,Lucifer was the name given to the morning star,better known as Venus.(my mistake earlier saying there was no connection.i was thinking in goddess terms not astrological.) The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn."

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now).though the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine. It wasn't until New Testament times and later that the concept of an evil being who is actually called 'Satan' or the 'Devil' or 'Lucifer' evolved.



I found something interesting about the goddess Asherah that i would like to share,it may answer why Eve is associated with a serpent!

""""In the original texts from Ugarit, Her name is ´Athirat. Her full title is Rabat ´Athirat Yam, Great Lady She who Treads on the Sea. After certain linguistic changes, the pronunciation becomes ´Asherah among the Ph|nicians and the Hebrews. She is the Canaanite Mother of All, Progenitrix of the Deities, and consort of ´El. She is goddess of the sea, particularly along the shore, of the fertility of humanity, flocks, and crops, and of great wisdom. ´Elat/ ´Alat another of Her titles, means "Goddess," as ´El means "God," so ´Asherah is possibly related to the Arabian goddess ´Al-Lat. As ´El is the Bull, ´Asherah is the Lion.

....from the Sinai, She is called Dat ba'thani, Lady of the Serpent. Another name of ´Asherah in the first milleneum BCE is Chawat, which is Hawah in Hebrew and Eve in English. Her full title is Rabat Chawat ´Elat, Great Lady Eve the Goddess, and is associated with the serpent. Thus, Chawa/ Eve is probably a form of ´Asherah as a Serpent Goddess. As a snake goddess, She was also represented by bronze serpent forms, examples of which have been found in archaeological excavations in the Levant. In fact the Nehush-tan, literally the Bronze Serpent which in traditional Jewish myth is associated with Moses, is much more likely an emblem of ´Asherah. It too was removed from the Jerusalem temple the same time as the ´asherah objects.' """"


















[edit on 20-8-2007 by jakyll]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by jakyll]

Originally posted by queenannie38
How would that help? I assure you that I have studied these things in depth and there is no usage of the word melek in Zechariah which differs from any of the rest of the OT Hebrew application of that same word. It is used abundantly but it is not used with any sort of preference regardless of what the English translation is. The English translation makes too much variation that was never there, in the first place.

Your understanding of the language is incomplete - 'Shalom' does not mean 'peace', necessarily, especially when used as a greeting - it means something more along the lines of 'may you be complete/completed in happiness and/or well-being/good health.'

Also, there is no such thing as a 'proper title' - there are proper names and there are titles which indicate functions...and melek is a function not an appellation - no different than 'accuser' or prophet or 'dreamer of dreams', etc.

H4397
melek
From an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

As I said, above, all nouns in the Hebrew language are derived from roots that are verbs - a melek is about what someone DOES, not what they are called or named...whether it is translated as 'angel' sent by God or a messenger sent by Jezebel or Hezekiah...the word melek is used in the exact same way.

There is a lot of difference in the way the languages of Hebrew and English are used - especially considering the wide application of every Hebrew word in comparison with the many words we have for a single thing. By that, I mean that there are many meanings for one word in Hebrew and many words in English for one meaning.

Not to mention that the cultural viewpoint differs greatly and there is much misunderstanding which arises from trying to apply modern western understandings to the words of the Old Testament...

Well that might be because Melek, pronounced Meh'lek means King and is related to Royalty and Kingdoms. Mal'ak pronounced Mal'awk means Messenger, Ambassador, Envoy, and Angels.

Shalom means peace in relation to completeness and wholeness. Normally when someone says Hello they are saying the same thing in relation to wholeness and completeness and have no idea what the word even means. It doesnt carry the meaning of peace like Shalom because Shalom also has associations with making whole of debt and reward bringing peace. It is used in this way in the Bible often.

There are most assuredly Definite Nouns and Indefinite Nouns in the Tanakh. Ha (Insert word) which should be translated as The (insert word) denotes a Definite Noun. These are not Names, but are Definite Nouns.

[edit on 20/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by anti72
well, what about this:

rudolf steiner describes it as polar forces, the mankind between..
en.wikipedia.org...

Christ vs. Lucifer and Ahriman

Lucifer and his counterpart Ahriman figure in anthroposophy as two polar, generally evil influences on world and human evolution. Steiner described both positive and negative aspects of both figures, however: Lucifer as the light spirit that "plays on human pride and offers the delusion of divinity", but also motivates creativity and spirituality; Ahriman as the dark spirit that tempts human beings to "deny [their] link with divinity and to live entirely on the material plane", but also stimulates intellectuality and technology. Both figures "exert a negative and evil effect on humanity because man allows their influence to be misplaced and one-sided," yet their influences are necessary for human freedom to unfold.[2][5]

According to anthroposophy, each human being has the task to find a balance between these opposing influences; each person is helped in this task through the mediating being of the Representative of Humanity, also known as the Christ being, a spiritual entity which stands between and harmonizes the two extremes.[5]

The problem with that is there isnt any Biblical basis for that. Ahriman is the name of a Persian deity of Darkness. Lucifer is a Roman deity of the morning aspect of Venus. They have absolutley nothing to do with each other. Again this reinforces my position that Dualists who claim to worship the G-d of Abraham should go follow Ahriman's Enemy the Persian deity of Light Ormazd and his Son Mithras, aka Sol Invictus. Sunday, Dec 25th, and numerous other things are all there with Mithras.

Originally posted by TJ144
Lucifer refused to go along with God’s decision to create, or rather to expand creation. Satan was one of Lucifer’s lieutenants, and he chose to follow Lucifer when the former left the circle of God.

Lucifer was created by God, and as all other beings created by God, Lucifer was given a spiritual flame, a spiritual potential. As all other beings, Lucifer was given free will. He was given the name, Lucifer, because his spiritual potential was to bring light everywhere he went. No soul is created in full perfection. The soul is created with a potential, but it is up to the soul to walk a gradual path that allows it to fulfill its spiritual potential and then go beyond.

In Lucifer’s case, he made the choice to abandon his spiritual potential and to rebel against God and God's purpose for creation. Specifically, Lucifer rebelled against the need to expand creation by creating the system of worlds in which you now live. As a result of this rebellion, Lucifer was cast outside of the original sphere of God. This was not God’s original will or intent, but it was the result of Lucifer’s misuse of his free will.

After Lucifer was cast out, he retreated to the lowest level of God's creation, namely the material universe. His spiritual potential was to bring light, but that light had to come from God. Since he cut himself off from God, Lucifer could no longer receive light directly from God. So he had to steal light from those who were receiving light from God. This then is the entire modus operandi of the dark forces who are using all kinds of clever schemes to steal light from human beings. One of these schemes is to cause people to feel sympathy for the Devil.

Where did you get this from? John Milton's Paradise Lost? My argument here is from the Tanakh. If your implying that I am trying to get people to Sympathize with The Satan, I am not. The Satan has no Sympathy or Mercy for humanity.