Origin of Lucifer

Okay, I have read that Lucifer would have his origins in more recent resources, Archer named it "Fictionkin" - <!-- s:mrgreen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green" /><!-- s:mrgreen: -->

Because I know that Milton and his kind used older resources I started a new thread in order to avoid Offtopic.

"Lucifer" as name is a translation of the Greece "Phosphoros" - The Bringer Of Light, or "Eosphoros" - The Bringer Of Dawn. The Planet Venus was/is associated with Lucifer in Greek mythology. (S)he appears in Homers Odysee or in Hesiods Theogony. In Hygin's "De Astronomia" is a kind of contest described, who is more beautiful: Lucifer or Venus. Well, Venus and Lucifer were both the same in other resources. There are plenty of mentionings in ancient classic texts, like the Aeneis or the Georgica (both Vergil), Ovid, Lukan or Claudian. In Hiob, some Psalms and the second Letter of Petrus Lucifer is being mentioned, but not as synonym for Satan but as the Morning Star.

In Jesaja the King of Babel is being associated allegorical with Lucifer. "Helel", the hebraic Morning Star is being translated in the Greece Bible as "Phosphoros". Hieronymus named this star in the Vulgata Bible "Lucifer".

As late as in the Middle Ages this name was taken as synonym for Satan. There is an interesting side note to it, because it has another translation:

Lu-cifer: "The Sacrifice Of/For Light", "Lu" being the old germanic for "Light" and "Cifer" the word for a kind of Sacrifice being done by the Pagans. In german there is a book published on this subject, rendering down the iconography of Satan and the name of Lucifer to very interesting roots.

So Milton did not invent Lucifer, neither did Marlow or Joost van den Vondels.

Milton didn't invent the word, but he was the first one to use it as the name of a fallen angel.

Valamezar Wrote:Okay, I have read that Lucifer would have his origins in more recent resources, Archer named it "Fictionkin" - <!-- s:mrgreen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green" /><!-- s:mrgreen: -->

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the concept of "Lucifer" is modern fiction.

What I am saying is that if an otherkin takes their identity, knowingly or unknowingly, from Milton, Dante, or whoever - then they are on exactly the same level as a Minbarikin or Klingonkin.

I'm not sure why knowing the author makes it less acceptable than when you don't know the author, like in folklore.

It's easier to take things on faith when you can't have the author's flaws poined out readily. You can't exactly point to the guy who started the myth of fairy rings and say he was a known drunkard.

WhiteFox Wrote:I'm not sure why knowing the author makes it less acceptable than when you don't know the author, like in folklore.

I didn't say whether it made it more or less acceptable.

I said that being Miltonkin is exactly the same as being StarTrekkin.

For some reason a lot of people seem to think "Oh, if it was written a hundred years ago and has some resemblance to mythology, it must be REAL."

Twilight Wrote:It's easier to take things on faith when you can't have the author's flaws poined out readily. You can't exactly point to the guy who started the myth of fairy rings and say he was a known drunkard.

I put pretty much zero faith in folklore, either.

If something in folklore seems to make close to perfect perfect sense as a pre-scientific method of understanding something complicated in the world, then I think it makes close to no sense to interpret it literally. Changeling myths, for example, might reflect supernatural beings crossing over magically into this world and stealing human children for no particular reason whatsoever. Or, they might reflect a pre-scientific culture's attempts to understand things like birth defects. I think the latter is considerably more likely.

Archer Wrote:I put pretty much zero faith in folklore, either.

If something in folklore seems to make close to perfect perfect sense as a pre-scientific method of understanding something complicated in the world, then I think it makes close to no sense to interpret it literally. Changeling myths, for example, might reflect supernatural beings crossing over magically into this world and stealing human children for no particular reason whatsoever. Or, they might reflect a pre-scientific culture's attempts to understand things like birth defects. I think the latter is considerably more likely.

The question becomes then, are there really otherkin at all? Or, are we all deluded by some great old hoax? We each have faith that some part of us exists after we are gone. Do we take it too far to believe that some of those old stories seriously?

Twilight Wrote:The question becomes then, are there really otherkin at all? Or, are we all deluded by some great old hoax? We each have faith that some part of us exists after we are gone. Do we take it too far to believe that some of those old stories seriously?

If someone's entire self identity is based on a pre-scientific metaphor, then yeah, I would say there are issues.

Don't forget the association with bringer of light to bringer of knowledge. Like Prometheus (an association with Phosphoros and Prometheus exists).

Anyway, angelic names aren't really names anyway, they're titles. Some are hebrew, some sumerian, some latin, some greek...

An example would be Nathaniel, a commonly known angel of fire. Often considered THE angel of fire, if you really read texts about him the fire they're talking about are the fires of divine inspiration he watches over...

Lucifer was actually used for a fallen angel in the book of Isaiah. It's in isaiah 14. And is a nit picky point, it's helyel ben shacar. "Son of the Morning Star." this is an important distinction because God/Christ himself is referred to as THE morning star. In the Old Testament, "Sons of God" (bene Elohim) were angels. Each time the phrase "bene elohim" is used it's used to describe Angels. So by this context, a Son of the Morning Star is an Old Testament "Son of God,' ...A bene Elohim.

Here's the passage.

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For 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:

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

People believe this to be Nebuchadnezzar because it says "king of babylon" earlier on. It's important to note that Angels, biblically, function as authorities over sections of earth. Michael is a prince over Israel for example. (Daniel 12) thus, "king of babylon" doesn't have to be Old Neb. Further more, Old neb didn't do the thigns the passage described like exalting himself above the throne of God. But A certain rowdy Angel did. No...old Neb spoke Homage to yhwh after the incident where he tried to throw the three guys into the furnace.

Another example of thios is the "King of Tyre" Ezekiel 28

12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more