PaganSpace.net The Social Network for the Occult Community

All Beliefs are Welcome Here!

I am looking more in-depth into the Dæmon Lucifer. Although there's a lot of tripe attached to him in Christian teachings, he is different to the Dæmon Satan, at least in Dæmonolatry. I've seen several sigils of Lucifer, such as:


Above: This is considered the The True Grail sigil of Lucifer, allegedly stolen by the Catholic Church.

Above: This is the Dukanté sigil for Lucifer.

Above: This one is often called the Seal of Satan, which I find odd considering they are two different Dæmons (unless this is not the case in Satanic traditions) and comes from the the 16th century Italian Grimoirium Verum, or "Grimoire of Truth."

It is well-known that Lucifer means "Light Bringer" or "Bringer of Light" and is assocated with the element of Air as well as all matters of the intellect and knowledge. This is the pre-Christian understanding of the Dæmon Lucifer, which is also elucidated in the following YouTube clip:


And here he is represented as a statue by Guillaume Geefs at the Cathedral of St Pauls in Belgium.



As Pagans, how do you view Lucifer?

Views: 2741

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Marje,

There is some miss-information in this, but I have to go to work so we'll discuss this this evening!

Hej på dej,
Pav
Well no, not really. If you sit down and read the bible (not king james version) you'll discover some interesting things that have been lost in translation later. Also you'd need someone who can read hebrew, latin and greek to translate everything.

Lucifer IS just a word. Like apple. Or snake. Or creampie. It's a word that means "morning/day star" and "bringer of light". Other words used in passages that now are seen to be referring to the devil are "dawn", "constellation", "morning".
Isaiah 14:12 has never been about a fallen angel, not in its original hebrew text, nor in any later versions - until someone messed it up. Crummy translation, that's all it is.

Most christians also believe that lucifer is a deity, but this is just because of rotten translations - and the King James version uses the word "lucifer" where it should actually say "morning/day star" or "bringer of light":

Isaiah 14:12 - hebrew translation

יב אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם, הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר; נִגְדַּעְתָּ
לָאָרֶץ, חוֹלֵשׁ עַל-גּוֹיִם.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!



Isaiah 14:12 (Young's Literal Translation)


12How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.


Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!


Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version)

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!

See the problem?
I blame King James version for personifying the word "lucifer", and if you read that passage - yeah, you're probably gonna think that "lucifer" is a deity. The word isn't used in any other passage. Different words are used for Satan, the devil, the beast etc.
Then there's Milton's Paradise Lost. In that book, "lucifer" is used interchangeably to "Satan".
Satan is the original fallen angel, the one who was driven by pride and greed and so was cast down from heaven. He was however, not the one who did all the things the devil did/will do.

I would write more, but I g2g.
So you all interpret Lucifer (and Satan, for that matter) from a very Abrahamic stance?
Explain please, how is what I said "Abrahamic"? For that matter, what exactly is "Abrahamic"? If one look at the history of "Abrahamic" religions, they will find that that is really nothing original. It is a conglomeration of the various pagan beliefs of those they came in contact with; Sumer, Egypt, Canaanite, etc.

Sorry my bad, Blackrose! You are right that nothing is original. I interpreted your Abrahamic stance from the biblical quotation, but on reflection, I see I was wrong. Just a misunderstanding!
actually if people read the bible literally... christians would see a who new book. besides the fact that you have to read the whole chapter or some.. even the whole book to understand the true meaning of what one verse says...

when i was a child my father was trying to make a point and said "isnt there somewhere in the bible that says "obey thy mother and father"? i took it upon myself to find that verse and then read the entire chapter. he got even madder when i read the following verse to him.... "fathers do not bring your children to wrath" LOL he got so pissed that he grabbed it, tore it, and threw it accross the room. Ephesians chapter 4 .. i recomend everyone read the whole chapter especially where it tells about soddam and gomorrah (im sure thats not spelled right) and lot and his family and what happened after they left town. most people probably never knew that was in there... hehehe... i know this got way off subject.. just typing as im thinking.

my point is.... read it all and reasearch the truth before you beleive one person telling you one verse, and you accept their interpretation of it.
Blessed be
Marje,

I would question the very need to interpret Lucifer bibically before I'd question the need to read Hebrew and Ancient Greek. I wasn't raised Abrahamic, so, for me, the Bible is like the Torah or the Koran to those who grew up in Christianity. That said, although my immediate environment wasn't Christian, that was the dominant religion of society at large, so influences *were* there.

You have submitted interpretations of Lucifer in your information, but as someone who practises Dæmonolatry, Lucifer is "simply" a Dæmon who came about, perhaps because of Christianity, perhaps not. The point here being: is does not matter from whence Lucifer came, but what Lucifer is to a particular path. This is why I feel you miss-inform when you say "Lucifer is just a word". In many ways, I feel you have missed the point entirely. In that statement, you can equally argue that "magic is just a word" as in essence, the analogy would be the same. Do you believe in magic, and if so, how does it work for you, Marje? *lol*
we all choose the path we walk the hows and whys of some things do not matter except in choosing your path

Yes, Gypsy, yes! It's the same with Satanism critics who say it is just the product of Christianity (regardless of its origins). Do they not understand the notion of evolution?
The demon Lucifer is the result of mass-belief, like santa clause or the easter bunny - or Jesus being the messiah and our saviour. If enough people believe that "lucifer" is a deity, more specifically a demon, then ultimately it will become true. But originally, it is still just a word, and that's the stance I take on lucifer. It does matter where he came from, as he is NOT christian or hebrew in origin - he has nothing to do with the bible or anything in it; he was created by popular culture, then mass-belief fed that creation - like a sigil being charged.
No, I don't misinform when I say that "lucifer" is just a word - because that's what it is. The idea of demon-lucifer is popular culture and religious groups is synonymous to the idea of Satan, and then people usually mix in the devil in there as well. So you've got a mix-mash of two deities, then you add a completely normal word, and boom - you have Lucifer; Prince of Darkness.

Magic is a concept, that's not comparable at all. I feel you've misunderstood what I've written about the biblical origin of Lucifer.
I wasn't raised abrahamic either, I was raised as evangelic lutheran, but whatever we believe - going to the source of it all will create some answers and bring some clarity.

Lucifer as a biblical creature? No. Just flat out - NO. Never has been, never will be.
Lucifer as a creature created by popular culture and massbelief? Yes.
Is Lucifer the same as Satan? No
Is Lucifer the same as the devil? No

Demon-lucifer is usually worshipped as a representative for either Azazel or Lumiel, and that's all fine and dandy. Satanists follow what Satan represents, while Christians (and non-satanists and luciferians) are the ones who usually get the words and concepts mixed up.
If anything, Lucifer is a servitor - that we've created. The problem is that anyone is able to give him certain qualities and personality traits, and right now you've got a creature that's a mix of Satan and the devil; that's what Lucifer is - because we've created him. And it's utterly pointless to worship such a creature, and he certainly is not a demon.


To put it very simply;
Imagine the word "Muffin"; imagine that phrase being used in a holy scripture in a passage about a king. Then imagine that it's mistranslated and disorted. Speed up a couple hundred years. Imagine billions of people believing that "Muffin" is the name of a demon. Imagine people worshipping "Muffin", and imagine people being afraid of it.
That's basically what it is. In the world of magic and methaphysics, I will go as far as saying that we've created a servitor, and his name is Lucifer, and he is both evil and awesome at the same time. I would stick to worshipping Satan, the devil, or Azazel tbh. I see no point in feeding this Lucifer-servitor any more than we already have, he's kinda redundant imo.
Yes, the romans worshipped a "Lucifer"; however, "lucifer" was still just a latin word for "bringer of light", "morning star", "day star" etc. The new word for that same "deity" is "Venus". If the latin word for "morning star" had been "cupcake" (I'm hungry), they would have worshiped Venus by the word "cupcake". People have worshiped Venus for ages, the romans weren't the first. It's been worshiped under the names "Ishtar", "Inanna", "Phosphoros", "Eosphoros", "Heosphorus", "Hesperos" etc etc. Hesperos was the evening star, while Eosphoros//Phosphoros/Heosphorus was the morning star. Latinized, Hesperos is Vesper and Phosphoros is Lucifer. Then they created goddesses in the name of Lucifer; Aphrodite and Venus.
He is the son of Astraeus and Eos, the God of dusk and the Goddess of dawn, but they had a whole truckload of kids; mercury, pluto, venus, jupiter, mars, saturn, etc.

There are so many other cultures who have worshipped the planet Venus, and everybody has a different name for the planet. That's basically all that's about. There was no specific roman deity who had "lucifer" as a personal name; it was a word which they used to describe Venus - as it was the morning star, and the latin word for morning star is "lucifer".
Lucifer in itself was not a roman deity; the planet Venus was, but the word "Venus" didn't appear until later on. If they had continued to call it "Lucifer", then that's what we would still call the planet.

And since "lucifer" is a latin word, it doesn't actually exist in the hebrew scriptures. It was added at a later time during translation, I guess they saw the phrase "morning star" and thought "We have a word for that! Lucifer!" - and the rest is history. x.x
You seem to be stuck on the whole Christian thing. As far as your just a word thing, if I am understanding you correctly, I think what you are trying to say is that Lucifer is just a title, listing an attribute of the deity.

I agree, Blackrose. This is the "problem" with modern Pagan communities; understanding aspects of Paganism from Christian (other Abrahamic) stances. I believe it is only natural considering the Christian residue left over when one converts to Paganism, so how Christianised is Paganism, I now ask?
I wasn't raised abrahamic either, I was raised as evangelic lutheran, but whatever we believe - going to the source of it all will create some answers and bring some clarity.

? Isn't Evangelical Lutheran Abrahamic?

Magic is a concept


As is Lucifer, if you state that Lucifer is just a word, or has it's origins as just that. I feel we need to go deeper and see what that word really is to see if it's just a word, Marje. You may well be surprised.

he was created by popular culture, then mass-belief fed that creation - like a sigil being charged.

I like the last part of this sentence! =) I am not sure whether Lucifer was created by popular culture; could you explain this further, please?

Lucifer as a biblical creature? No. Just flat out - NO. Never has been, never will be.
Lucifer as a creature created by popular culture and massbelief? Yes.


First you state that we need to understand Ancient Greek and Hebrew to understand the origins of Lucifer and give us lots of quotes from different scriptural sources, then you state that Lucifer isn't a biblical creature. I am confused, Marje. Which is it? Could you explain this further, also?

If anything, Lucifer is a servitor - that we've created. The problem is that anyone is able to give him certain qualities and personality traits, and right now you've got a creature that's a mix of Satan and the devil; that's what Lucifer is - because we've created him. And it's utterly pointless to worship such a creature, and he certainly is not a demon.

In your opinion.

The word lucifer occurs four times in the Vulgate: Isa 14:12, Job 11:17, Job 38:32, and 2 Peter 1:19.

The KJV translations are inaccurate and at times, words are substituted not knowing how Hebrew terms should translate to Latin. 

Depending on chapter and verse, it represents a designation, planet, metaphor for a role a person plays in the story being told. 

None of these are demons, angels, devils or Satan.

RSS

© 2018 PaganSpace.net       Powered by

Badges | Privacy Policy  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service