Lucifer is not Satan

I argued originally that Lucifer is mentioned only once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14. Con showed me where the name is also applied to Christ in Revelation, and where a "day star" is mentioned in Peter as rising in the hearts of believers, but this does nothing to prove that the Lucifer Isaiah was talking about in Isaiah is being discussed in those passages. Isaiah was certainly not saying that Jesus had fallen from heaven; nor was he talking about some condition in our hearts. He was discussing a person, and this person is not mentioned in any of the Bible verses Con supplied; so my original point remains intact that this Lucifer we are discussing is only mentioned once by this name. Then he argues that Lucifer is mentioned in pagan texts, but he himself showed that the Lucifer he was talking about was not a repeat of the one Isaiah was discussing, but rather, was the planet Venus, not a person. All the other texts he used such as the CCC quote mention Satan, but don't identify him as Lucifer. I never denied a) That Angels fell in a rebellion against God, I believe they do at times rebel and earn the name "demons," that is, wicked angels. I deny that b) That Satan led the [very first] rebellion. Says who that in every instance of angels sinning, that Satan was responsible? If he could sin off his own accord, why can't they? Since Lucifer is the king of Babylon, he couldn't have led any of them. But the specific rebellion of Revelation 12 was after John's day, for John says this was a prophecy to things to come. (Rev 1:1) I deny that d) Seraphim, Cherubim ... are types of angels. The length of time a number of people believing a thing doesn't prove its validity, so all these centuries of theology don't prove a thing. If it did, Con should be a theist. To prove that "Lucifer is the leader of the angels," Con introduces Revelations 12:7-9 which doesn't mention Lucifer, or call the Devil by that name. "In Isaiah 14:13-4 Lucifer attempts to pass God," No he doesn't, he merely has these desires "in his heart" but the text never says he accomplishes or made the attempt. Even if he did, how would that make him Satan? Con is assuming Satan is the only one with such desires, but I have shown that isn't the case in my previous posts. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4; Dan 8:10) "while in Genesis 3:5 Satan's whole claim is that through knowledge, "You shall be as God". So anyone desiring to be like God must be Satan the Devil? Plenty of men with that desire in Bible times and in the world today; you'll have to do better Con. Summa Summa Theologica I.63.5.A makes the "claim" that Lucifer is Satan, but doesn't back up that "claim" with Biblical evidence. Con cites Gregory and Augustine, but doesn't give us any solid argument from them to "PROVE" that Lucifer is Satan. They simply go by the ASSUMPTION that Lucifer is Satan without good evidence. "The Qu'ran 5 times identifies falling angel as Satan: http://www2.iath.virginia.edu...; The Qu'ran identifies this fallen angel as Iblis, not Lucifer; and in any case, I wonder how Con got the Qu'ran of Islam into the Bible canon? I thought he was using the Catholic tradition and their apocrypha; appears he has expanded his range. Since when did Milton's Paradise Lost become Scripture? And if it's an interpretation of Scripture, what evidence does it give for Lucifer being Satan aside from a mere claim? The same questions could be asked about Dante's Inferno. Con has a problem with my shift from the literal to the symbolic in Isaiah 14, so if he takes it all as literal for a literal spirit being, then does he also believe that Satan literally is a "man" (Isa 14:16), that this spirit being literally has biological children (Isa 14:21), that he is covered in maggots and worms (Isa 14:11)? It is obvious to anyone reading Isaiah 14 that verse 8-9 at the very least are symbolic as well. Yet, the proverb was literally addressed to the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4), so Isaiah is the one shifting from literal to symbolic, not me. Take it up with him. Con uses Exodus 24:10 so show a spirit being can be adorned with jewels, but it doesn't say that God was wearing them as a covering; rather, that they were beneath his feet. It is quite likely God chose to appear on a spot in the mountain where precious jewels literally were found. Rev 21:18-21 describes a physical structure, not a spirit being, as having jewels. Since this city comes down to and is meant for the earth, we expect that it would have earthly jewels. Con has thus failed to prove that spirit beings wear jewelry; hence, my point stands that a spirit would not be wearing silver and gold ornaments; this is describing a human king in Ezekiel 28. "In terms of the Lucifer is a man issue that's been fully refuted in round 2. Supernatural heavenly being, i.e. the spiritual representation of what we call the planet Venus. The same way that Jesus is the spiritual representation of the word of God" Not according to the Bible. Jesus wasn't a spiritual representation of God in the form of man; he was God, and he was man. (John 1:1-18) Nergal (2Kings 17:30) and Nebo (Isa 46:1) as used in the texts supplied by Con are idol statues, this doesn't harm my argument in any way. How does Con know chrubs and seraphs are angels? Because Saint Denis the Celestial Hierarchy and St. Thomas say so? What Biblical evidence do they provide to prove their case? Con wants us to accept their say-so, but such won't fly in this debate. Were they inspired of God as was Isaiah? (Isa 1:1-2) I agree, the Devil is the ruler of the demons, now show me where the Bible says that Lucifer is the ruler of the demons and you'll have a good point. "Unless you want God / Satan / Jesus.... bound to a particular location in space-time and unable to travel faster than the speed of light we can't order their events meaningfully." Please clarify how this relates to Lucifer being Satan. John told us when Satan's outing from heaven would happen, shortly, after he wrote Revelation (Rev 1:1), Lucifer had already fallen according to Isaiah 14, hence, two different falls, two different people. Con cites Plato to prove that Tartarus is the realm of punishment for the wicked, that Tartarus is hell, Plato was no Christian, nor did he say his writings were God's word and belong in the canon of Scripture. This was his own opinion, but the Bible doesn't support this view; only angels, and not departed souls, are mentioned as being in Tartarus. Also, 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6 describe Tartus as a place of "darkness," no doubt, no fire is burning to light this place as is the case with the firey hell. 1) What are devils? The Greek word for "devil" is diabolos. It is used of Satan at Jude 9, and means "slanderer," or "accuses." Jesus said of Judas, "one of you is a devil (diabolos)." (John 6:70) 1 Tim 3:11 says wives shouldn't be "slanderers (diabolos)." In the last days men will be "false accusers (diabolos)." (2 Tim 3:1-3) So a devil is any being which accuses or sladers. Satan is only one, the main, devil. 2) What is Satan? Satan means "resister," or "adversary." The Hebrew word for Satan is used of men as well. (1 Sam 29:4 "adversary")…So a "satan" is an adversary, and Satan the Devil made himself into God's chief adversary by his actions. 3) How do you know Satan is a devil (the devil)? Cause the Bible says that he is. (Rev 12:9-10) It doesn't say he is Lucifer. 4) What are angels? The Greek word for "angel" is angelos, which means "messenger." Cherubim and Seraphim are never used in the Bible to deliver messages, so they are not angels in this sense. Neither does the Bible say that Satan ever served in this capacity. Further, Heb 1:14 says angels are spirits which "minister" to a specific group, "those who inherit salvation." Unless Con can show that Satan, Cherubs and Seraphs served in this capacity, he can't show them to be angels. I'm out of space, over to you Con.