Lucifer is not Satan

Summary conclusion: We have established the cultural context at the time of the KJV translation. a) The use of Lucifer in the Vulgate. b) The Catholic interpretation that had existed for over a millennia. c) The explicit ties that existed within popular literature about Satan: Milton and Dante. In choosing to use the Vulgate’s Latin term “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 the KJV translators meant the pre-fallen Satan. There is just no question what they meant. They meant Satan, the devil by their use of Lucifer and that was the original thesis question what the KJV meant. That should end the debate. Pro’s counter argument has been a more complex argument about whether all the sources are correct. Is there a good argument for the traditional position that Isaiah originally meant Satan? In terms of that question this debate has shown that the answer is “absolutely! ” The evidence for this is its wide spread acceptance among many different sources. a) helel ben-shakhar, the Hebrew used, is literally “Day Star”. b) Lucifer / Venus / Morning Star (Φωσφόρος) is a divine attribute throughout the bible. c) The things said about the King in Isaiah 14 go way beyond the damage a mortal king could do. The sins are just “too big” even for a powerful king. How would a human know how to set his thrown on high in heaven like God? Even if he wanted to commit that sin how could he? d) In particular, the Isaiah passage appears to tie to a contemporary legend about Athtar(Venus) attempting to steal the thrown of Ba’al (the Sun = Jesus). “Ascend to heaven above the stars” Satan’s big sin, a sin that a human king wouldn’t even know how to commit, the attempt to usurp God. e) 2Peter explicitly makes the tie. The original counter argument presented by Pro for this evidence was based on this theory of the translation of tartarus which was categorically contradicted. f) We see similar uses of other planets, including Isaiah himself in 46:1. Finally the argument has come down to whether Seraphim and Cherubim are angels. I presented a lot of Catholic evidence that they were. My opponent simply asserted they aren’t. Here is a fully independent second position, the hierarchy is different from Saint Gregory’s: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I think the answer is that the overwhelming evidence supports the traditional position. This position has been the traditional position for good reason. My opponent’s alternative, a human king, falls apart quite quickly. His second line of defense amounts to “regardless of how many pieces of evidence exist the bible never say X explicitly”. Well many Christian doctrines he believes are not explicitly in the bible: none of the 5 solas, the trinity, the hypostatic union, his eschatology. None of those are explicitly in the bible all are drawn using inductive reasoning which amounts to, “this seems like the most likely theory based on the evidence”. And the traditional position, along with most other Christian theology meets that criteria. We wouldn’t expect a simple biblical statement that Lucifer is Satan since Satan is a Hebrew/ Aramaic word and Lucifer is a Latin one but we have exactly what we would expect. _____________Time arguments: There were a couple of counter arguments about the time of the fall of the angels that in Lucifer’s case it has already happened while it hasn’t happened in Satan’s. Which I addressed in round 4. Time is a property of matter there is no before or after when it comes to eternal beings. Entropy, a property of thermodynamics is what gives time direction. Satan and God don’t eat food and don’t release heat. They don’t engage in entropic reactions they don’t have a before or after. That’s applying human language to the divine. I’m not going to have enough space to quote systematic theologies on properties of the God, his being eternal but that’s how I’d respond. The one time challenge by Athtar of Ba’al in eternity is represented by a nightly manifestation in the sky. The bible explicitly agrees with me on when the devil fell: 1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. John 8:44 identifies Satan as the, “Father of lies” that the sins of Satan predate sins of man. I think it makes far more sense to see Isaiah 14 passage Lucifer is to “fallen from heaven” and “cut down to the ground” Ezek 28, Job 1, Luke 10, Eph 6, Rev 12 all attributed to Satan rather than two distinct falls. _____ Tartarus is hell: As for Tartarus, I'll close by commenting it doesn’t matter if Plato was a Christian. The question was what the word Tartarus meant in Greek. Plato is essentially the most authoritative source for the definition. Just to provide another source, the first written use of it that we know of is in Hesiod’s Theogony (. http://www.sacred-texts.com...) where Tartarus is the realm of the deep, an alternative to Gaia (the earth) where man and the good Gods live. In the 3rd generation of the god’s when the evil titans are overthrown by the good gods they are cast into Tartarus. The analogy to the Christian doctrine of the fall of the angels is pretty clear and hence the reason the bible uses the term. If Pro wanted to argue Plato was wrong in his understanding of a Greek term, I think he needs to provide some pretty substantial evidence. In my opponent’s translation he has quoted Strong. As an aside Strong agrees with Con’s thesis, “The scriptures representations of the progressive rage of the great adversary, from his first assault in Genesis to his final overthrow in Revelations, join with the testimony of Christ just mentioned, to forbid any other conclusion than this, that there is a personal being of great power, who carries on organized opposition to the divine government. ( Systematic theology: Good and Evil Angels). ______ Apocalypse of Moses I’ll close with another piece of evidence I didn’t have room for in round 4. In terms of ancient texts Apocalypse of Moses (verse 8 identifies serpent with Satan) and speaks of fall: XIII The devil [Satan] replied, 'Adam, what dost thou tell me? It is for thy sake that I have been hurled from that place. When thou wast formed, I was hurled out of the presence of God and banished from the company of the angels. .. I will not worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me. .. . When the angels who were under me heard this, they refused to worship him. And Michael saith, 'Worship the image of God, but if thou wilt not worship him, the Lord God will be wrath with thee. ' And I said, 'If He be wrath with me, I will set my seat above the stars of heaven and will be like the Highest.