Daniels' Seventy Sevens

[SteveF]

Where did you hear this? It's a little hard for me to believe since Jerome used the word "lucifer" in 2Peter in a positive light (excuse the pun)

This is a standard "Chrisadelphian" belief.

Christadelphians

The Truth about Lucifer - The True Identify of Lucifer

I thought you were saying that you believed that Jerome had an axe to grind with a guy named Lucifer. Sorry, I didn't realize you meant the Chrisadelphians believed that. Do you have a specific reference? That's a claim I've never heard before. Thanks

[Mellontes]

"Lucifer" is simply one of the many names used to describe Satan. "Day Star," "Son of the Morning," "Morning Star," or "Light Bearer" were translated using the name of a monk named Lucifer that Jerome had an axe to grind. Then again, Lucifer had been in usage for well over 300 years before Jerome, so it is possible that Lucifer was the usage by Origen and Tertullian saw as most fitting with the usage of the lexicon in their day. Who knows? Who cares?

Most everyone knows that Luficer in Isaiah 14 is a comparison with a king of Babylon in the usage of an essentially familiar old Canaanite story. So in the long run I'm OK with Lucifer in this sense. Lucifer/Satan/Red Dragon/Serpent/Azazel, et al., are all the same.

Isaiah 14:4 - That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isaiah 14:16 - They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

It is not just a comparison. For it to be a comparison, Lucifer must be mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, but he is not. Lucifer IS the king of Babylon! Nothing more, nothing less. It is these kinds of faulty analysis that makes the antichrist=man of sin

[RND]

I thought you were saying that you believed that Jerome had an axe to grind with a guy named Lucifer. Sorry, I didn't realize you meant the Chrisadelphians believed that.

No problem.

Do you have a specific reference? That's a claim I've never heard before. Thanks

I thought the two sources I provided would be a good start. Essentially, Christadelphians believe that some of the translations ascribed to Satan were actually meant for Jesus.

http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/study ... vilPE.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity

I remember having a conversation once with a Christadelphian regarding Jerome and Bishop Lucifer. He was insistent that Jerome didn't like Bishop Lucifer and purposely set about to destroy his name.

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church ... ucifer.htm

[SteveF]

SteveF wrote:
I thought you were saying that you believed that Jerome had an axe to grind with a guy named Lucifer. Sorry, I didn't realize you meant the Chrisadelphians believed that.


No problem.


Do you have a specific reference? That's a claim I've never heard before. Thanks


I thought the two sources I provided would be a good start. Essentially, Christadelphians believe that some of the translations ascribed to Satan were actually meant for Jesus.

http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/study ... vilPE.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_in_Christianity

I remember having a conversation once with a Christadelphian regarding Jerome and Bishop Lucifer. He was insistent that Jerome didn't like Bishop Lucifer and purposely set about to destroy his name.

http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church ... ucifer.htm

After snooping around the internet a little it seems it's pure speculation that Jerome used Lucifer Calaritanus' name as a jab in Isaiah 14. Even if that was the case, it would seem strange that Jerome would refer to "lucifer rising in our hearts" in 2Pet 1:19 if he was intent on demeaning the man's name. It (lucifer) simply strikes me as a common latin word at the time. I'm not inclined to think of lucifer as a proper name in Isaiah 14. I see it as more of a descriptive name. Much like we would refer to Babe Ruth as "The Sultan of Swat". It seems to me that the Hebrew words would support this understanding.

I don't have a problem with people referring to Satan as Lucifer any more than I have a problem with someone referring to Barbara Streisand as "Babbs". Just so long as there is an understanding that it may not be his proper name in Isaiah 14.

[RND]

Isaiah 14:4 - That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isaiah 14:16 - They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

It is not just a comparison. For it to be a comparison, Lucifer must be mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, but he is not. Lucifer IS the king of Babylon! Nothing more, nothing less. It is these kinds of faulty analysis that makes the antichrist=man of sin

You obviously don't know what most Bible scholars have stated regarding the subject. Besides, what "spirit" did Belshazzar have in him? Did it resemble the pride that Satan used to start the war in Heaven. But I do agree that the "spirit" of Antichrist is not a man but rather a way of life.

[SteveF]

You obviously don't know what most Bible scholars have stated regarding the subject.

Hi RND, may I interject here. I read what Steve Gregg wrote about your posts and I think this is an example. I find this statement confrontational and unhelpful. As Steve said, you're making a statement with no explanation. I don't enjoy reading this kind of encounter either. I pefer dialogue. Nobody wins an argument here but we all win when truth is found. Lets all learn together.

[anochria]

Agreed. Let's keep the rhetoric on the d.l.

[RND]

You obviously don't know what most Bible scholars have stated regarding the subject.

Hi RND, may I interject here. I read what Steve Gregg wrote about your posts and I think this is an example.
I find this statement confrontational and unhelpful. As Steve said, you're making a statement with no explanation. I don't enjoy reading this kind of encounter either. I pefer dialogue. Nobody wins an argument here but we all win when truth is found. Lets all learn together.

Thanks Steve! I think I was reacting to another posters, "It is these kinds of faulty analysis..." rant in which he seemed to be suggesting my analysis was faulty. I reacted poorly regarding what most of the Bible scholars I have read have said on the subject. As I mentioned it takes "two to tango." Is telling another their analysis is "faulty" in keeping with the general love, kindness and mutual respect that this forum is known for?

Please don't misunderstand me, I appreciate your cite very much and will try to mind my P&Q's.

[SteveF]

Hi RND, I recall you mentioning to Steve that you're tempted to react at times. I think we can all relate to that. Here is some advice that RickC posted a couple of years ago. I think it's good advice in any situation.

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=1815

I remember Christopher, another old time poster, had some excellent advice as well but I couldn't find it. Perhaps if Christopher is reading this he could share, once again, a bit of the process he goes through before posting. I remember Christopher saying that the forum was one of the ways he learned to mature and interact with others in a more Christ-like way. In other words, we're all in a process of learning from the Great Shepherd and each other.

God Bless
Steve

[anochria]

I'll let Chris know you're talking good about him this Sunday I can't tell you how awesome it is to fellowship with him week by week for those very reasons.