The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Who do you feel these beings are? Do you believe them to all be the same or different and why?

Please read this article and express your thoughts on it

Lucifer, Satan and the Devil are three different names for the same angel. Lucifer refers to this angel when he lived in heaven. Satan and the Devil are names for this angel after he became evil and came to our earth. The Bible uses many names for Satan. Read the names of Satan to find more of his names.

Lucifer
Lucifer was created by God as a perfect angel. He was called Lucifer while he lived in heaven. After he sinned and persistently refused to repent he was thrown out of heaven. When Lucifer was cast out of heaven he lost his name Lucifer and he became known as Satan. The history of Satan tells his story.

Satan and the Devil
Satan is the name that is used for Lucifer after he was thrown out of heaven. He is also called the devil. Satan is now a sinful, fallen angel. He has lived on this earth for about 6,000 years. But Satan has lived in the spirit world and most of the time he has not been visible to people on earth. Very soon the devil will leave the spirit world and will appear on earth in a visible form. Then he will be called the beast.

The beast
The beast is the name that the Bible gives to Satan when he comes to earth visibly and claims to be God. Satan will appear on earth as a glorious, visible being. He will have the appearance of God. He will require the whole world to worship him as their god.

http://www.markbeast.com/satan/lucifer-satan-devil.htm

You should have added the following to your question:

Lucifer was a planet as well as a super being. This planet was located between our present Mars and Jupiter(where now lies the inner asteroid belt). The planet Lucifer is known by many other names: Maldek, Phaeton, Rex, etc., but is most aptly named after the super archangel who ruled over it -Lucifer. Lucifer was a perfect and beautiful being and his planet was one of ten in the solar system of that time. The planet Lucifer rivaled the Sun in splendor and may in fact have been a second sun or binary. The Luciferians living on it were a godly people until their leader fell from grace and brought them to ruin along with a third of the entire solar system.

Sourced link: here

Lucifer has also been paralleled to Prometheus of greek mythology

I consider them one and the same.
Demons on the other hand, Dark Angels of the Underworld.

As Regards the Mis-Translation of "Lucifer" -

Speaking factually (historically) here, while "Lucifer" can be equated to the planet Venus yet this term most certainly never was intended to reference some supernatural being.

As so many other have stated in previous forum posts on this subject, the term "Lucifer" simply means "light bringer" or "light bearer." It is found only once in all of the Bible and that is in Isaiah 14:12 and had specific reference to a Persian King with whom... so Isaiah states... the Lord is very displeased and who, despite his pride, will be brought down. The term "light bearer" given this king was intended as a sarcastic joke mocking the man's exalted opinion of himself.

That's all... nothing to do with a "Satan" or other imaginary "supernatural" being.

It wasn't until the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Latin that the term "Lucifer" even appeared... and then it wasn't until the Bible was retranslated into English (King James Version in 1601 CE) that the Christian translators made the monumental leap in illogic of equating the term "Lucifer" with the "Satan" figure spoken about in the New Testament when he supposedly tempted Jesus, etc.

And that is the ridiculous story of a how a comical metaphor for a arrogant upstart of a Persian King became synonymous with... Satan.

Now... as for "Satan," the "Devil" and the "Beast"... I'll save that for another post.

- Upir'

Here is a wonderful article that discusses just about all aspects of this question (hyperlink to the article follows). It is long... but it is very good and very well-written.


Some Light on Lucifer
By Ina Belderis

[Unless otherwise indicated, all Bible quotes are from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version).]

Is there any difference between Lucifer and Satan? Westerners generally would say they are one and the same. Especially those in fundamentalist Christian circles consider Lucifer an archangel who fell from grace and was thrown out of heaven because of "sinful pride." His "sin" was thinking he was equal to God and rebelling against Him. This rebellious angel is known as Satan, Lucifer, or the Devil, who tempts us to do evil. Supposedly, one of the most evil things Lucifer tempts us to do is to think that we are God. So those who believe in the essential divinity of all life are often accused of committing Satan's sin, and of being under the influence of Lucifer. Where do these ideas about Satan and Lucifer come from? Is there a biblical basis for them?

Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring." The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . ."

The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!" In other translations we find: "O shining star of the dawn!" (Moffatt) or "O morning-star, son of the dawn!" (Hebrew Bible).

The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.

In Isaiah 14 the prophet is taunting the king of Babylon: "In the figurative language of the Hebrews, . . . a star, signifies an illustrious king or prince . . . The monarch here referred to, having surpassed all other kings in royal splendour, is compared to the harbinger of day, whose brilliancy surpasses that of the surrounding stars" (A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, John Kitto ed., 3rd ed., J. B. Lippincott and Co, Philadelphia, 1866, 2:857-8). There are those who claim that the real entity addressed in this passage is Satan, but there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, Isaiah (14:16) says: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, . . . ?" and (14:18) "All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out . . ." These seem clear references to a man, the king of a nation, not an archangel.

There is yet another reason why it makes no sense to read the Devil into Isaiah 14: the traditional role of Satan in the Old Testament. Satan comes from the Hebrew satan, which means "opponent" or "adversary."

According to Strong's Concordance, this word appears in 1 Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and in Zechariah. In Psalms "satan" is used both in the plural (accusers) and in the indefinite sense (an accuser). In Chronicles and Zechariah its usage is ambiguous, while in Job "satan" as The Accuser appears only in the first two of its 42 chapters. It is important, however, to keep in mind that the texts of the Old Testament did not reach their "final" version until after the Babylonian exile. Before this exile there is no evidence in Hebrew scriptures of an Accuser as a force that opposes God, and even after the exile it is still doubtful. Though the story of Job is very old, its final version is dated after the exile, after the Hebrews came into contact with the dualist Zoroastrian religion with its god of good and its god of evil.

There is even division among Old Testament scholars as to whether evil should be associated with Satan at all.

Some say that Satan was originally not considered evil but gradually became identified with his unpleasant functions. According to this approach, Satan is still God's servant. There is much in the Book of Job that tends to support this view. Satan appears only in the first two chapters and then disappears. Some believe the first two chapters were added much later, for in the last chapter we read: ". . . they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" (42:11).

It appears that the Hebrews did not have a devil-like power opposed to God.

Satan, or the Satan as he is often called, is an angel in the court of God with the function of an accuser (see Job 1:6). There are also indications that along with all that is "good," all that is "evil" comes from God, not Satan. In Isaiah 45:7 God says: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things." Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia confirms the idea that there is a radical difference between how Satan is conceived in the Old Testament and how he is conceived in the New Testament, and that his new role did not develop from his original role: there are no references "to rebellious angels in any pre-Christian book. . . . The figure of Satan in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament respectively emphasizes the difference in conception. There is no development, but basic difference. . . . It is only in Christian literature that the Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God's enemy, has persisted" (Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia, A. M. Hyamson & A. M. Silberman eds., Shapiro, Valentine & Co, London, 1938, p. 36).

There is actually very little in the Old Testament to support the idea of Satan as a rebellious angel and the power opposing God. He is generally depicted as a heavenly attorney general (accuser) functioning under God, and this only strengthens the argument for not reading Satan into the passage about Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah is one of the older books in the Bible and is definitely pre-exile.

If there is no sound biblical basis for associating Lucifer with Satan, where then does the story come from that he is a rebellious angel and fell because of pride? The Christian Church made the interpretation that Isaiah 14:12 is connected with Luke 10:18: "He said to them, I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning." This unfounded, non-biblical connection of Lucifer with Satan has led to the popular misunderstanding that Lucifer is another name for the Devil (cf. "Lucifer," Harper's Bible Dictionary, Paul Achtemeier, gen. ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1985).

As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is mentioned:

So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
-- 2 Peter 1:19

. . . from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star.
-- Revelation 2:28

It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.
-- Revelation 2 2:16


All three references to the morning star point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word "morning star" in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer. In the other two references it is stella matutina.

Even when we put aside the question of what God's "opponent" should be called, the fact remains that the story of a rebellious angel who fell because of pride is not in the Bible at all. Some claim that the fallen Satan is present from the very beginning, even though his name does not appear in Genesis. Paul suggested that the serpent was Satan, the implication being that Satan tempted Adam. Yet most of the early Church Fathers believed that Satan fell after Adam. It took the Church over 200 years to establish that Satan's sin was pride, that he fell before the creation of man, and that he was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve.

To find the story of the fall of Satan, we must go to sources other than the Bible. There was a great deal of literature produced roughly between 200 BC and 150 AD, including the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. Some of these are apocalyptic -- they prophesy cataclysmic events and the end of the world. In this literature one can see the development of the idea of an evil spirit, but even in the apocalyptic literature the Devil does not become entirely evil in his origin and essence. Many of the books from this period reflect the misery of the Jewish people under the oppression of Syria and Rome. Their writings deal with visions of the end of the world, the world being in the power of the Devil, and the Messiah conquering the Devil and bringing a new era of justice. The Book of Enoch is seen by many as one of the earliest and most important accounts of the mishaps of the Heavenly Court (of angels). It also describes the rebellion of the angel Satanail, and his being hurled from heaven (2 Enoch, ch. 29, long MSS only). Some scholars take this to mean that the amalgamation of Satan and Lucifer goes back to the first century. A redating of 2 Enoch, however, puts it later than the third century, perhaps even in the seventh. For this reason others suggest that Origen (Exhort. 18) was probably the inventor of the identification of Lucifer with Satan (Satan: The Early Christian Tradition, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1991, p. 130 & fn). The Life of Adam and Eve (Vita), a Jewish scripture that scholars date between 200 BC and 200 AD, relates that Satan tells Adam and Eve that his fall from heaven is the result of his refusal to worship Adam, the image of God. A similar account is also found in the Koran (S 2:34). These legends reflect a theme close to the primordial "pride" that led to the so-called fall of Satan.

Since the Old Testament does not connect pride or the Fall with Satan, the Devil, or the Adversary, the only scriptural "support" for this notion is the misinterpretation of the fall of Lucifer (the king of Babylon), and certain passages in the New Testament. But the New Testament does not give any clear information on the fall of Satan through pride either. One place where Lucifer is connected with pride is in Milton's Paradise Lost. He "applied the name to the demon of sinful pride" ("Lucifer," A Dictionary of Angels, Gustav Davidson, The Free Press, New York, 1967).

It appears that the whole story of Lucifer as Satan, the fallen rebellious angel, is based entirely on non-canonical sources: the so-called Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. There are also many pre-Christian myths and allegories that include stories about Lucifer, which is the Latin name for the Greek Eosphoros. In his Theogony Hesiod speaks of two divine beings, the brothers Eosphoros (the morning star) and Hesperos (the evening star). They are the children of Astraios (the starry heaven) and Eos (the dawn). The morning star, like the Virgin of the Sea, is one of the titles given to Divine Mother goddesses such as the Roman Venus, the Phoenician Astarte, the Jewish Ashtoreth, and the later Christian Holy Virgin. In the oldest Zoroastrian allegories, Mithra is supposed to have conquered the planet Venus. In the Christian tradition, Michael defeats Lucifer.

The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first radiant beam that does away with the darkness of night. It is a symbol of the development of the divine light in man, for the first awakening of self-consciousness, for independent thinking and the real application of free will. It means the bringing of the light of compassionate understanding to the human mind.


http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm

in my mind they are the same just different name

Same being just differ in name.. Demons are n the other hand are something diffrent.

thank you ~Upir~ for that intriquing insite for the comical "light bearer" post. This is one of the reasons why I do not put very much "faith" in the bible itself. Re-written and translated so many differant times is like telling a secret to 10 individuals and with the 10th individual repeating something else entirely back to me.

As another note to lucifer as Babylonian King:

Zoroastrianism commonly uses light as an analogy for God; so much so that outsiders often thought Zoroastrians worshiped fire and not God.

Babylon was a Zoroastrian country, and the three wise men (Magi) were also Zoroastrian.

If the three wise men were Zoastrian, then it would make the indiviudal wonder why they took the journey to Bethlehem in the first place? One still questions whether or not Bethlehem was the true place of birth...

There are many reasons why... it boils down to the stellar phenomina that announced the new Christ. The sect of ZOroastrianism that they followed was well known for advanced astronomy and astrology, and it ties in with the concept of prophets, and the prophecy of the promised one of all ages.

Thank you for the correction. I am once more wondering why the Freemasons include ZOroastrianism in their degrees. Makes one think.

All things connect I suppose.

Given the content of the past few entries, it might be appropriate and hopefully insightful to some that I point out that as the Magi were indeed from the Mesopotamian area with its Babylonian and... more anciently... Sumerian religious and cultural background, their interest in the birth of the historical Jesus could not have had anything whatsoever to do with Jewish prophecies of a "Messiah" (a descendant of King David and heir to his Jewish throne), which would have meant nothing to them.

Thus, the Magi ... who were most certainly not Jewish... must have followed the "Star of Bethlehem" for their own religious reasons.

When one considers that, according to their own Babylonian/Sumerian mythology, the "Anunnaki," their first Gods, had first descended from the heavens, mated with Human females, and produced their first own greatest legendary Kings ...

... well, it stands to reason that this would have sparked the "prophecied" anticipation of the Anunnaki's (their Gods') return and again mating with Human females to produce wondrous new Kings as before.

And did not the Magi travel to the Palestine area specifically to ... worship a new King as heralded via celestial signs announcing just such a birth?

And let us not forget to consider just exactly what even the Jewish New Testament states were the circumstances of Jesus'conception and birth. Was not Jesus claimed to have been conceived as the result of the mating between a Celestial "God" and a Human female? And was not this precisely how the Annunaki had reportedly also given the Earth its own sons as its first greatest Kings?

Thus... might the real reason the Magi traveled so far to visit the infant/toddler Jesus have been because... even as the New Testament also states... Jesus was, in fact, the literal "begotten" son of one of the Bene-ha-Elohim (Genesis 6:1 - "Sons of God"... almost identical with "Anunnaki," which means "Sons of the Heavenly Prince")?

Might this, then, have also been the real reason why Jesus was, himself, later called a/the "Son of God" (which was a claim never included in the Jewish prophecies of a "Messiah" [remember... the Messiah was to be a literal male descendant {son of} King David... not the Jewish "God," Himself])?

And finally... the biggest question of all... might this secret knowledge have been the real reason why Jesus was ... as had all the descendants of the Nefilim before him ... betrayed and murdered, as well?

When considering who and what the true principles of original EVIL are and how they came to be on Earth, whether in the guise of fantastical beings such as "Satan" or otherwise, perhaps we ought instead to look to a far more Human source: our own ancient prejudices and fears?


- Upir'

same person, diff body and name for diff reasons on this earth.

Satan is kind of a title for the sitting king of Hell. If for some reason Lucifer was to no longer be the king of Hell, another would take his place and claim the title of Satan. At least that is what I was once told.

they are the same, at the beganing it was an angel who lost his position as an angel, as he tried to be adored instead of God so, got punished.

Both are the same, titles, for 1 being

As the last three entries here have stated that "Lucifer" is an actual being, might there be any legit citations or references to support such a view... and that would thus disprove the conclusions long reached by actual Biblical scholars (as I referenced and hyperlinked earlier) that the single "Lucifer" mention in the Bible (Isaiah 14:12) referred specifically and only to a mortal Persian king?

Thanx in advance!


- Upir'

Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus and only appears in the Latin Vulgate and does not refer to any sort of angel. Isaiah is the only place it is located and any Jewish Rabbi will tell you, since it is their writings that the passage has nothing to do with an angel called Lucifer. I think the mixup came when the Romans took over the following. The goddess Diana created a son and consort named Lucifer who was the Light Bearer. Somehow this may have all gotten mixed together. I don't know who they mean as the Devil, there were many referred to as devils. I think that is more modern. As for Satan, he was an angel that was created and took an adversarial position. He never according to the Rabbi's again, fell out of favor with God. This is an interpretation of a faith that did not write the writings they are deciphering from. As for the beast that comes from the Apocalypse and I just consider that possible apocrapha because many say it was just a writing that was coded about what they planned on doing about Rome in the time it was written. These are things I just know about over the years...I have no link. Here are a couple things with links.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hebrew word "Satan" means "Hinderer." To hinder someone means to hold him back, to try to prevent him from doing something. G-d created the Hinderer to give us work to do in this world (see my article Why did G-d Create the World?). Satan is here to make things difficult for us, so we can overcome our evil temptations, and PASS the test. That is the purpose of Satan. Satan is an angel whose purpose has been determined by G-d.

/www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

It is not to Jerome, however that we owe the teaching of Lucifer but to that most creative of theologians, Origen. (185-254 A.D.) It was he who first made the new connection between Satan and Lucifer. He brought together diverse Old Testament references from Job, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Arguing that Lucifer, the Prince of Tyre, and the Leviathan of Job, were all identical with the Devil. He used these texts to emphasize Satan's pride and his fall from heaven.

With the aid of Tertullian (155-After 220 A.D.) who taught that before Satan's fall he was not only an angel but the foremost angel. It is mainly to these three theologians, Origen, Tertullian, and Jerome that we derive the Lucifer myth. It should also be noted that the Lucifer myth can also be found in the Psedepigrapha in the book The Secrets of Enoch. But since it is currently felt that The Secrets of Enoch is likely a seventh century document (at least in its present form), therefor it is probably not the source of this Lucifer myth. ( I will for now refer to the idea that Lucifer is Satan as the Lucifer myth, hopefully by the end of the article you will agree that it is indeed a myth.)

http://newprotestants.com/LUCIFER.htm

I love that i have their are so many intelligent people on here

what i think that it intresting read the start a facinating and the planet even more

In a nut shell...the book...The Origins of Satan...it is explain that in the Hebrew religion God would use a "satan" (an idea not an actual being) to test a mans will...such as...if a man wished to travel to another city to visit relatives...God may put a tree blocking the road to test the mans will to see his relatives...that tree would have been a "satan". The book goes on to say that a "satan" was not referred to as an actual being until the Bible. Well...that's what it said!

Hello,

I believe they are a different side or personality of the same being. Each 'side' has their own name and meanings, but they have the same face and same heart. Demons are the workers, the 'angels' of this being. They do it's bidding and follow every command. I also believe that this being is beautiful. No red, scaly skin or forked tongue. No pitchfork and horns. Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in heaven, now it is the most beautiful demon in hell.

Then we have Anu and his two sons Enki and Enlil. Enlil would be the alluding name of Lucifer, I would do research in this area as well.

One forgets Sammael, Ahriman, Azi Duhaka, the Ashema Daeva, the Nasu Druj, Apophis, Set, Loki, and a host of others to start with.

I was getting to those, but we must let the audience learn at their pace.

Haha....such is so true.....*drops hankey* i concede...let them play with devils at their own pace, and so learn their place :D



hows that old saying go again,

Shahamemphorash


*sits back and watches*

Yes, I have heard of that msyterious planet.. Got it off the Christopher Pike book called, "Monster".. It was awesome, really.. and that comic called Lightbringer, by Neil Garman, if I'm not mistaken.. *smilez*

I would think that like God, who takes various forms and names in all the religions around the world, so does the counterpart. I don't think there's really an isue over the terminologies here.. Lucifer, Satan, the Beast.. pretty much give you the basic idea, doesn't it?

*smilez*

All 4 names mean the same, just in different stages and times.............each comes he comes to us in a form to wipe out the humans........to humans, we as vampires, are demons and the undead

Well, that last post enlightened me on only one thing... The roleplayers really need to draw a line between what they are roleplaying with... Vampires, or theology???

Forgive me for my ignorance.. I do not mean to offend anyone here, but the definition of the Beast is the being that Lucifer/Statan will take on Earth?

Why do we need to take these terms literally? Perhaps each term/name has its own purpose? I believe that the various names that are given to demons also are a representation of the different aspect of Lucifer/Satan.

Guess I'm still circling the same point.. Thing is, all of us, each and everyone of us, feel the effect of Evil in our daily lives.. *sighz*.. Why analyse it to death?

SheWolf85 -

According to the "Revelation of John" (last book in the NT), also called the "Apocalypse of John," the "Beast" is a mortal man who is given power to rule Earth by the "Dragon" (Satan/Devil) for a period of time prior to the supposed "Second Coming of Christ." Thus, they are two separate people.

As the "number of the Beast" has long been concluded by Biblical scholars to be a re-working of the name "Nero," and thus a hidden condemnation of that Roman Emperor, the question of who the "Beast" was has already been answered and was understood well to be such in John's time.

And finally, with respect to the question of why we should analyze Evil, my answer would be that the only way to overcome something is through understanding, which kinda requires analysis.

And my own $ 0.02 worth on Evil is that when stripped of all its religious trappings and wrappings, Evil boils down to its least common denominator as the deriving of pleasure and satisfaction from the violation of others' rights. And I would propose that this is the end result of selfishness taken to its ultimate narcissistic and destructive extreme.


- Upir'

All different names, but the same being. Kind of like how the holy ghost, God, and Jesus are the same. Even tho Jesus is the son of God. Were not supposed to understand everything, but when the time comes, and I think it's near we will all understand everything. If it's in our favor or not.

Lucifer is Greek which means the light bringer. Satan is a Hebrew word that means Adversary. Lucifer was known as the Roman God of the sun. Also Venus, the morning star was known as lucifer, because lucifer brings the light into darkness. I think Lucifer and Satan are different entities.

The main name used by my prince is Beelzebub, In the Old Testament, Beelzebub is the Philistine god of Ekron,

"And finally, with respect to the question of why we should analyze Evil, my answer would be that the only way to overcome something is through understanding, which kinda requires analysis."

Yes I agree with that.. and yes, I am well aware of the subtle diferences of the names and what/who they represent. *smilez*

I was just trying to get the main picture out.. Something simple so that I could understand.

But thank you for the info.

:)

Lu-ci-fer and Satan ARE two different entities. Satan was Lu-ci-fers general of the armies of hell, as well as bealzebub being a liutenant of Satans or some babble.

Don't ask, I cannot remember sources or reference material, it was all studies throughout High School, demonologies and such the like.

Again, which is why I keep getting on the suppose Neo-Satanists that are more narcisistic then anything, instead of worshipping a demon of hell, they worship themselves but still call it Satanism. Bah!

Hmm In a different standpoint I once intercept ideas regarding to this subject and ancient studies, and as some have directed within this thread, Enki and Enlil were once posted in this Earth, one and the other reflecting the good and evil. In that garden of creation it said that Enlil was evil because he wanted to withhold the human creation as slaves and ignorant to what was happening, and Enki was fighting to enlighten the humans into their own free will, by doing so "the snake tempt Adam and Eve to try the fruit of knowledge" and to awaken them into a new reality, the reality of free will, The other gods were very mad at this forever damning "lucifer" into this place as the evil figure itself, and forever making the humans work for their food, to suffer, and to revolt in confusion, yet the snake is a symbol of reverence in all cultures within the main Gods. Wouldn't you question why Lucifere is "the light bringer"(the enlightening entity)? And why the God in the old testament was so different from the one in the New Testament? makes you think, thank you all for sharing; very insightful posts.

Are you suggesting ~Firmement~ that the Old Testament was about "God" and the New Testament was about "Lucifer"?

Im referring that the Old testament is about a different God ( or god's, Elohim) than in the New testament, Weather is Lucifer or not is another subject I wouldn't expand on, the wrathful God in the Old testament sounds to me like that of a Enlil's behavior as perception of human beings and the disobedience of his terms of conditions and the New testament 'God' sounds to me like a all loving, all forgiving universal entity stemming from Jesus teachings, but hey! thats just me, not intending to imprint anything in anyones philosophy.

suggestable references are not imprints for philosophy, they are there for pondering and contemplation.

It's only the ignorant and people that don't wish to talk or think about these beings and stories that lump them all together. Their stories are easily seen as different. You can't discuss this topic when people say; "they're all the same, it's all the devil." You're better to hit your head against the wall - several times!

Bealzebub, btw, was one of the 72 demons from Soloman's key. Chief Demon of Hell.

The beast is actually nothing but us. Humans that focus and live only in the lower three chakras. The Satan that is mentioned in the bible is referring to the Chaos that we are ourselves create without a Spritual life. Again, focusing on the lower three chakras. Remember that the real teachings are not taught. Shame really.

The old stories about Lucifer are several. And yes, one does have Satan as his first commander and messager to our old Plantery Prince. Funny as neither one really had anything to do with us as humans.

Lucifer was associated with being this angel of Light, to fallen angel to devil and back again (newage) to spiritual guide. Planet Venus, mystery planet, and Wicca story about being the Sun. And maybe to my middle name!

As for the real beast ... we all know that's -
Bill Gates.
But that goes without saying.

Thank you ~Billy~ for clearing that one up... I always forget the small things when it comes to my research on demonology. That was in the Greater Key, yes? One tends to need a reminder when a crap load of books and information is at the disposal for the thought process.

As well, aside from Bill Gates, I would look to King Abdullah, but this is purely for the "anti-christ" theory alone:

"Five US presidents and the heads of state and finance from every nation, including Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the entire Rothschild family, show up to pay their respects, kiss the ring and pay homage to the new young king.

Abdullah was born 6 days away from the 2/5/1962 target date. In THE MILLENNIUM FACTOR, I described how I saw an urbane young man, in a western suit, and that he was being trained and educated by his UNCLE! And that power would flow from his uncle INTO HIM! This is EXACTLY what has happened in the case of King Abdullah.

There is a reason why David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, the House of Rothschild and five US presidents, came to kiss his ring and pay homage to him."

Source link: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/antichrist01.htm#WHO%20IS%20THE%20ANTI-CHRIST

Sarcasm I know.. But hey, when in Rome.

As usual..vvSoulshroudevv and Billy have the right of it..

beat me to it again fellas...

very good job.

OB

In my opinion...

Lucifer, Satan, the devil, and the beast are all representations of the primal and natural state of mankind.

The Church Of Satan Official Website

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

Billy,

Parts of your post remind me of an audio tape from Deepak Chopra, discussing the spiritual war that is recited in the Gita.

He describes that the enemy forces that are allied against Arjuna are basicly our own demons.

Spoken)
I figured since I wrote a song about you know God and Jesus and all that I would have to give the opposition equal time.

(Sung)
Ever since first man has walked this Earth I have been here
To whisper seeds of doubt and evil thoughts into his ear
I am the beast, the outcast angel fallen from on high
I go by many names but there is one you can't deny
My name is Satan, hi everybody!
Ahh, let me tell you a little about myself
My friends all call me old scratch and I am a Capricorn
My turn ons are romantic walks and killing the unborn
I've got little devil horns, and a little Goatee,
Little devil eyes to help a little devil see
And little cloven hooves that make it kinda hard to ski
I'm Satan, Woo Hoo!

Mephistopheles for some. I don't know.

My real name is Beelzebub, but you can call me Beelz
I love to watch Fox news and then go club some baby seals
Then I'll take a bubble bath and drink a zinfandel
Try to wash off that baby seal smell
And then I'll make a toast to me
Hey, here's to my hell...th
My name is Satan. Ah Hah!

To carry on my evil ways I went and had a son
And now he makes his living as a singing comedian
I'm in every Zeppelin album
I'm in all Rush Limbaugh's rants
I'm the reason that the Boston Red Sox even had a chance

And if I want to eat your soul, I'll just throw it on a griddle.
I don't need to make a deal, I don't need to tell a riddle
And fuck Charlie Daniels I don't care if he can fiddle
I'm Satan.

The Devil went down to Georgia, he was looking for a soul to steal
Thats fucking bullshit because I wouldn't be caught dead in Georgia
Ok, it's like Oh my God!
Six, Six, Six!
Satan!

Look, that's just how I picture him.

p.s. one comedian sums up ol' lucy.

Surely clubbing baby seals is much less evil than turning on your air conditioner; or buying food in a grocery store instead of living off the land?

The only thing I find amusing about your "song" is that Satan has my birthsign.

~Chrisg420~ if you so choose to conclude that "satanism" is a valid part of mankings psychie, then why adapt to guidelines from the satanic church? Why not just come up with your own guidelines, instead of following someone elses?

Love Deerpak. The man has got to be an ascented master of some kind. As for The Gita, love that even more. I'm in the works of rewriting it btw. ;)

This war or conflict between the human side of us and our spritiual part, or pull, is - have - and always will be - the only war we need to fight. We just haven't learned it yet. We keep thinking we need to go outside of ourselves to seek peace. Even this "jihad," holy war, is about this same old conflict. Very few seem to get it.

Perhaps it has us back in the day that created these so called beings in the first place. In name only.