90.13.221.240 (talk) |
90.13.221.240 (talk) |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
& it seems to me that as an encyclopedia, you should care about it too... The Truth. |
& it seems to me that as an encyclopedia, you should care about it too... The Truth. |
||
To start (here): it's important to realise that this is not because it's known in latin that this is of roman origin but principally because latin was the universal language among the Church for centuries (and also because it was the dominant language at the begining of Christianity). |
To start (here): it's important to realise that this is not because it's known in latin that this is of roman origin but principally because latin was the universal language among the Church for centuries (and also because it was the dominant language at the begining of Christianity). And the fact is that a good number of the first Christians were of roman origin. |
||
Revision as of 13:10, 16 September 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Origen
Given that the idea was popularized by Origen, more properly sourced *facts* about Origen's interpretation are required. A large amount of fancruft towards the end of the article could be binned. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must undo your edits. With fourth-century sources or later they make "Lucifer" a name for Christ and a Christophoric name for Christians until (!) in the first half of the third century Origen spoiled things by applying the name to the devil. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- You cannot just delete a large chunk of sourced material because you don't know this or like it. It is a well documented fact, and should not be removed because of later ideas. Were you not aware of this content? Or are you aware but have removed it from the article before? I only ask because I believe that this article used to contain information on the early Christian uses of the name as Christophoric. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Or if you're going to block this content maybe we need to move it wholesale to a separate article Lucifer in Catholicism for the Catholic understanding only? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sourced material? For instance, you say that the name "Lucifer", until Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) applied it to the devil, was a name for Christ as in the late 4th-century Vulgate, and that the name of Lucifer of Cagliari, who died well over a century later than Origen, was Christophoric. Is all this "a well-documented fact"? Bealtainemí (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it's a well documented fact - outside Catholic literature of course. What fact are you disputing? Do you have a reliable source that contradicts any of the sourced information that you removed? (surely you didn't think that Lucifer of Cagliari, or the various other Christians with that name, were named after the king of Babylon?) I should remind you also the deletion of sourced material can be counted as vandalism, so unless you have any sourced information contradicting the sourced information you have deleted you should restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I await some, any, indication of sources, of any kind, that document it as a fact, that show it to be sourced information. WP:UNSOURCED. And, of course, I don't think that the two historical Bishop Lucifers and your unsourced "various other Christians with that name" were named after the Latinized form of Isaiah's nickname for the king you refer to, nor after the metaphor in 2P, rather than after the star, as the various people called Mercurius were named after another star. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it's a well documented fact - outside Catholic literature of course. What fact are you disputing? Do you have a reliable source that contradicts any of the sourced information that you removed? (surely you didn't think that Lucifer of Cagliari, or the various other Christians with that name, were named after the king of Babylon?) I should remind you also the deletion of sourced material can be counted as vandalism, so unless you have any sourced information contradicting the sourced information you have deleted you should restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sourced material? For instance, you say that the name "Lucifer", until Origen (c. 184 – c. 253) applied it to the devil, was a name for Christ as in the late 4th-century Vulgate, and that the name of Lucifer of Cagliari, who died well over a century later than Origen, was Christophoric. Is all this "a well-documented fact"? Bealtainemí (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bealtainemi, I'm going to ask one simple question. If you only want Catholic teaching regarding Lucifer in this article, in which article do you propose the early Christian usage of "Lucifer" in a positive sense to refer to Christ be placed? For example the Lucifer hymns, Lucifer in 2 Peter 1:19, Lucifer as a Christian given name. Do we need a separate article Lucifer (Christ)? That would seem ridiculous to me, but I want to hear how you propose to accommodate these uses on en.wp if not in the Lucifer article? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly not. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin. In English, Christ is not called Lucifer in hymns or 2P 1:19. Nor is "Lucifer" a specifically "Christian given name". We know it was the given name of two documented Christian bishops, but it may have been theirs before they became Christians, as almost all the first Christians mentioned in the New Testament got their names before becoming Christians.
- I certainly don't "only want Catholic teaching regarding Lucifer in this article".
- Isn't the section "Other uses" quite enough? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- So you have agreed to restore the information you deleted and are now only wanting it placed in a postcript the end rather than where it would naturally chronologically go? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I have not agreed to restore that nonsense edit, which instead of talking first of "the more common meaning in English" of "Lucifer", chooses to talk of a meaning "Lucifer" never had or has in English. To speak of the use of the Latin (not English) word in the Vulgate, the nonsense edit gives precedence to the word's very last appearance in the Vulgate, ignoring its earlier appearances (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Ps 109(110):3, Is 14:12), in none of which it has the metaphorical meaning that the nonsense edit wishes to elevate to first place. It declares without source that the mention of the morning star in 2P 1:19 has no relation with its mention in Is 14:12, although in both places it is used metaphorically with reference in one case to Christ, in the other to an unclearly identified king. Without source, it declares that the reference to Christ "was the dominant meaning among early Christians as illustrated by the dawn hymn Aeterne rerum conditor". Early Christianity is the period of Christianity that ended with 325, but the hymn in question is attributed to Ambrose (c. 340–397). The nonsense edit also supposes that the Latin-speaking early Christians used their language differently from their contemporaries, for whom the usual or dominant meaning of lucifer was the physical morning star. Again without source, the nonsense edit declares that the personal name "Lucifer" was "Christophoric", whatever that means. Immediately after saying that this name was borne by Lucifer of Cagliari ((d. 370 or 371), who was a bishop, a Christian, the nonsense edit declares that the use of "Lucifer" as a Christian name was brought to an end by the "later" (later than 370?) identification of the Isaiah 14 figure with a fallen angel by the not later and not Latin-speaking Origen (c. 184 – c. 253), and cites as support the phrase "This notion goes as far back as Origen" in a source in which, unless I am mistaken, "this notion" means the idea that pride was the cause of the devil's fall. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bealtainemí You inserted a Catholic source that's not accessible, or is it just me having this issue? Other than not having access, I assume it's entirely written in Latin as stated in the reference "Language=Latin", a language I don't understand. The source has been applied to "Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14" which is an opinion, an unnecessary insertion to the article that should be removed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand "which is an opinion, an unnecessary insertion to the article that should be removed". Do you mean that, unlike Origen's, Tertullian's opinion is unnecessary and should be removed? Surely you don't mean that, because the reproduction of Migne's Patrologia Latina is hosted on a site called "Documenta Catholica Omnia", it thereby becomes an opinion that must be removed! If I can remove the doubt that you have raised about the legitimacy of giving Tertullian's opinion along with Origen's, I'll replace the Documenta Catholic Omnia link with a link to one of the six Google-provided reproductions of the whole of volume II of the Patrologia Latina. Columns 230−524 of this volume contain the five books of Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem. The Documenta Catholic Omnia site reproduces these columns separately from those that give other works of Tertullian. I'll also give a link to one of the English translations of the Adversus Marcionem. I apologize for the oversight by which I omitted a translation this time. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you removed content concerning Origen. I have verified the source but the content itself needs to be better elaborated and honest. See Page 62. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tomorrow I'll try to find out what is the content that you refer to. Perhaps you will help by identifying it for me. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bealtainemí I read the source that I provided again. It never mentioned "Lucifer" but "Satan" which is more fitting to be applied at the Satan article. But it does note that the Vulgate translates the Hebrew name Helel to Lucifer which would be fitting in the lead of the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I never questioned Tertullian's views but this insertion you made in the article Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14. He wrote in Latin of course which I don't see why that matters though in this article, but "also understood bible verse Isaiah 14:14" is an opinion. Of course he had his own interpretations, and I'm sure many Church Fathers had their own interpretations. Overall, it's an unnecessary bias statement. JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tomorrow I'll try to find out what is the content that you refer to. Perhaps you will help by identifying it for me. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bealtainemí You inserted a Catholic source that's not accessible, or is it just me having this issue? Other than not having access, I assume it's entirely written in Latin as stated in the reference "Language=Latin", a language I don't understand. The source has been applied to "Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), who wrote in Latin, also understood Isaiah 14:14" which is an opinion, an unnecessary insertion to the article that should be removed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course I have not agreed to restore that nonsense edit, which instead of talking first of "the more common meaning in English" of "Lucifer", chooses to talk of a meaning "Lucifer" never had or has in English. To speak of the use of the Latin (not English) word in the Vulgate, the nonsense edit gives precedence to the word's very last appearance in the Vulgate, ignoring its earlier appearances (Job 11:17, Job 38:32, Ps 109(110):3, Is 14:12), in none of which it has the metaphorical meaning that the nonsense edit wishes to elevate to first place. It declares without source that the mention of the morning star in 2P 1:19 has no relation with its mention in Is 14:12, although in both places it is used metaphorically with reference in one case to Christ, in the other to an unclearly identified king. Without source, it declares that the reference to Christ "was the dominant meaning among early Christians as illustrated by the dawn hymn Aeterne rerum conditor". Early Christianity is the period of Christianity that ended with 325, but the hymn in question is attributed to Ambrose (c. 340–397). The nonsense edit also supposes that the Latin-speaking early Christians used their language differently from their contemporaries, for whom the usual or dominant meaning of lucifer was the physical morning star. Again without source, the nonsense edit declares that the personal name "Lucifer" was "Christophoric", whatever that means. Immediately after saying that this name was borne by Lucifer of Cagliari ((d. 370 or 371), who was a bishop, a Christian, the nonsense edit declares that the use of "Lucifer" as a Christian name was brought to an end by the "later" (later than 370?) identification of the Isaiah 14 figure with a fallen angel by the not later and not Latin-speaking Origen (c. 184 – c. 253), and cites as support the phrase "This notion goes as far back as Origen" in a source in which, unless I am mistaken, "this notion" means the idea that pride was the cause of the devil's fall. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- So you have agreed to restore the information you deleted and are now only wanting it placed in a postcript the end rather than where it would naturally chronologically go? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bealtainemí - let me make this clear that you do not get to talk to me, or indeed any other editor about a "nonsense edit" when your contribution is simply to have deleted information from the article about early Christian usage of Lucifer. It seems from your admission now that the information needs to be in the article that you simply were not aware of other Christian usage of the term.... Which does not indicate much expertise or competence on your part, does it?
- Anyway, you can correct your deletions by indicating how you will allow the other Christian usage to be included in chronological order ahead of the Origen interpretation. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- What makes you think that, "in chronological order", post-Early Christianity Vulgate was ahead of Early-Christian Origen, who does not call Christ a morning star? (Or that Tertullian, who also identifies the Isaiah 14 figure with the devil and doesn't call Christ a morning star, wasn't in his mid-twenties by the time Origen was born?) The article does deal with the application to Christ of the Latin word lucifer and does so in chronological order. If you have any well-sourced information about this usage that you want to add to the article, insert it at that point. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's up to you as page owner to put in the non-fallen angel Christian uses back into the article where you as page owner want. No one has time to debate with you where you put them. But 1 Peter, the hymns, the bishops, need to be in the article as notable verifiable sourced uses of Lucifer. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm by no means page owner. The sourced non-nonsense information on the use of the Latin word lucifer to refer to Christ and John the Baptist and on two bishops with the name Lucifer is already in the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Then you'll have no objection to moving it up to the etymology section where it can be seen before later Christian usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- What is the "it" you speak of? What is the Christian usage that you speak of as earlier than the Christian usage evidenced already in Tertullian and Origen, who don't speak of it as a novelty? You surely know that the Vulgate and the Latin hymns mentioned and the bishops called Lucifer are all later than Tertullian and Origen. What is "the etymology section" that you speak of? All that can be said of the etymology of the word "Lucifer" is that the word derives from Middle English Lucifer and thereby from Latin Lūcifer, which in turn is composed of lūx ("light") + ferō ("bear, carry"). Bealtainemí (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Then you'll have no objection to moving it up to the etymology section where it can be seen before later Christian usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, I'm by no means page owner. The sourced non-nonsense information on the use of the Latin word lucifer to refer to Christ and John the Baptist and on two bishops with the name Lucifer is already in the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's up to you as page owner to put in the non-fallen angel Christian uses back into the article where you as page owner want. No one has time to debate with you where you put them. But 1 Peter, the hymns, the bishops, need to be in the article as notable verifiable sourced uses of Lucifer. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- What makes you think that, "in chronological order", post-Early Christianity Vulgate was ahead of Early-Christian Origen, who does not call Christ a morning star? (Or that Tertullian, who also identifies the Isaiah 14 figure with the devil and doesn't call Christ a morning star, wasn't in his mid-twenties by the time Origen was born?) The article does deal with the application to Christ of the Latin word lucifer and does so in chronological order. If you have any well-sourced information about this usage that you want to add to the article, insert it at that point. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think the issue is putting pre-Origin Christian uses *after* Mormon uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I still don't know what are the supposed pre-Tertullian/Origen Christian uses of the word "Lucifer" that you speak of. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow, so even before I posted about 2 Peter 1:19, there was someone else and the rulers of this page tried to censor that reference and hide it from people so that they won't know the truth that Christ was referenced as Lucifer.
Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lucifer (DC Comics) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Once again, this article is out of historical order... does that matter? Currently the section on Classical mythology/religion (predating Christianity, right?) isn't the main focus... but you see from that, Lucifer was a Latin/Roman/Italian god, whether personified, or seen as a divine natural force (influenced by Greek Protogenoi which included personifications of planets.) There is no reason this article should emphasize a newer Catholic (and not worldwide other/non-Roman Orthodox Christian) characterization, of The Devil, than the original planet/force/character/god of Lucifer (unless someone uses this article as a basis for a Catholic & derived Christian Wiki.)--dchmelik (t|c) 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Major problems throughout: Needs a rewrite from scratch
Currently this article has a laundry list of problems. The most obvious issue is that it is extremely fixated on the term's use in Christian folklore with very little coverage of the entity's origins in pre-Christian Roman folklore (for which we still need an article—the closest we have right now is the closely related Ancient Greek folklore), specifically the folklore genre of myth. Additionally, while it briefly mentions the concept of the motif, it does next to nothing with it, and the article itself suffers from poor sources throughout. This isn't nearly as complicated as the article would lead one to believe: There existed a figure by this name in Roman folklore, specifically myth, and this deity's name was absorbed into Christian folklore. Of course, it doesn't help that we don't have an article on Christian folklore yet—from Wikipedia, one would never know that there exists a vast amount of material beyond Christian mythology, such as legend and folktale. It's an awkward situation but that doesn't mean that the article needs to remain a mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar
I have a question about this paragraph:
- J. Carl Laney has pointed out that in the final verses here quoted, the king of Babylon is described not as a god or an angel but as a man, and that man may have been not Nebuchadnezzar II, but rather his son, Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar was gripped by a spiritual fervor to build a temple to the moon god Sin, and his son ruled as regent. The Abrahamic scriptural texts could be interpreted as a weak usurping of true kingly power, and a taunt at the failed regency of Belshazzar.
- Laney, J. Carl (1997). Answers to Tough Questions from Every Book of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-8254-3094-7. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
Google Books is giving me "No preview available", so I can't check the source myself. But the issue is, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, not Nebuchadnezzar, and it was Nabonidus who built a temple to Sin. It's been argued that the two kings are conflated in the Book of Daniel, and maybe that's the starting point of Laney's argument? But if so, that needs to be clarified in the article. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
does lusifer want to be the god of hell
meaning "the morning star" ????
translated הֵילֵל by the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized),[6][7] meaning "the morning star"
COMMONLY (as everyone knows) IT MEANS BRINGER OF LIGHT, THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL.
Morning star is a common ASSOCIATION (because of how, IN THE BIBLE, The Fall is described) and nothing more.
You should be ashamed to spread stupidities like that, ISN'T IT SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ? ... With references ???
Surprising how you erased the work of well-intentioned people when they don't present sources and yet, when it comes to moderators, you just don't care !
For your information star is translated by STELLA in latin and morning by MANE.
And it continues... !!! (i won't)
Romans worshipped greek gods (because of the mysteries taught in those cults), renamed and kept some of their own like Vesta. This article is full of non-senses. Listening to you i wonder why Venus was named Venus (Roman Goddess of Beauty and Love) if that was that common in roman countries, for it to be worshipped and named as it.
Yet, if we all have heard about Aurora, we've never heard about your version of event. And i don't remember a personnifiation of evil before the devil even Kali has different versions of herself not all bad.
And yeah !!! It is so known that Christianity has absorbed Sooo Many names of other deities ! Yeah ! Yeah...
Wich one ?
i can't find one.
Zeus, Osiris, Toutatis... None of them !
It has absorbed concepts and attribues like the 25th of december or attribues of other deities just like in voodoo but certainly not the name and that was the point: for it to be hidden to the non-initiate !
To finish, should i mention that the Roman Empire ended around 400 AC so they had a little half of a Millenia to speak about it in their books & poetry ?
Plus europeans languages are based on latin (except for the german language) and so, latin was still used and taught all along the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: it was a specially appreciated tool to teach to the highest born and most of all (in that matter) it was the universal language among members of the Church (Monks have written in latin especially for centuries).
And... Noctifer... ? Nosferatu was named like that for that very reason...
What i am writing is not to be mean but for the sake of proper knowledge.
& it seems to me that as an encyclopedia, you should care about it too... The Truth.
To start (here): it's important to realise that this is not because it's known in latin that this is of roman origin but principally because latin was the universal language among the Church for centuries (and also because it was the dominant language at the begining of Christianity). And the fact is that a good number of the first Christians were of roman origin.
--90.13.221.240 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Not-Related to a fallen angel in Christianity
Greetings, pointing to WP:NAD, I would suggest to remove the section claiming that the term "Lucifer" is not necessarily related to the devil, to be removed, since this article should be about he figure associated with and not the term itself. Maybe parts of the article might be moved to the Wiktionary project?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)