Smilelaughenjoy (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Bealtainemí (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
Meanwhile in the article, it mentions that Lucifer means different things and is used in different ways such as meaning "The Morning Star", "planet Venus", "Satan", "The Light-Bearer", so why is the article hiding the fact that the word "Lucifer" was also used for Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19? [[User:Smilelaughenjoy|Smilelaughenjoy]] ([[User talk:Smilelaughenjoy|talk]]) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
Meanwhile in the article, it mentions that Lucifer means different things and is used in different ways such as meaning "The Morning Star", "planet Venus", "Satan", "The Light-Bearer", so why is the article hiding the fact that the word "Lucifer" was also used for Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19? [[User:Smilelaughenjoy|Smilelaughenjoy]] ([[User talk:Smilelaughenjoy|talk]]) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:The Bible wasn't written in Latin. The cited verse was written: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Furthermore it does not state that the φωσφόρος it speaks of is Jesus. The English translation you cite also does not use the Latin word ''lucifer'' and does not state that the "morning star" of which it speaks is Jesus. Read [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Bealtainemí|Bealtainemí]] ([[User talk:Bealtainemí|talk]]) 09:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:38, 24 March 2020
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. |
Lucifer is a Latin/Roman/Italian god; article over-emphasizes later Christian usage
Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god similar to the Greek god Phosphoros (possibly syncretized as most Roman gods were), and article has too far too much emphasis on his later incorporation into Christian mythology, so I've marked it as non-neutral. I won't consider it neutral until it's focused on description of that god in pre-Christian times and mentions his addition & alteration into Christian mythology as a secondary, minor note about later changed/derived versions. Wikipedia isn't 'Christopedia;' students/scholars of pre-Christian Greece & Rome may not really care, and it's important to have the full history of Western culture in articles pertaining to it through eary BCE.--dchmelik (t|c) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The assertion that "Lucifer started as an ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome, so likely 8th century or before) god" is mistaken. Lucifer started as a name for the actual morning star. Personification followed later. Even when personified and thereby deified, the morning star has no "ancient (pre-Christian) Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" stories that could act as a basis for Christian "Lucifer mythology". This has in Isaiah's picture of a fall of the morning star a much more natural explanation – indeed an obvious explanation – than the hypothetical origin in a "Latin/Roman/Italian (i.e., in Ancient Rome)" divinity. What reliable source can be cited for the idea that "Christian mythology" about Lucifer and his fall derived from ideas about a Latin/Roman/Italian god?
- In any case, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia. In Latin, the basic meaning in that language would come first, but – in line with "the principle of least surprise" – in English the by far commonest meaning in that language must come first. How would people react to you if you told them: "I saw Lucifer in the sky this morning"?
- The insertion of the Louvre sculpture as the leading illustration is out of place, since a merely lateral sculpture within the image is only "perhaps" a representation of Phosphoros, the morning star. I have moved it to the Mythology section. Iúil (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sure he did; though obscure, I've read about it from various sources, and here's one probably considered reliable (as another, top, encyclopaedia, don't recall it's citable here: ) 'Lucifer, ( Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn'--Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Lucifer | classical mythology.' So, because of that, I'm restoring to the top, the Roman sculpture of Phosphorus, which in his article, states Lucifer was their name for him.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've developed a (sub)section on classical mythology covering that aspect. and put at the start a neutral image that does not refer to the usual idea of what Lucifer means nor of course does not show a sculpture in the Louvre Museum that perhaps includes (the interpretation given first place in the description) Castor and Pollux or perhaps instead (a secondary interpretation) Phosphoros and Hesperos, a sculpture, therefore, only remotely connected with this article. Iúil (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sure he did; though obscure, I've read about it from various sources, and here's one probably considered reliable (as another, top, encyclopaedia, don't recall it's citable here: ) 'Lucifer, ( Latin: Lightbearer) Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn'--Encyclopedia Britannica, 'Lucifer | classical mythology.' So, because of that, I'm restoring to the top, the Roman sculpture of Phosphorus, which in his article, states Lucifer was their name for him.--dchmelik (t|c) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- The only comparable deity in Greek/Roman pantheon would be Phosphorus. Many mythological figures have similarteites. For example, both Azazel and Prometheus share the notion of introducing hodden knowledge. Although some scholars suggested, they might even derive from the same figure, they are both distinct, both in motif as well as in "back-story". We can not simply conclude that every type of figure is actually the same mythological entity. The source given states "Lucifer, (Latin: Lightbearer)Greek Phosphorus, or Eosphoros, in classical mythology, the morning star (i.e., the planet Venus at dawn); personified as a male figure bearing a torch, Lucifer had almost no legend, but in poetry he was often herald of the dawn. In Christian times Lucifer came to be regarded as the name of Satan before his fall. It was thus used by John Milton (1608–74) in Paradise Lost, and the idea underlies the proverbial phrase “as proud as Lucifer". But we already have an article for that here "Phosphorus (morning star)". Of course we should mention and explain possible origin legends of the myth itself, but do not conclude that the fallen angel Lucifer is the same as the Greek/Roman Lucifer/Phosphorus, although both might be an itnerpretation of the morning star. Same for the "Category: Lucifer". It should rather be "Category: Phosphorus (mythology)" or something the like. Why changing the meaning of an article, than it is obviously about the Christian Lucifer, which played a significant role in in several Christian influenced cultures as a fallen angel? Wikipedia is not the right place to promote "news" or something "shocking" or "unique". It should be comprehensive yes. It should cover different views, including the mythological background, yes. To be honest, I think the article focusses too much on that "Lucifer" is NOT Satan, since in Medieval Christianity, they are indeed assocaited with each other. THis seems to be rather "synthesis of material". An article should not be about words but about its content, but it seems it rather foucesses on whter or not, Lucifer is a proper name for Satan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences). And since there seems to be no mythology associated with a deity called "Lucifer" directly, the sub-category Category: Lucifers children are also undue, probably Original research merging different deities/angels, who are associated with the Morning Star.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
"but do not conclude that the fallen angel Lucifer is the same as the Greek/Roman Lucifer/Phosphorus"
It is what our sources do, and common knowledge enough to be reflected in pages like the Theoi Project. Where Eosphorus/Lucifer are considered the same deity with two names, not two deities with some similarities,
"than it is obviously about the Christian Lucifer" There is no Christian Lucifer, just a Latinized translation of a Hebrew verse. And the identification with Satan has been rejected by authories such as Martin Luther and John Calvin as reflected in the text.
There is no original research involved. Two of them are Lucifer's children in classical mythology, one is Lucifer's child in a neo-pagan tradition of Italy. And already covered in each of the article.
"And since there seems to be no mythology associated with a deity called "Lucifer" directly" Jumping into concusions again? Ignore its association with Greek mythology and Roman mythology to privilege Christian misconceptions? Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Martin Luther is no good arguement since he downplayed many mythological content of the Bible. Such as translating Leviathan as a sea-monster, the Seraphim as torches and so on. The King James Bible explicitdly calls the Fallen Angel as "Lucifer". Many Christian traditions use "Lucifer" as the personal name for the Devil. Many Demonological/Angelological works use "Lucifer" as a proper name among angels/demons. Wether or not, the application of "Lucifer" to an angel was undue or not, is not the matter of debate (although it should be discussed on the article) but it happened and Lucifer became a common name for Satan or the Devil. AS far as I remember John Milton also used Lucifer as a name for a fallen angel and he was already after Martin Luther. Since Martin Luther had no established doctrine of angels/demons, we can not rely on his personal opinion to determine whether or not Christians regarded Luther onwards Lucifer as a name or not. If there is a notable dispute of usage of "Lucifer" as a proper name in recent centuries, we can make a section for that. But I doubt that we will find them. This reminds me of a similar isue n Islam project: Since "Azrael" is not used neither in Quran nor in Sahih Hadith some Muslims opposed to apply the name "Azrael" to the Angel of Death. Nevertheless, this name was canonized in Islam. Similiar, although the name Lucifer is only a misstranslation, it became the name of the Devil.
- I am not ignoring the fact that "Lucifer" might have a sbeen pirit/deity before. But I do not get the relation between 1) Isaiah 2) Fallen angel Lucifer 3) Greek/Roman Lucifer, except they might all have an oririn in Venus myth. But a myth concerning the Planet Venus exists all over the world, even in Turkic and Hindu mythology, but with no relationship to Phosphorus, Isaiah, fallen angels or something the like. The "http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10177-lucifer" also relates "Lucifer" to the Enochian traditions, of an angel called Satanail, who opposed the "Prince of Light". I am checking further source, to determine how the pagan deity Lucifer is connected with the angel Lucifer and whether or not the Greek Deity Lucifer is even notable as a creature on his own. If the letter is true, I would recommand to make an entirely else article for Lucifer in Classical mythology.
- I can not find much about Lucifer in his "Classical Role" in the following source: "From Gabriel to Lucifer: A Cultural History of Angels", "Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages", "The Fall of the Angels". Albeit it mentiones that his name is related or similar to Heopshorus, they are, as I said before, not regarded as the same (That makes sense since they became two distinct entities). Christianity does NOT regard the pagan deity as Lucifer (Although Christians believed that Pagan deites were fallen angels in disguise), but simply applied a misstranslation of itnerpretation within the the Bible to their own corresponding fallen angel/Satan. "The Fall of the Angels" is the closest to your assertion, that in Classical mythology, "Lucifer" (here "Helel" is translated as Lucifer the son of Eos. But still Eos gives birth to Phosphorus, wh is not the Lucifer fro Christian traditions onwards, there he is a fallen angel).
- To conclude: I am not ignoring that there was a "Lucifer" Deity, but just disagree with that they are the same, just because they are both morning stars. Please provide something that identifies them with each other, apart from their name or their interpretation of the Planet Venus.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I found this [The Devil: What Does He Look Like?] on page 19 with a short notion abuot an ancient figure called Lucifer and that it seems New Ageer use Lucifer in a positive way (just as much many tend according to the source, to regard evil as either necessary or absent). I guess a New Age section is missing and we could add it here, also refering to "Lucifer" in his mytholigcal relation to something "non-satanic". But unfortunetally, the source does not speak much about it and turns back to Satan after this short reference.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) edit: Here is also soemthing about Lucifer and Satan as distinct, but here it is Satan who is a servant of Lucifer. The latter still a fallen angel [ https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/177831/una-theses-0159.pdf?sequence=1](I remember something vague that in Medieval Age, Lucifer and Satan were sometimes distinct, but one of them the keeper of hell, the otherone the ruler. Does anyone else here knows something abuot this tradition?)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Lucifer and Sub-Categories.
Recent edits created a Sub-Category for "Offspring of Lucifer" and a Lucifer Category. The issue I see here is, that this merges differnt myths together. We also have a Phosphorus article, this article is based on the Lucifer tradition that derives from it. Although both are the same in origin, I suggest we treat them distinct. For example, the notion of "Eos" is undue to Lucifer as a fallen angel. Neither Bogomilism nor Occultism (Especially not Christianity)regards Lucifer as the Son of Eos. It is even contradictionary to its representations as one of the first angels (that is a common motif, which derived from the Greek Lucifer). The Classical Mythology section shows us, how Lucifer evolved but it is not the Lucifer this articles focusses on. Therefore I suggest to keep the Eos and new Category: Lucifer out here and further suggest to rename the Category:Lucifer to something like Category: Phosphorus or Category:Venus (Greek Mythology).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I want to chime in here to note that I have no problem with the issues you outlined above. i believe all of that can and should be corrected, as long as it can be done in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. That said, I also think a discussion here about this is appropriate, and I'd caution both you and the other editor involved in the back-and-forth edits on this page to remember this rule. The back-and-forth reverts come close to a point of being concerning in terms of that particular policy. I would therefore additionally propose that no further edits be made in relation to this matter until there can be some kind of consensus regarding the concerns you laid out here. I did think about jumping into this issue myself, but the particular concerns are beyond my expertise. I am also a little leery about the portrayal of Lucifer as a "myth". Any Christian who believes in the Bible considers him to be anything but a myth, and the use of the term "myth" in that respect could be seen as not sufficiently neutral. These are just some thoughts from me based on what I have observed, and my intent in commenting is to hopefully stop an edit war and prevent problematic policy issues. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Any Christian who believes in the Bible considers him to be anything but a myth" Why? There are only a hand-full of references to Lucifer in the Bible translations, and they are not about a fallen angel. They are about an unnamed king of Babylon, a human:
- ""How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: 'Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?'" "
- "For the unnamed[1] "king of Babylon" a wide range of identifications have been proposed.[2] They include a Babylonian ruler of the prophet Isaiah's own time[2] the later Nebuchadnezzar II, under whom the Babylonian captivity of the Jews began,[3] or Nabonidus,[2][4] and the Assyrian kings Tiglath-Pileser, Sargon II and Sennacherib.[5][2][6] Verse 20 says that this king of Babylon will not be "joined with them [all the kings of the nations] in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever", but rather be cast out of the grave, while "All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house", pointing to Nebuchadnezzar II as a possible interpretation.[7][8] Herbert Wolf held that the "king of Babylon" was not a specific ruler but a generic representation of the whole line of rulers.[9] " Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree taht we should find a consens here first. "Myth" is used as "Mythology is the main component of Religion. It refers to systems of concepts that are of high importance to a certain community, making statements concerning the supernatural or sacred on Wikipedia Religion and mythology rather than we use myth as a synonym for a "lie" or "fiction". We also have ategories such as Islamic mythology, while it is obvious Muslims do not regard it as a lie or fiction.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Since I am not sure which version of the Bible you are using, what I can tell you is that, those religious entities which use the King James version have a clear indication therein that Lucifer is not a myth, as there are numerous references to Lucifer, both direct and indirect, therein. It would be unwise, I think, to base anything in this article on references to only one version of the Bible, while excluding all others. Lucifer is also known in the Bible as Satan, and the Devil. So here are a few web pages I could find right off the bat that lists references to him in each of those terms:
- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/lucifer?lang=eng
- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/devil
- https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/satan
And although I have pulled these pages with the references from the King James version, with which I am most familiar, I think you will find similar references in various places of other versions of the Bible. And with that in mind, it would hardly be subjective to pull assertions in this article from just one version of the Bible, as that might include details excluded in other versions. And I just ran another internet search for "Lucifer in the Bible", with the following results that are not specific to just one religion or school of thought:
These resources may be a springboard for any subsequent research you may choose to do on this. I would certainly suggest you look at however many of them you are able to before we talk about any wording that may not be neutral enough according to Wikipedia standards. But whether you do or not is certainly your choice. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- How exactly does a Latter Day Saints Movement Webpage matters? Three links for one source. If it is about the term "Mythology", on Wikipedia it is used not as "fictional". I will quote an explanation from the Category Islam mythology here: "Islamic mythology is the body of traditional narratives associated with Islam from a mythographical perspective. Many Muslims regard these narratives as historical and sacred and believe they contain profound truths. These traditional narratives include, but are not limited to, the stories contained in the Qur'an". Just as we have "Christian mythology". Otherwise we can not refer to mythology to anything. It is not ment judgmental.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not "three links for one source". More like three pages of definitions of Lucifer from a single religion's webpage. There is a difference. For Wikipedia terms, it is not neutral phrasing to describe a religiously-significant being as "mythological", especially when that idea and terminology are not verified by a reliable source. If you want to find such a source to verify that, we can discuss this further. Until that time, I'd recommend leaving the article as is. And anyone else reading this can feel free to chime in as well in the meantime. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Everywhere on Wikipedia we refer to religious/mytholgical figures as "Mythological", but I guess taht is not the main issue we have here. I am more concerned witht he ongoing edit, whether or not calling Lucifer the son of Eos or the like is appropiarte or not.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
"Lucifer is also known in the Bible as Satan, and the Devil. "
Not the same being at all. Lucifer refers to a king of Babylon, Satan to the figure making wagers with Yahweh in the Book of Job, and the Devil is completely absent in the Hebrew Bible. Dimadick (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am sure what you said about the Hebrew Bible is correct. But limiting the material in this article to the interpretation of the entity Lucifer to a single Bible would be a mistake, and would not be neutral whatsoever. Some have knowledge of the Hebrew Bible, some (like me) have knowledge of the King James Bible, etc. In order to maintain the status quo of neutrality in this article, a careful balance needs to be struck between the various interpretations of Lucifer. Just some additional thoughts from me. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that it is indeed excessively restrictive to limit "Lucifer" to the meaning that has become predominantly attached to an early-17th-century translation (in a sense, a mistranslation) of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article is obviously not (nor is Wikipedia about it) Hebrew Bible. It does not matter whether or not, that the Biible says. Lucifer is the Devil commonly but not exclusively identified with Satan. For example we find Lucifer as one of the archdemons in demonology classification as the demon of pride. I gave above something about Lucifer ditinct from Satan. Lucifer was already applied to Satan before the mistranslation first time by Origen (you can check the fallen angel or Satan oarticle for further sources).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article is certainly not about the Hebrew Bible. What is it about? It is not the equivalent of an article with the title "Lucifer (Devil)". Lucifer is indeed commonly, but not exclusively, identified with the Devil/Satan. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article is obviously not (nor is Wikipedia about it) Hebrew Bible. It does not matter whether or not, that the Biible says. Lucifer is the Devil commonly but not exclusively identified with Satan. For example we find Lucifer as one of the archdemons in demonology classification as the demon of pride. I gave above something about Lucifer ditinct from Satan. Lucifer was already applied to Satan before the mistranslation first time by Origen (you can check the fallen angel or Satan oarticle for further sources).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- ^ Carol J. Dempsey (2010). Isaiah: God's Poet of Light. Chalice Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-82721630-3. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- ^ a b c d Manley, Johanna; Manley, edited by Johanna (1995). Isaiah through the Ages. Menlo Park, Calif.: St Vladimir's Seminary Press. pp. 259–260. ISBN 978-0-96225363-8. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
{{cite book}}
:|author2=
has generic name (help) - ^ Breslauer, S. Daniel, ed. (1997). The seductiveness of Jewish myth : challenge or response?. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 280. ISBN 0-79143602-0.
- ^ Roy F. Melugin; Marvin Alan Sweeney (1996). New Visions of Isaiah. Sheffield: Continuum International. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-85075584-5. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- ^ Laney, J. Carl (1997). Answers to Tough Questions from Every Book of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-82543094-7. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- ^ Doorly, William J. (1992). Isaiah of Jerusalem. New York: Paulist Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-80913337-6. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
MM-Isa14
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Isaiah 14:18
- ^ Wolf, Herbert M. (1985). Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-31039061-9.
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)
Tertullian Adv Marc 2.X.
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-29.htm#P4440_1434746 This refers to the cherub in Eden not Isaiah 14. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- No reference in Adv Marc 5. XI either, removed as WP:OR, or just plain wrong. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tertullian says explicitly, with reference to Isaiah, "hic diabolus erit" (column 514A). Bealtainemí (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'll look at this later. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tertullian says explicitly, with reference to Isaiah, "hic diabolus erit" (column 514A). Bealtainemí (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2019 (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)
Jesus Christ is referred to as Lucifer in Latin in verse 2 Peter 1:19 in The Bible, why was this removed?
Latin:
"et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."
English:
"We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
As m editor mentioned, "This is the English Wikipedia. In English, the word "Lucifer" doesn't have the same meanings as the Latin word "lucifer".
Meanwhile in the article, it mentions that Lucifer means different things and is used in different ways such as meaning "The Morning Star", "planet Venus", "Satan", "The Light-Bearer", so why is the article hiding the fact that the word "Lucifer" was also used for Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:19? Smilelaughenjoy (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Bible wasn't written in Latin. The cited verse was written: καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον, ᾧ καλῶς ποιεῖτε προσέχοντες ὡς λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ καὶ φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Furthermore it does not state that the φωσφόρος it speaks of is Jesus. The English translation you cite also does not use the Latin word lucifer and does not state that the "morning star" of which it speaks is Jesus. Read WP:OR. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)