"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Fwoej.1784$Ko6.76@trndny02...>
> [snip]
>
>>> I don't doubt that you found it in a book that St. Jerome
>>> is the first who associated "lucifer" with Satan, but it
>>> seems to me that it is easy to deduce this, since the
>>> passage speaking of him as being Lucifer so easily shows
>>> that this is Satan that is being addressed.
>>
>> If that's the case, you might want to explain it to all those historians,
>> linguists, and theologians, who have thoroughly analyzed the text in
>> Latin and compared it to the original Hebrew, who are familiar with the
>> historical socio-political milieu of that place and time, and who have
>> subsequently concluded that this instance of the "Lucifer" metaphor most
>> likely refers to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon and oppressor of the
>> Jews from 597 to 538 BCE.
>
> This would be a fact that would only be correct according to the strict
> historicist interpretation of the text, ignoring the greater prophetic
> context of the text.
>
> And since all prophecies were given dualistically, and even
> triunistically, the point has merit, but no substance, as it misses the
> ultimate truth of Isaiah's saying.
>
>>> This is in chapter
>>> 14 of Isaiah, and it prophesies saying that this one, Lucifer,
>>> has fallen from Heaven, which identifies him as being a
>>> fallen angel. It says he endeavers to raise himself above
>>> the throne of God, and that by him the whole earth was
>>> made to tremble. It says that later people will look at him
>>> narrowly, that means that they shall squint their eyes with
>>> contempt in them towards what he's tried to do, I believe.
>>> People reading this in the first century would have poured
>>> over every word of it, discussing what was meant by
>>> Isaiah and how this seems to be referring to none other
>>> than Satan. The king that originally is addressed in the
>>> passage did not do those things listed. The whole earth did
>>> not tremble because of him. Nor was he fallen from Heaven.
>>
>> No, not literally. But this prophecy is metaphorical in nature. The
>> Babylonian Empire "ruled the world" that was known to the Hebrews at the
>> time. Metaphorically, Nebuchadnezzar had made the earth tremble in 597
>> BCE when he crushed the Judean rebellion and exiled the Jews, and again
>> in 586 when he destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem, and thereby "endeavored
>> to rise above the throne of [the Hebrew] God." And he figuratively fell
>> from the "heaven" of great rulers when he was deposed by the Persians in
>> 538. How can we be sure that this reference is metaphorical? Because the
>> planet Venus (Helel / Phosphoros / Lucifer) hasn't fallen from heaven;
>> it's still up there, almost as bright as ever (discounting effects of
>> smog).
>
> True, but your strict historicist interpretation has the same failure
> here, for what is past is prologue, and what goes around comes around, or,
> to put it in prophetic speak....
>
> "That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become,
> and God requires that which is past."
>
> It's also important to note that yours is the same argument that other
> secularists pose to try to disprove that Jesus is the Messiah.
>
> I'm not saying that is what you are doing or not doing (I don't know your
> position on the subject). I'm simply saying that it doesn't work.
>
> That every prophecy of the Old and New Testaments DOES have a literal
> first fulfillment (which is inherently deficient) IS true, but that is
> nowhere near the end of the matter.
>
>> A first-century CE reader would never have come across the "Lucifer"
>> reference, since that didn't appear until the Hebrew and Greek scriptures
>> (in which "the morning star" is "helel" and "phosophoros" respectively)
>> were translated intto Latin, in which the morning star is known as
>> "lucifer" (the light-bearer). We know these are not references to the
>> sun, because they are the names given by the ancients to the morning
>> aspect of the planet we call Venus. If they'd been alluding to the sun,
>> they'd have used "helios" (Greek) and "sol" (Latin). Jerome would thus
>> have called Satan "Sol" instead of "Lucifer," and so on.
>>
>>> So Isaiah is prophesying what the Lord is telling him to say,
>>> and the address is straight through the king, and to the one
>>> who pulls the strings that makes the king be evil, which is
>>> Satan who has made his power play trying to take over.
>>
>> Pretty neat trick for a prophet who'd never heard of Satan, since the
>> Hebrews didn't adopt the Satan concept until more than a century and a
>> half after Isaiah's death.
>
> No. That's a straw argument.
>
What, praytell, is a "straw argument"? Do you mean a "straw-man" argument?
Do you know what a straw-man argument is? If so, perhaps you can explain
why you feel a historical comment fits into that category.
> Job references Satan, too, at the same time, if not before, Isaiah wrote
> his prophecies.
>
The book was written as a story about "a man in the land of Uz whose name
was Job." There is no genealogy of Job, and no connection to biblical
history. However, it appears to be based to some extent on a tale along
similar lines from Babylonian literature. Although there's some
disagreement about when "Job" was written, most scholars nowadays consider
it a post-exilic work of the Persian period. This was well after Isaiah's
death, but perhaps in the same general time frame as the second and third
prophecies attributed to Isaiah after-the-fact were made. Despite that the
subject, style, and apparent function of the book of Job fit in with other
works of this time, there are, of course, those who would prefer to believe
that it was written much earlier. Believe whatever you like; lots of people
do. Just don't be too disappointed if not everyone buys into it.
> [snip]
>
>
>> It's not that Jerome "noticed" it, because it didn't exist as such until
>> he actually established such a connection.
>
> No, that's another straw argument: Paul used the same language in II
> Corinthians.
>
> For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
> into the apostles of Christ.
> And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
> Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the
> ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
>
> [snip]
>
>> The "sun"-"son" connection exists only in English, which didn't emerge as
>> a language (from Celtic and Scandinavian roots) until about the ninth
>> century CE.
>
> Sorry, but this is another false statement.
>
> Malachi made the "son-sun" connection a short time before the Son came
> along...
>
> Mal 4:1-3
> For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the
> proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that
> cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave
> them neither root nor branch.
> But unto you that fear my name shall the SUN [Heb: Shemesh] of
> righteousness arise with healing in HIS wings; and ye shall go forth, and
> grow up as calves of the stall, and ye shall tread down the wicked; for
> they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall
> do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
>
Ike, if you're going to comment on someone else's discussion, could you
kindly manage to direct your remarks to *that* discussion, not to some
unrelated red herring? At the time, we were considering the phonetic
similarity between the English words "sun" and "son," not 5th-century BCE
Hebrew metaphors.
Or do you mean to claim that the messenger ("Malachi") spoke King James'
17th-century CE English, circa 460 BCE? (Now THAT is an example of a
straw-man argument, which I do not intend seriously, and which you may
safely dismiss.)
> [snip]
>
> Ike
Ike, I thought you'd decided that our two perspectives were too different to
permit meaningful discussion. I'm inclined to agree, but then it's curious
that you subsequently respond to a post I'd directed to another user.
--
=SAJ=
[Delete SPAM from address to reply.]
http://tangents.home.att.net/
[I often reply to all newsgroups in the original poster's list. Since I
currently subscribe only to alt.philosophy, any reply to this message should
be directed to that group. Thanks.]
