Lucifer In Esoteric Thought

[Hierophanticus]

I would just like to add that Pike (Reference to this thread) and others of his day and genre used the term "Lucifer" in a scholarly way, devoid of the negative religious connotations that are attached to the word. This was done
1: because they were generally more educated than the masses (ignorance and superstition go hand in hand). and

2) To intentionally frighten off cowans and eavesdroppers. Generally curious folk would dismiss the entire body of work as 'evil' and not continue to seek further into it.

Lucifer in Esotericism (as I'm sure most people on this board already know) is used synonymously and interchangeably with Christ. I believe the terminology is Christos-Lucifer.

[Chaldean Shaper]

Lucifer in Esotericism (as I'm sure most people on this board already know) is used synonymously and interchangeably with Christ. I believe the terminology is Christos-Lucifer.

I wasn't sure of that. Is he is equated with the original angel who defied the lord? Does he thus liberate and limit us? Although I'm not a Christian enthusiast, still I have found angel-ology, and some poetry qua judaeo-christianity fascinating. I do like gnosticism and Enoch. Lucifer means light-bringer yes? Is the term both a tie and a separation from the original angel who rebelled?

[Hierophanticus]

I wasn't sure of that. Is he is equated with the original angel who defied the lord? Does he thus liberate and limit us? Although I'm not a Christian enthusiast, still I have found angel-ology, and some poetry qua judaeo-christianity fascinating. I do like gnosticism and Enoch. Lucifer means light-bringer yes? Is the term both a tie and a separation from the original angel who rebelled?

The story about a fallen angel is a myth, a highly circulated and much believed myth, but a myth just the same. I posted something on it in the Mythology section of these boards. You can read the post here:
http://forum.esotericforum.com/showpost.php?p=3794&postcount=39

[Chaldean Shaper]

The story about a fallen angel is a myth, a highly circulated and much believed myth, but a myth just the same. I posted something on it in the Mythology section of these boards. You can read the post here:
http://forum.esotericforum.com/showpost.php?p=3794&postcount=39

Yes it is a myth, just like the myth of Christ. That doesn't make it inaccurate. That term doesn't invalidate the historical aspect of the account. Some myths are true and some are fancy. Are you saying you treat Christ as fact, but The Paradise Lost scenario as "myth", or, rather, as a mere allegory? Perhaps the only mistake was assigning the title, Lucifer, to the devil. I've always seen "Lucifer" as a Prometheus-type.

[Hierophanticus]

Yes it is a myth, just like the myth of Christ. That doesn't make it inaccurate. That term doesn't invalidate the historical aspect of the account. Some myths are true and some are fancy. Are you saying you treat Christ as fact, but The Paradise Lost scenario as "myth", or, rather, as a mere allegory? Perhaps the only mistake was assigning the title, Lucifer, to the devil. I've always seen "Lucifer" as a Prometheus-type.

As a Kabbalist, I consider the tale of the rebellion in heaven, the fall of Satan etc., to be allegorical as it is understood by most. Yes, I agree with the Archetype statement. Lucifer and Prometheus are synonymous.

By the way, where did I mention anything about 'Christ?'

[Chaldean Shaper]

Lucifer in Esotericism (as I'm sure most people on this board already know) is used synonymously and interchangeably with Christ. I believe the terminology is Christos-Lucifer.

"By the way, where did I mention anything about 'Christ?'"

Then, You can refer to Christ as Lucifer, but you can't refer to Lucifer as Christ.

[Hierophanticus]

Then, You can refer to Christ as Lucifer, but you can't refer to Lucifer as Christ.

Ok, so technically I did mention Christ, yet still that is a fairly presumptuous statement on your part. I indicated that esoterically the two are interchangeable, so what makes you think there is a conflict within my personal reasoning?

You seem to imply that I spoke on my personal beliefs (which I did not). Christ is quoted himself in Revelations referring to himself as Lucifer, "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star (Revelation 22:16)."

[Chaldean Shaper]

Ok, so technically I did mention Christ, yet still that is a fairly presumptuous statement on your part. I indicated that esoterically the two are interchangeable, so what makes you think there is a conflict within my personal reasoning?

You seem to imply that I spoke on my personal beliefs (which I did not). Christ is quoted himself in Revelations referring to himself as Lucifer, "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star (Revelation 22:16)."

Okay, sorry, that holds water. I picked up Steiner last night, An Outline of Occult Sciences. Therein, he referred to Christ as Lucifer. Thus you are right that Lucifer and Christ are interchangeable, at least by Steiner.

THe problem is the breadth of the extent that term was spread. The fallen angel would've been popular before Christ, because the fall happened at the beginning of the timeline, while the birth of Christ, though foretold, happened much later. Are both Christ and the Devil/Prometheus Light-bearers in their own rights?

The war in heaven myth is a good one. It's complicated, because it's ambiguous. Some of its value might be in attaching meaning, or an idea, to an event in ancient history.

[Hierophanticus]

Okay, sorry, that holds water. I picked up Steiner last night, An Outline of Occult Sciences. Therein, he referred to Christ as Lucifer. Thus you are right that Lucifer and Christ are interchangeable, at least by Steiner.

THe problem is the breadth of the extent that term was spread. The fallen angel would've been popular before Christ, because the fall happened at the beginning of the timeline, while the birth of Christ, though foretold, happened much later. Are both Christ and the Devil/Prometheus Light-bearers in their own rights?

The war in heaven myth is a good one. It's complicated, because it's ambiguous. Some of its value might be in attaching meaning, or an idea, to an event in ancient history.

Right. But as far as the priesthood was concerned there was no fall from heaven in the literal sense. The word 'Heaven' has three distinct meanings; one is literally 'the sky', another is used to reference the purest abodes of the spiritual realm (wherein the throne is to be found), and the third is descriptive of a human condition found on earth, ruler-ship, excess or abundance.

Remember at one time only the affluent in society was educated enough to read and semi-comprehend scripture (which remained written in its native languages i.e., Hebrew, Greek and Latin). The common folk depended mainly upon the priesthood and clergy to interpret and judge between them according to scripture. The advent of the King James version created an entirely new situation, the relatively uneducated masses were able to not only read, but to construct their own interpretations which were naturally mainly built around superstition (which goes hand in hand with ignorance).

Whenever anything is translated out of one language into another there are always variables which could be easily misunderstood if one is not instructed on the basics of the original language and context. To the Jews there never was any malevolent inherently evil entity known as 'Satan' as he is understood by Christianity.

[Chaldean Shaper]

Right. But as far as the priesthood was concerned there was no fall from heaven in the literal sense. The word 'Heaven' has three distinct meanings; one is literally 'the sky', another is used to reference the purest abodes of the spiritual realm (wherein the throne is to be found), and the third is descriptive of a human condition found on earth, ruler-ship, excess or abundance.

Remember at one time only the affluent in society was educated enough to read and semi-comprehend scripture (which remained written in its native languages i.e., Hebrew, Greek and Latin). The common folk depended mainly upon the priesthood and clergy to interpret and judge between them according to scripture. The advent of the King James version created an entirely new situation, the relatively uneducated masses were able to not only read, but to construct their own interpretations which were naturally mainly built around superstition (which goes hand in hand with ignorance).

Whenever anything is translated out of one language into another there are always variables which could be easily misunderstood if one is not instructed on the basics of the original language and context. To the Jews there never was any malevolent inherently evil entity known as 'Satan' as he is understood by Christianity.

You may've debunked an extremely popular notion in pointing out the circumstantial peculiarity of the term, which may've been used before the introduction of the popular idea of the devil in the region.

Theosophy indicates the ideas about the war in heaven that survived through Christianity are not superstition, or invention but are allusions to records kept by the Brahmans of India, whose belief was a great force behind Zoroastorianism, which was a direct influence upon the gnostics.