Who is Lucifer?

Lucifer is like the word, Satan, in regards to it not being a who but a what. The word, Lucifer, is a Latin word meaning Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, or light-bearer. In the Latin Vulgate Bible, Jesus was referred to as the Bright Morning Star at Revelation 22:16, and thus, Lucifer. (1)(2)(11)

The Latin word, Lucifer, is used only once in the King James Version Bible, at Isaiah 14:12, but was used several times in the Latin Vulgate Bible, in the place of Morning Star, Son of the Morning, or Lightbearer, etc. (1)(2)(11)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 14:12, from The Complete Jewish Bible, with Rashi Commentary (The Hebrew text version is included at it’s side):

12) How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.

Below, I quote Rabbi Tovia Singer about Isaiah 14:12 (11):

Throughout this and the preceding chapter of Isaiah, the prophet foretells the rise and fall of this arrogant Babylonian king who would use his unbridled power to plunder Jerusalem and destroy its Temple but, ultimately, would suffer a cataclysmic downfall. In 14:12, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to the planet Venus whose light is still visible in the morning, yet vanishes with the rise of the sun. Like the light of Venus, Nebuchadnezzar’s reign shone brilliantly for a short time, yet, as the prophets foretold, it was eventually overshadowed by the nation of Israel whose light endured and outlived this arrogant king who tormented and exiled her.

The KJV Bible has only one mention of Lucifer, at Isaiah 14:12, due to King James VI & Is Hebrew translators at that time. Here, if the translator did not understand a Hebrew word, they referred to the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, and used it. Plus, they had their own ingrained beliefs on the verse, though those were incorrect. Thus, the one inclusion of the word, Lucifer, was over an error in the words true meaning in that verse. However, Isaiah 14:12 is not speaking of Satan, some devil, a fallen angel, nor any anti-God, but it is speaking of the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Light Bearer, or the planet Venus, as the verse compares the rise and fall of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar II, to how the Morning Star appears before sunrise, and then quickly disappears as dawn breaks. (6)(11) This is proven by verse at Isaiah 14:4: “ That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!” It is needless to say that the Jews do not believe in some anti-God nor devil named Satan, nor Lucifer. John Calvin, the reformist and father of Calvinism, said this about Isaiah 14:12:

The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.“–Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah.

Here, Calvin is referring to Isaiah 14:4.  Martin Luther also considered it a “gross error” to refer to this verse as being about Satan. (2) This is also explained in the footnote for Isaiah 14:12, in the Geneva Bible, which is older than the KJV:

12: Thou that thoughtest thyself most glorious, and as it were placed in the heaven [the Babylonian king]: for the morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.

The word, Lucifer, after its bastardization, became popular in books such as Dante Alighieri’s book, Inferno, Joost van den Vondel’s play, Lucifer, and John Milton’s book, Paradise Lost, thus spreading the fallacy to the multitudes.

Present-day translations have “Morning Star” for Isaiah 14:12, in the bibles New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible. It is “daystar” in the New Jerusalem Bible, English Standard Version, and The Message. It is “Day Star” in the New Revised Standard Version. It is “shining one” in the New Life Version, New World Translation, and JPS Tanakh, or “shining star” in the New Living Translation. The King James Version is misunderstood at Isaiah 14:12, due to using the Latin Vulgate’s translation of Isaiah 14, by St. Jerome. Here, St. Jerome translated the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar (Morning Star) into the Latin word, luciferos, which isn’t incorrect but misinterpreted by the Protestant clergy. However, it is found that the newer Protestant Bible versions, listed above, are incorrectly translated at other places, such as at Isaiah 45:7, where the KJV is correct.

Lucifer, at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.[sic]

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, “to lament”; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).[sic]

Lucifer, at the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Septuagint translation of “Helel [read “Helal”] ben Shaḥar” (= “the brilliant one,” “son of the morning”), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star; and Gunkel (“Schöpfung und Chaos,” pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2]), but was hurled down by the supreme ruler of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).[sic]

The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the northern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samḥazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enoch, vi. 6 et seq.; see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samḥazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol (see Midr. Abḳir in Yalḳ. i. 44; Raymund Martin, “Pugio Fidei,” p. 564). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adæ et Evæ [Life of Adam and Eve](8) and Slavonic Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4), where Satan-Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived “to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble ‘My power’ on high,” Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he has been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. ii. 2, vi. 12). Accordingly Tertullian (“Contra Marrionem,” v. 11, 17), Origen (“Ezekiel Opera,” iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being “cast down from heaven” (Rev. xii. 7, 10; comp. Luke x. 18).

Isaiah 14:12-15 and Lucifer, in the NIV Application Commentary, Bundle 3:

Isaiah 14:12-15. From a contextual standpoint, this pericope concerns the king of Babylon and, accordingly, is placed among the oracles against the nations. It takes the form of a taunt (v. 5 [4]) anticipating the tyrant’s imminent demise. His descent to the netherworld (vv. 9-11) is described with relish. Verses 12-15 refer to his downfall, despite his aspirations to divine grandeur.

Throughout most church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. The earliest appearance of this association can be found in the writings of Origen. Satan’s fall had been discussed earlier by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, but with no obvious references to Isaiah 14. This is not surprising since Satan is mentioned nowhere in the passage. Jewish writings (cf. 2 [2nd] Enoch 29:4-5) had stories of the fall of Satan, but there is no evidence that Isaiah 14 was interpreted in relation to the fall.

The doctrine of Satan’s fall and its association with Isaiah 14 passed into the mainstream of Christian theology through Moralia 34 by Pope Gregory the Great in the seventh century. Once part of popular belief, it is easily passed into the great pieces of literature such as Milton’s Paradise Lost, which sustained its place in theology. The doctrine was also solidified by the way Isaiah 14 was handled in translation. [St.] Jerome, interpreting the difficult Hebrew term, Helel in v. 12 (NIV: “morning star”) as a reference to Venus, used a Latin term for Venus, luciferos, to translate it. As the interpretation of the passage as a reference to Satan became popularized in the centuries following, lucifer was adopted as a variant name for Satan – because that was what Satan was called in the passage!

“Tertullian and other fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regarding Luke 10:18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name lucifer to signify the devil.”–[The Earlier Prophecies of Isaiah, by Joseph Addison Alexander, PhD, Theology, Princeton University, 1846.]

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the major English translations were being produced, the interpretation was so ingrained that “Lucifer” was retained, even in the KJV. This reinforced to the lay English reader that the passage explicitly concerned Satan.

Despite the wide popular support for this interpretation, there was no lack of opposition. Neither Calvin nor Luther supports the idea that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. Calvin is particularly undiplomatic as his [he] heaps scorn on those who adopt such noncontextual intrusion.

“The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”–[Calvin’s Commentary on Isaiah] [sic]

Quoting Pope Gregory the Great, from Moralia, bk. 32, chp. 23, no. 48 on the word, lucifer: “That is why he was called Lucifer [i.e. morning star], as Isaias attests, saying: How have you fallen, Lucifer, who used to rise in the morning, etc.” Here, he was speaking of Isaiah (Isaias) 14:12, and completely destroyed the intent of the verse, which can be found at Isaiah 14:4.

Somewhere along the way, the church clergy tied Luke 10:18 (“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.“) to Isaiah 14:12, because they sounded similar, even though they are about two entirely different circumstances and times, to concoct the lucifer equals satan fallacy. However, it gets deeper, when one actually reads all of Luke, chapter 10, and one can see that this satan or adversary, was Jesus and the apostle’s adversary, and they were the towns and the people mentioned in the scripture that were also called “devils”, such as the people in Capernaum, where in Luke 10:15, Jesus states “And thou, Capernaum, [the city and the people] which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.” Satan is used correctly, here, as the town and people were an adversary or stumbling block to the apostles ministering, which Jesus cursed, saying that he would throw them to hell, where they would fall like lightning, just as the word, satan, was used in Matthew 16:22-23. These verses in Luke, also reminds one of the Hellenist scribe’s, (who wrote Luke), myth of Zeus casting Typhon to Hades, does it not?

Matthew 16:22-23

22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” 23) But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

The above scripture, is the best definition of the Hebrew word, satan, in the New Testament. Here, the word, satan is used exactly as the Hebrews define it, an adversary, or one who impedes others, a “stumbling block”, and not a devil. The Jews have never believed in a devil nor a fallen angel, that creates all evil and sin. Jesus didn’t either, especially since he was a Pharisee, which is mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. It also seems that the Gospel’s scribes had a love for capitalizing the word satan, as if it were someone’s name.

One can clearly see, from the quotes above, that it may have been St. Jerome who started this fallacy, and somehow, this made it to the early Protestants, due the 7th century pope, Gregory the Great, who continued the fallacy of the word. However, the “Fathers,” which are all of the Catholic clergy, and all the way back to the time of St. Jerome, say differently. One can also see that the Hebrew words, Helel ben Shahar, does not equate to a devil or a Satan. However, the Christians use Enoch, for the tale of a devil or “fallen angel” that they named Satan, but turn right around and say that Enoch is not biblical canon, and the book was placed in the apocrypha over it. The church does not reveal that another source for Satan is from the Greek pagan God of the underworld, Hades, later renamed Pluto in the 5th century BCE, who supposedly held souls in a purgatory (a Greek place known as Tartarus) as a punishment, before releasing the soul to go on, nor do they reveal that the fallen angel myth came from the story of the Greek God, Zeus, defeating Typhon, where afterwards, Zeus cast Typhon down into Tartarus, (the underworld or purgatory), which is also similar to the story from the apocryphal books of Enoch, that had its roots in Persian pagan dualistic Zoroastrianism. The Hellenists in the early Catholic church, merged the pagan tales of Hades (Pluto), Zeus defeating Typhon, Enoch, and Zoroaster’s dualism to create a devil or a fallen angel, and all are pagan myths or apocryphal. The Jews have always stated that Enoch is not biblical canon, has its roots in Zoroastrianism, and that it is a fictional or bogus tale, which flies in the face of Gods words in the Tanakh, and that the two books of Enoch, or any other apocryphal books, are not to be believed. I would think that mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, that which grew from the Pharisees, know more about the Jewish books and Judaism, than the early Christians such as Paul, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, or even St. Jerome. Look at the mistake of St. Jerome, where he used a mistranslation of the Hebrew noun helel, by using the verb yalal, which means “to lament.”

Below is from A History of Zoroastrianism, The Early Period By Mary Boyce, Prof. Iranian Studies, University of London, 1996:

1z

2z

From the Jewish Encyclopedia on Enoch:

“Apocryphal works attributed to Enoch. From Gen. v. 24 (“Enoch walked with God” and “God took him”) a cycle of Jewish legends about Enoch was derived, which, together with apocalyptic speculations naturally ascribed to such a man, credited with superhuman knowledge, found their literary expression in the Books of Enoch. ….These legends, a more popular form of tradition, are, however, not preserved unimpaired, but are strongly influenced and developed by the literary traditions which deal mainly with apocalyptic ideas.”

On the Ethiopic Enoch:

“By about 300 [AD] the Christian Church began to discredit the book, and after the time of the Greek fathers Syncellus and Cedrenus, who cite it (ninth century), it was entirely lost until (1773), [where] the traveler Bruce discovered in Abyssinia two manuscripts of the book. In the nineteenth century several editions and translations were made, and many critical inquiries into its contents published.”

On the Slavonic Enoch:

“The book was probably written between 50 B.C. and 70 A.D.; the first date is given by the fact that Ethiopic Enoch, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom of Solomon are used; the second by the fact that the destruction of the Temple is not mentioned at all. The quotations from Slavonic Enoch in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which Charles uses as additional evidence in establishing the date, are strongly doubted by Schürer. The Slavonic Enoch furnishes new material for the study of religious thought in Judaism about the beginning of the common era. The ideas of the millennium and of the seven heavens are the most important in this connection; both have been treated in detail by Charles in his introduction and commentary, published together with Morfill’s translation. Another very interesting feature is the presence of evil in heaven—the fallen angels in the second heaven, and hell in the third. This belief, although probably at first current among the Christians also, was, together with the idea of the seven heavens, afterward rejected by the Church.”

Quoting Merriam-Websters on apocrypha:

In Bible study, the term “Apocrypha” refers to sections of the Bible that are not sanctioned as belonging to certain official canons. In some Protestant versions these sections appear between the Old and New Testaments. More generally, the word refers to writings or statements whose purported origin is in doubt. Consequently, the adjective “apocryphal” describes things like legends and anecdotes that are purported to be true by way of repeated tellings but that have never been proven or verified and therefore most likely are not factual. Both “apocrypha” and “apocryphal” derive via Latin from the Greek verb apokryptein, meaning “to hide away,” from “kryptein” (“to hide”). [sic]

Next, I quote the testimony of the Anglican Bishop Burnet, in his 70th year, speaking about the newly ordained clergy, in 1713, and their lack of education on biblical theology and history. These are the same Protestants who pushed the lucifer fallacy:

[They] are the burden and grief of my life…the much greater part of those (the Clergy) that come to be ordained, are ignorant to a degree not to be apprehended by those who are not obliged to know it. They can give no account, or at least a very imperfect one, even of the contents of the Gospels. Those who have read some few books, yet, never seem to have read the scriptures; many can not give a tolerable account even of the catechism itself how short and plain soever.__”An Historical Sketch of the Churches and Intemperance, by Thomas Tregaskis, 1844.”

Bishop Burnet was giving testimony, in 1713, 102 years after the first printing of the KJV Bible in 1611, and it seems that the clergy are not much better off educated today, in the 21st century. When researching this topic, I ran across a discussion about this at the baptistboard dot com, and had a good laugh. One KJV Only commentator made this statement to another: “Did you read Isaiah 14:12 in Hebrew for yourself?” Why yes, I most certainly did, both the Hebrew and the translated English, along with picking up the Jewish Encyclopedia on the topic. This is the type of KJV Only hot-head that spreads this ignorance folks. Even those on the forum, whom were semi-correct, could not wrap their minds around the reason why Jesus referred to himself as the Morning Star. Really?

Later, in the late 1890s, Léo Taxil, a pen name for Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès, created a hoax against Freemasonry and the Catholic church, based on the use of the word, Lucifer, by Albert Pike, a Freemason, who had become the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite’s Southern Jurisdiction, in 1859. (3)(4)(5) Here, Albert Pike wrote in his book, Morals & Dogma, questioning why the word, Lucifer, was used for the name of the spirit of darkness.

Quoting Albert Pike and his book, Morals & Dogma:

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, for traditions are full of sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Zohar. It is written hieroglyphically, with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. “Let him who hath knowledge, understand! Let him who understands, calculate”, he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore, did not write to be understood by the multitude. [sic]

As one can clearly see, Pike mentions that those taking the nineteenth degree, think that Lucifer is the name of some Satan or devil. He then goes on to reveal the truth, in that the word, Lucifer, does not mean this, but it does mean light-bearer, in Latin, or the Roman and Greek astrological Morning Star, Venus, Son of the Morning. What brought Pike into trouble, was calling Lucifer a “he,” (which the use of in the Apocalypse is correct),  and Taxil used this to his advantage, in the Taxil Hoax, knowing of the peoples ignorance to the truth. Pike did not write anything that stated that Freemasonry worshiped a devil, Lucifer, or Satan, as the hoax claimed.

What did Pike mean, then, by stating that the word Lucifer was a “he?” He was referring to the Apocalypse, which is the Catholic title for the book of Revelation in the Latin Vulgate bible, which Pike mentions in this very paragraph. If we look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, it mentions that Lucifer refers: “finally to Jesus Christ himself 2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:16.” So, what Pike actually meant, was that Jesus was the Morning Star and Son of the Morning, in the Apocalypse, and Pike asks if that it was “he” who was bearing the light, and was blinding the feeble minds or souls of the sensual and selfish (sinners). This is what Pike actually wrote about in his book, and not the spirit of darkness, some Satan, nor some anti-God. Pike even states that the Apocalypse was not meant to be understood, just as Pike is hiding this truth about what the word, Lucifer, means within his writing. He shows that those Protestants who are taking the 19th degree, think that the word, Lucifer, equates to Satan, and they are incorrect in that thinking. Of course, many Protestant churches like to deny that Jesus was ever called Lucifer, when he was, in fact, by calling himself the Bright Morning Star, and those in the many churches and synagogues of Europe, such as the Catholic and Jewish, tried to tell them so, including two well renowned Protestant church leaders, Calvin and Luther. King James’ Hebrew translators had been indoctrinated into the Lucifer equals Satan myth, and thus mistranslated Isaiah 14:12 the way they did, over their ingrained belief, even though they were most emphatically incorrect!

Apocalypse – Revelation 22:16, Latin Vulgate

(16) I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you the assurance of this in your churches; I, the root, I, the offspring of David’s race, I, the bright star that brings in the day. [English]

(16) Ego Jesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis hæc in ecclesiis. Ego sum radix, et genus David, stella splendida et matutina. [Latin]

The day star, the “bright star that brings in the day”, or the “stella splendida et matutina“, is the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, the Latin Lucifer meaning light-bearer, a planet that is only viewable in the morning, just before dawn, and which finally disappears with the light of dawn. That is why the King of Babylon was compared to it, as it looked like he quickly rose and fell like the Morning Star, Venus, in Isiah 14:12. (11) Jesus the Nazarite, too, rose and fell quickly, dying by the age of 34 (4 BC-30 AD).

Later, A. E. Waite completely debunked this hoax, in his book: Devil Worship in France, London, 1896 (7). I give credit to Waite, here, even though he was not a well thought of Freemason, over his other views and writing. Taxil had also been found out, and debunked by the Catholic Bishop of Charleston, SC, The Right Rev. Henry P. Northrop, and by the Monsignor, the Apostolic Vicar of Gibraltar, Gonzalo Canilla. (9) Even Taxil’s friend and hoax conspirator, Dr. Charles Hacks, (whose pen name was Dr. Bataille), even admitted to the fraud, and said that he had helped to write The Devil in the Nineteenth Century, and that there was money to be made on the “known credulity and unknown idiocy of the Catholics.” (10) Afterwards, many in the clergy started to wise up, and they began to hold Taxil at an arms length, plus they began to silence themselves about Taxil’s claims. After Taxil was exposed, and he saw the hoax starting to crumble, he called a large press conference at the Hall of the Geographic Society in Paris, France, on April 19th, 1897, claiming that he would produce Mrs. Diana Vaughan, the heroine written about in the books, but instead, he made a full confession to the press and the clergy about the hoax. He stated that Diana was a fabrication, and that he had used the name of his typist. He revealed this before the church and the pope had the opportunity to try to silence the press, and thus, silence the truth. For further information, see the article on the Taxil Hoax. (4)(5)

Footnotes.

  1. Lucifer at Encyclopedia Britannica
  2. Lucifer at Wikipedia
  3. Léo Taxil at Encyclopedia.com
  4. Taxil Hoax at Wikipedia
  5. The Confession of Léo Taxil at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon
  6. Isaiah, chap. 14, at The Complete Jewish Bible
  7. AE Waite, Devil Worship in France, 1896.
  8. Vita Adæ et Evæ, or the Life of Adam and Eve, also known, in its Greek version, as the Apocalypse of Moses, along with the Enoch books, are a Jewish pseudepigraphical group of apocryphal writings. They have a false authorship and they are fictional works, thus, noncanonical.
  9. Taxil admitted, at the conference in Paris, that both the Bishop of Charleston and Vicar of Gibraltar had caught him red handed, in the hoax. See the complete transcription for Taxil’s confession about the hoax.
  10. Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World, New York University Press, 2014, by Kembrew McLeod.
  11. Rabbi Tovia Singer, Who is Satan.
Advertisements

5 comments on “Who is Lucifer?

  1. […] instead of an it, though Pike was correct in the rest. Pike had questioned why the word, lucifer, was used to describe the spirit of darkness, when it was Latin for something totally […]

    Like

  2. […] you read my article, about lucifer, you will understand the truth about what the Latin word, lucifer, actually means, and that Judaism […]

    Like

  3. […] mythical, Jewish Illuminati banking conspiracy, used radio-transmitted mind control, on behalf of Lucifer, to construct a one world government, many may just get up and walk out! (1) None of the conspiracy […]

    Like

  4. […] Right off the bat, at the top, we see Leo Taxil’s lucifer, shining brightly, which is only a term used by the uneducated within the Protestant church. Please read my article on Who is lucifer. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s