|Lucifer, painted by Franz Stuck; public domain image by Wikimedia Commons|
By Amethyst Black
Who is Lucifer? Are They a Fallen Angel? Evil Entity? Male, or Female?
The deity 'Lucifer,' is lauded by many as a patron, and is reviled by others as the Devil, a devil, or a fallen angel; then others believe that he was human nobility and nothing more than that. Even with the contradictions in who and what Lucifer is or was, there is a central, generalized lot of knowledge regarding them; hence we'll delve in, and present the more sought after elements from within it. Some of the information within this post was obtained by personal gnosis from its author, and in that, parts may not be popularly accepted.
A word: Lucifer is an intensely complex being, and his/her stream overlaps with those of multiple other entities, of which a bulky handful will be referenced within this post. If not prepared it may be a tad overwhelming for the reader to reconcile them all. Part one explains how Lucifer relates to Greek mythology, Abrahamic religion, examines some biblical concepts relative to him, takes a close look at what's in the name, relates him to the King of Tyre, and also to Shalim and Shahar, and also explains how he was self born.
Etymology, and Relativity to Venus
The Greek words 'Phosporus' and 'Heosphorus,' are terms attributed to Lucifer within Greek mythology. Each term refers to Venus; Phosphorus as the morningstar, and Heosphorus as the evening star; however, technically the evening star is not Lucifer, but Heosphorus/Azazel. There will be considerably more information on Azazel in part two. To expound, the name Lucifer alludes to Venus, but also has been traditionally used to refer to spirits associated with that planet; when directly translated from Latin, the name means 'carrier of light.' Where the correlation between Lucifer and Venus comes in, is that the planet is symbolic of the light of a new day or age; this being that it can be seen at dawn as it emerges from beyond the horizon. He (Lucifer, but also as Venus and Aphrodite) was chosen as the archetype to represent the qualities of planet Venus, and that's all there is to it.
On a related note, a spirit attributed to a planet is different than its planetary intelligence and planetary spirit. It makes sense when one understands that planetary intelligences and spirits are qualities of the planet itself. Eg: Kedemel is the spirit of Venus, and is a primordial energy; hence it is feral in nature. Hagiel bears the actual intellect of the planet Venus; thus if one wishes to gain knowledge relative to said planet, they may meditate or otherwise work with its forces.
What's in the Name?
As it relates to the Bible: the name Lucifer being applied to the spirit in question, is by some considered erroneous; this as in the Tanakh (the text that the book of Isaiah was based upon), it seemed to be a description of the king's noble garb and overall appearance. It was not capitalized, and was written, 'hêylêl' (pr. haylale); which can be viewed in various ways--'shining one,' 'bringer of dawn,' 'daystar' and 'morningstar.' In some bible versions but not all, it was translated as Lucifer. More people are familiar with Lucifer being relative to the bible than to Greek, Roman or other mythology; hence talk from this perspective commonly arises along with this topic.
Is there really a problem in that Lucifer became a name though, whether or not it was intended to be one? I'll give that it's confusing that the subject of the name can be seen in various ways, and not always as an entity; but what is more confusing, is that Lucifer is a Latin word, and Latin as a language came AFTER the original texts that the bible was translated from. However, all this last bit actually means is that when verses were translated long after the fact, it was inappropriate to put a Latin word in there.
The texts of Isaiah were written between c. 740 BCE and c. 686 BCE, by King Hezekiah and his acolytes. Latin as a language was created 6th century BCE. The bible as we know it was written in the early 1600s. Why was a Latin translation of the word 'hêylêl' in there? ... well, King James Bible translators were comfortable with Latin, and kept notes in it. However, before them, the Latin Vulgate had already been around literally for thousands of years, ergo the term Lucifero as a name for the Devil, had become popular. For this it was left in some renderings of the bible.
One point being made is this: the spirit stream of each and every being, contains all that was ever believed about them; hence how could anything be truly wrong? If some believe this is not a being named Lucifer, to them it is not. If others believe it is a being whose name is Lucifer, if they choose, they can interact with them; and no matter how they believe Lucifer to be, it affects the contents of his stream. Lucifer also has free will. If someone wants to believe of him/her in a way they do not wish to be, they may teach that person how to view them in a way more amenable to them.
A sidenote of interest: some confusion surrounding the interpretation of the word hêylêl from original texts, was based upon one of the word's meanings, which is to 'howl.' Hence one potential translation that is seldom observed, is "howl, son of the morning." But what could that even mean? maybe it's huge, yet maybe nothing. It did make me think where I'd seen similar written before. It was by Crowley, referring to the meaning of the word 'Goetia'; he believed it meant 'howling' (hence Goetia may be considered 'the howling art'). It makes me wonder about correlativity, ya know? Some say that howling is the noise one hears when working with spirits; but it seems there's more to it than that being implied here. But what? ... perhaps that's best left for you to consider...
Note: Upon completing this article this point was meditated. What howling is in reference to, is Lucifer being identified henceforth from then as a predatory demon.
Lucifer, the King of Tyre, or Fallen Angel?
In one real sense, the term lucifer, refers to an ancient Babylonian king; a king that was best known for having been a persecutor of the Israelites. He lost his throne (fell from grace), and in that, preachers at times have depicted him as being symbolic of something more evocative--a prideful fallen angel. However, this is just one interpretation. Others will say that the translation refers only to the Babylonian king, not a fallen angel or devil.
Why a fallen angel? Perhaps it's because some historians perceived the King of Tyre as being an earthbound divinity, combined with that his story parallels one involving the Aramaic deity Attar (who the king of Tyre is relative to in the text passage referenced--as Shahar, the Ugaritic face of Attar). Attar fought to obtain the throne of Baal. He won it, but walked away from it; his preference was to rule over the Underworld. (How strange this is... you'll soon see it means that he in all likelihood fought HIMSELF for that throne). Surely you see how the idea of a fallen angel applies--he can't be a god anymore, because Christianity has only one.
Note: Attar/Shahar is often identified with Lucifer, but some historians disagree, and claim that he is Azazel as portrayed in the Old Testament. Reference: 'Arṣû and Azîzû: A study of the West Semitic “Dioscuri” and the Gods of Dawn and Dusk'; by Finn Ove Hvidberg-Hansen.
"Attar, is a reference to the planet Venus, in both morning and evening form."
The passage of the Isaiah text saying, "How art thou fallen from Heaven, O morning star," probably helped some to view him as a fallen angel. The bible's interpreters did lean towards depicting the old gods as villains; and given that Lucifer was symbolic of Attar, this concept aligns with that general flow.
A very interesting point here, is that Shahar had a brother, Shalim. They were respectively gods of the dawn and the dusk. Given that Lucifer as Venus, is half of a dual aspected being which includes the evening star Azazel, this suggests that Lucifer and Azazel (as that dual aspected being), descended from Shalim and Shahar, and hence were self begotten. The Isaiah text is clear in depicting that Lucifer was born of Shahar, hence surely it worked similarly for his counterpart aspect.
|The Worship of Ashtoreth|
Never mind that though... mull this over for a moment or two--Shahar and Shalim not only align with Lucifer/Azazel, but also with Aphrodite/Ashtoreth (by personal gnosis); they also align with the ancient deities Arsu and Azizu. Arsu and Azizu are faces of Paimon and Azazel. I get it, it seems to lack logic... but mythology often does. By the way, I'm not the only one to deduce that twin deities throughout early mythology, consistently referred to certain directly correlative beings; this book has much to say on the topic: 'Arṣû and Azîzû: A study of the West Semitic “Dioscuri” and the Gods of Dawn and Dusk'; by Finn Ove Hvidberg-Hansen.
Satan is a face of the Devil, and is viewed by some Abrahamic faiths as one who tempts people to sin. As some tend to believe there is one primary devil, some will see Satan and Lucifer as being the same. This perspective emerges from the text of the Isaiah passage previously referenced, combined with that some interpret the king's ways as being in line with Satan's.
He Birthed Himself (again); Also, Notes On Baal and Belphegor
Another biblical relativity exists between Lucifer and Chemosh. He is the Moabitic aspect of the Sumarian god, Utu, known by Eastern Semites as Shamash ('brilliant sun'). That's insane; you know why? ... because some historians see Chemosh as the child of Attar (Attar is Shahar). Hence the suggestion presents that he (Lucifer) gave birth to himself, again. It would be remiss not to add, that Chemosh is undeniably a face of Baal. Baal in that context be called 'Baal Maon,' meaning 'Baal of Moab' [or, Baal of the Moabites, because Chemosh was a Moabite god]. Baal of Moab, would suggest that the deity referenced is Belphegor. To clarify lest it be overlooked, yes! You did read that Chemosh is also an avatar of Lord Belphegor.
Though yours truly is reluctant to compound the confusion, it's interesting that Shamash was Inanna's twin brother, because one of Inanna's avatars, Ashtoreth, is also one of Lucifer's avatars. Yeah, bet you needed to think that over at least twice.
1) There is even a face of Chemosh, that combines Ashtar and Chemosh as one, which is (you guessed it), Ashtar-Chemosh. You see the repeat of the self birth concept? This is getting complex, don't you agree?
2) How peculiar it is that one potential interpretation of the name Chemosh is fish god. If I were to launch into analyzing it here, this article would be far too long. But why fish god? does this god relate to Dagon? Jesus? or only fertility? or is it a mistaken impression, that means nothing at all? ...there is no such thing as a coincidence though. For the record, my own impression is that the fish symbolizes the birth/death cycle of the Hebrew letter Nun. When considered, what invariably jumps to mind is--"I am the Alpha and Omega."
Keep in mind that Baal had numerous epithets, and in that it can be said that Lucifer is relative to all faces of Baal. Let me expound--Baal Peor (another name for Lord Belphegor) was Baal as worshiped by those of the region of Peor, and Baal Zebul was the name he was worshiped by in Ekron; and he was Baal Berith in Shechem. At the same time, the connection between the two is indirect, established through Chemosh/Shamash as an avatar.
(Peor, aka Phagor, was the name of a region. Zebul means exhalted, or on high. Berith means "of the covenant.")
Though the concept has not yet been introduced, one of Lucifer's avatars is Horus (by personal gnosis), but especially as Ra Hoor Khu. In this way, perceiving Lucifer as Shamash, a deity of the midday sun, it makes more sense that Ra Hoor--also a midday sun god, is connected to him.
From My Own Perspective and Gnosis
My own impression after reading extensively and upon communing with Lucifer, is that he is all of the things he's said to be, absolutely all of them. Hence this article is about examining opinions, both popular and unpopular. How I choose to see him the most, is as a multi aspected being--either male, female, or genderless. He shows me that he considers himself syncretic with Horus, Venus, Aphrodite, Ashtoreth, Satan, Azazel, Jesus, Beelzebub, and more. When working with me, he for some reason diminishes Satan. I am not sure why, as I have no fear or objection towards working with that aspect. What happened was, that he told me to view him as being one and the same as Satan, then Satan was rarely ever seen again... it seems Lucifer absorbed him, but maybe just assimilated him as he had no more lessons for me.
Lucifer has communicated that they don't consider their biblical tale to be the greatest factor, or even a particularly notable part, of their history, and would like people to know more about them from other perspectives.
One of Lucifer's aspects is Ashtoreth, who is another face of the god Attar. Hence the term Helal ben Shahar, again hints that Lucifer gave birth to himself Am I saying that Lucifer is God? Nope. One could even say that his mythology is somewhat contrived and convoluted, and I'd agree. However, much of all of mythology is confusing... look at Egyptian mythology, as a perfect example. One god can have many, many, different contexts and faces. With that said, think about how many times he's been shown to have birthed himself, and you decide what it means. However, some will take his birth of self as a sign that he is God; others may argue that they, as a demiurge believing they are God, created the illusion they are self birthed. In the back of my mind there are others muttering--there is no God on the LHP, that's why I chose it... in the end though, everyone is free to appreciate their own beliefs.
Lucifer As a Planet in Motion
He was clearly viewed as a planetary transit. In the morning he rose as glorious Venus, then at noon he was overcome by the brilliance of the midday Sun. Logically he could not compete with the sun, and hence his history was already written, or so it seems. However, he has shown me that he is not only Venus, but he is also that brilliant Sun. Wait though--how in the heck does he skip from being Venus, over to then becoming that Sun? What kind of celestial event would it take to achieve that? or would it necessarily need to be a celestial event? He as not yet told me, but I suspect in time he will.
My take? as Attar/Venus he did what he does best--shine! and naturally at some point he saw the Sun/Baal and wanted to be him. Yes, in some contexts Baal could be a god of the sun, and in other contexts he was god of all weather and also fertility. Often in mythology, Baal was the strongest god (thunderbolt and all), so depicting him as the sun within this concept seems logical. As Attar, (not as Venus, right) he won the throne but knew as planet Venus he did not belong there. After his transit passed that place in the sky he descended into the darkness of night, and in that sense became Venus of Dusk (and also an avatar of the Dark Lord Azazel), to rule the Underworld. Certainly though he's not fixed there; again the message of Nun.
Shortly after this piece was first published, another impression of how the previous concept could be interpreted came about. How about this--given that he was self birthed he could be anything he wanted to be, including Baal, but chose simply to be Lucifer... ?
Sorry folks, but under pressure I couldn't think of any bright witticisms to conclude the post with. I was tardy in getting this article out, thus had to hurry. There is more coming; stay tuned for Part II. This should leave you with enough to ponder for the time being. Ciao for now.
Part two is now complete, and is linked to above. Feel free to read it.