Luciferian Questions

[Arcadios]

I basically have two questions concerning Lucifer.

The first is regarding Luciferian tradition. Have there ever been any texts that give more detail as the nature of Lucifer, or have been the (supposed) word of Lucifer?

The second is, how does Sheol and the Rephaim play into the Luciferian tradition, and do they have any connection with Lucifer himself?

[frater luciferi]

as far as determining what or who lucifer is about you will have to study a lot of other "gods" or archetypes to determine for yourself wat is a "luciferian" archetype. The best is the myths on promethius. Although even within traditional christian literature you can find a sympathetic undertone within it-especially miltons paradise lost. H.p blavatsky had a newsletter called "lucifer" and wrote quite profusely on the figure of lucifer, there are numerous texts by freemasons about the true nature of lucifer, as well as by the catholic church, the mormon church as such. All of which are online if you dig well enough.

The thing to remember though is that its best to have a descerning eye when trying to determine what you consider to be a "true" picture of lucifer yourself. The only other real "myth" texts about lucifer are pretty much as i said before texts written by christian theologians for the most part, although i have hoped to come across possibly some actual roman pagan texts on lucifer as he was in the roman pagan pantheon.

Sheol is merely a jewish conception of the "limbo" of souls in which they will wait for the coming of the messiah to ressurect their bodies-it is a side note here that jews don't believe in either heaven or hell. Although it might be usefull in some sense no?

as for the raipham? they i suppose...and am no real expert on canaan really, they were well the victims of genocide by the jews. God gave them the land and so the people were slaughtered. Lord knows how much blood soaked the "holy lands" before it was "holy".

I suppose you would be hard pressed to find a mention of lucifer within the old testament, besides the infamous verse in isaiah that was mistranslated by jerome. Although it would'nt be too hard to pull some symbology out of the nephillim myth, which I have done myself. there is allusions to this within sumerian mythos as well as it was revived in a sense by the gnostics and referenced within their gospels. This relates to the bloodline of seth vs.
the bloodline of noah. You can read about that in the appocolypse of adam.

[DocHolliday]

Check qabbalistic lore regarding the serpent, Eve, and Kain. That's my advise.

[AppleJack]

Check qabbalistic lore regarding the serpent, Eve, and Kain. That's my advise.

If I remember Qabbala and Sethian Gnsotics shared similar origins for there views on Kain. A good example of Sethian Gnosticism is the apocalypse of adam (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/adam.html).

[Xner]

The most Luciferian texts to be found (in my opinion) are often those that never mention the name "Lucifer". Of course, some creative interpretation must be employed.

[frater luciferi]

If I remember Qabbala and Sethian Gnsotics shared similar origins for there views on Kain. A good example of Sethian Gnosticism is the apocalypse of adam (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/adam.html).

exactly, that was the very text i was trying to point out.

[hayabusa]

The most Luciferian texts to be found (in my opinion) are often those that never mention the name "Lucifer". Of course, some creative interpretation must be employed.
Couldn't agree more. To me, Luciferianism is more about finding the archetypes and relating them, not about the actual name "Lucifer".

[Ðanisty]

If we were strict on the name "Lucifer," we wouldn't have much to work with anyway. Spirituality and faith though have always been about metaphors and symbolism. That's not unique to Luciferianism. It's just that the task we face is actually identifying Lucifer.

[animalnine]

If we were strict on the name "Lucifer," we wouldn't have much to work with anyway. Spirituality and faith though have always been about metaphors and symbolism. That's not unique to Luciferianism. It's just that the task we face is actually identifying Lucifer.

That sounds quite a bit like Laveyan/Modern Satanism. In fact, the two seem remarkably similar, from all my explorations, except that Satanism focuses more on the earthly and carnal, while Luciferianism focuses more on the spiritual and mythological. Are there any other core differences I'm missing?

[DocHolliday]

There is an inherent difference between the two archetypes, stemming as they do from Christianity. When people speak of "Satan," they generally refer to a creature that is an enemy of God, an evil being that draws people away from "holiness." On the other hand, "Lucifer," is how Christianity refers to the so-called "pre-fall Satan." Lucifer is being with more tragic connotations (e.g. Paradise Lost). While Satan is bestial, Lucifer is a thing of beauty and luminescence. Where Satan encourages man to rebel for the carnal pleasure of it all, Lucifer - in true, Promethean fashion - offers the illumination of wisdom.

[Ðanisty]

That's certainly not to say that Satan has nothing to offer! I was a Laveyan Satanist for several years. Personally though, I was always very intellectual and academic, so Lucifer suited me better. Plus, I realized I'm not an atheist. I'm a Traditional Luciferian.

[animalnine]

That's certainly not to say that Satan has nothing to offer! I was a Laveyan Satanist for several years. Personally though, I was always very intellectual and academic, so Lucifer suited me better. Plus, I realized I'm not an atheist. I'm a Traditional Luciferian.

Thanks for your answer. I suppose I am kind of stuck in the middle, as I am also an intellectual and enjoy academia, but I am an agnostic, bordering on atheist, and am not into Traditional Luciferianism, or Traditional Satanism, for that matter. While I do have a pretty thick intellectual veneer, I think my carnal side has more weight.

When people speak of "Satan," they generally refer to a creature that is an enemy of God, an evil being that draws people away from "holiness." On the other hand, "Lucifer," is how Christianity refers to the so-called "pre-fall Satan." Lucifer is being with more tragic connotations (e.g. Paradise Lost). While Satan is bestial, Lucifer is a thing of beauty and luminescence. Where Satan encourages man to rebel for the carnal pleasure of it all, Lucifer - in true, Promethean fashion - offers the illumination of wisdom.

Thank you. That goes pretty well with some of what I've been told by other friends with Luciferian leanings - that Luciferianism is like Satanism without the overwhelming need for selfishness, replaced by wise self-interest. Which kind of meshes with my own opinions, that while I am selfish, it's on a longterm basis, not for-the-moment hedonism.

I am not sure the best way to describe my own beliefs. I say Modern Satanism, because I feel I am a bit beyond LaVeyan Satanism's texts. I'm not into all the ritual and magick, because I feel they are for a psychological purpose. If you understand that, there's no need for the ritual to be performed to have the effect. Kind of like a voodoo doll - even if it doesn't harm the other person, it feels awfully good to stick pins in it. If you understand that, no need to actually make the doll.

I apologize if I have totally veered from the subject.

[Ðanisty]

That goes pretty well with some of what I've been told by other friends with Luciferian leaningsAnd where are these friends..lol?;)

[Arcadios]

While I do have a pretty thick intellectual veneer, I think my carnal side has more weight.

I'm pretty much the same way. You and I should get together and do lunch. And then, you know, carnal things.

(Now back on-topic.)

I'm an agnostic, and I really don't believe much in any deity or religious figure. That being said, I think of Lucifer and Satan as being more archetypal, and see myself following Lucifer more.

[animalnine]

And where are these friends..lol?;)

i'm trying to recruit!

I'm pretty much the same way. You and I should get together and do lunch. And then, you know, carnal things.

come down to georgia and we'll do lunch and you might even get a very carnal hug.

[Ðanisty]

come down to georgia and we'll do lunch and you might even get a very carnal hug.Where in Georgia are you?

[animalnine]

Where in Georgia are you?

other end of the state, around Rome.

[TLF]

That goes pretty well with some of what I've been told by other friends with Luciferian leanings - that Luciferianism is like Satanism without the overwhelming need for selfishness, replaced by wise self-interest.

Personally I find it annoying to always be put in the same box as satanism. Luciferianism is much more Gnostic and a thing in itself. Not many would say that Judaism is just like Christianity, just without a Messiah ... It makes little sense. Luciferianism is a thing in itself. For instance, Satanism is mainly misantropic and ego-worshipping. Luciferianism may well be filantropic since Lucifer is a friend of man and mankind.

[m1thr0s]

Satanism is mainly misantropic and ego-worshipping. Luciferianism may well be filantropic since Lucifer is a friend of man and mankind.I really distrust these catchy little generalizations...they simply don't apply in all cases and really don't very much apply in the most important cases.

Satanism is only "misanthropic and ego-worshipping" among SOME Satanists...most notably the ones television likes to promote incessantly. But I do agree that Satanism and Luciferianism should not be lumped together the way they so often are. Yet, it IS difficult to know where exactly they part ways, even for those reasonably versed in both schools of thought. I have generally come to the conclusion that Satanism...even at its best...is innately a lot more confrontational, or "adversarial" by design whereas Luciferianism seems a lot more "Zen" to me in many ways...not really "Opposing" the enemy so much as taking it in stride and getting on with the business of life itself etc...

Many Xians, of course, see Satan as the end result of what Lucifer becomes once the lines have been drawn. It's difficult to oppose that point of view in some ways, owing to a general lack of Luciferian literature I think...Afterall, what exactly does Lucifer do with his "one-third of the host of heaven" once he leaves? That's a pretty huge army by even the most conservative of estimates, and we have pretty good reason to suppose it constitutes the bravest and very likely the smartest third as well. So what do they do all day long? Are we not essentially safe in assuming they are still locked in a conflict with that which originally attacked them?

So many unanswered questions leave even the experts scrambling for explanations so if people merge Satan and Lucifer, I think it's just that they don't know any better...but...the real question is...does ANYBODY?

m1thr0s

[TLF]

Afterall, what exactly does Lucifer do with his "one-third of the host of heaven" once he leaves? That's a pretty huge army by even the most conservative of estimates, and we have pretty good reason to suppose it constitutes the bravest and very likely the smartest third as well. So what do they do all day long? Are we not essentially safe in assuming they are still locked in a conflict with that which originally attacked them?

But isn't the story of Lucifer and the "one-third of the host of heaven" just Christian folklore ... church tradition ... later inventions ... ? Is there a biblical reference? To me, Satan and Lucifer are two different things ... to me, Lucifer has no place in Christianity. He just happens to appear there because of a translatory problem in the Vulgate edition of the Bible, and later had a role because monks, nons, priests and whatever mixed him into Christian folklore.

[Ðanisty]

But isn't the story of Lucifer and the "one-third of the host of heaven" just Christian folklore ... church tradition ... later inventions ... ? Is there a biblical reference?I asked this very question on ReligiousForums.com They said it was in Revelations (which of course has not yet happened because it's a prophecy). I will check that forum and see if I can find the exact scripture.

[Ðanisty]

And another sign was seen in heaven, and, look! a great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and upon its heads seven diadems; and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child."—Revelation 12:3, 4. is this the verse you mean about the third , even though it does not say angels here in this verse , stars are sometimes reffered to as angels. as in JOB 38:7Okay, this was the response I got on the other forum. I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the actual biblical reference to the defecting angels according to Christians.

[Arcadios]

I don't know why you guys are beating yourselves up over this Bible bullshit. I mean, being a Luciferian, you've apparently taken the stance that you've no need for God or Jesus or their instructions as to your way of life, so why even bother?

[Ðanisty]

Like I said previously, it's helpful to know how others think. If I happen to be talking to a Christian (pretty likely in Savannah, GA), it's useful to know before we begin to talk how they will interpret what I say, etc.

[TLF]

I don't know why you guys are beating yourselves up over this Bible bullshit. I mean, being a Luciferian, you've apparently taken the stance that you've no need for God or Jesus or their instructions as to your way of life, so why even bother?

I think the answer is simple: If the historical Lucifer is something different from the Christian "mumbo jumbo", and we can make a point that Christians are refering to their own jewish demons (Satan, Leviathan, Belial, the dragon etc.), then Luciferianism has proven several points:

a) It is not an anti-movement sprung from Christian folklore.
b) It is an independant "thing in itself".
c) It is not a "satanic rebellion".

Personally I think these points are quite important. Of course others may think otherwise - and are free to do so.

[Shadow]

But isn't the story of Lucifer and the "one-third of the host of heaven" just Christian folklore ... church tradition ... later inventions ... ? Is there a biblical reference? To me, Satan and Lucifer are two different things ... to me, Lucifer has no place in Christianity. He just happens to appear there because of a translatory problem in the Vulgate edition of the Bible, and later had a role because monks, nons, priests and whatever mixed him into Christian folklore.

I always thought how lucky we are that biblical texts unknowingly included the coded numericals in their copying of ancient texts dealing with archtypes and events. The 1/3 has many meanings 1/3 = .333 2/3 = .666 The 1/3 also used to be a measure of deity, as 1/3 meant that marked some human being as 1/3 divine, meaning that the devinity is from the parent Father. If the divinity is 2/3 that is the mark that the divinity is on the parent Mother being a goddess. But these numbers in ancient texts sometime go very deep, to the very roots of nature and science alike.

[Luciftias]

Another interesting thread :)

Something us Luciferians have to face is that without that fateful decision to use the word "Lucifer" in the King James translation of the book of Isaiah, Luciferianism may not even exist today. I know that's a very bold statement, and I'll probably get some flak for it, but I stand by it. Not only did the KJV of Isaiah reintroduce "Lucifer" as a character (as opposed to just a word) into the popular consciousness, but it added layers to his mythology. We barely have any information about what Lucifer was before he became associated with the serpent in Eden and with the rebellious archangel. Now, most Luciferians, myself included, claim that Lucifer and Satan aren't identical, but there is definitely some overlap. It's a task for each Luciferian to decide where to draw the line. For me, I see Lucifer as being an archetype, defined by the actual definition of the word: Light Bearer - the force of enlightenment. Now, the serpent in Eden, the primary figure in the angelic rebellion and leader of the fallen angels all fit very well with this archetype. In other words, the Christian understanding of Satan (heavily influenced by Milton's portrayal) is a character who embodies quite a bit of the Lucifer archetype (The Judaic and Islamic understandings of Satan are a bit different.) However, there are some specifics regarding Satan that I feel detract from the Luciferian ideal as well.

Percy Shelley wrote an excellent paragraph regarding this in the preface to his "Prometheus Unbound". It's the second paragraph and totally worth reading, even though Shelley makes excessive use of big words. I'd read the first paragraph too. Here's a link to the text: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/prometheus.html One of the really excellent lines is as follows:

"The only imaginary being, resembling in any degree Prometheus, is Satan; and Prometheus is, in my judgment, a more poetical character than Satan, because, in addition to courage, and majesty, and firm and patient opposition to omnipotent force, he is susceptible of being described as exempt from the taints of ambition, envy, revenge, and a desire for personal aggrandizement, which, in the hero of Paradise Lost, interfere with the interest."

I agree 100% with Shelley in this regard. His vision of Prometheus would embody the archetype of Lucifer much more ideally than Satan.

As far as "this bible bullshit" goes, I take inspiration where I find it. I don't give a rat's ass if it comes from the texts held sacred by a religion that has been instrumental in the mental enslavement of humanity or not. I actually find it quite poetic that the texts preserved by the opressors of gnosis are being used by Luciferians to free minds. It's pretty standard, actually. Until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, a huge portion of information about Gnosticism came from bishop Irenaeus, who wrote a five volume attack on the various Gnostic sects, describing them in biased detail. Ironically, this work allowed discerning minds to piece together the beliefs of these early gnostics and work towards re-establishing the traditions. Irenaeus would be spinning in his grave if he knew how much his work helped to preserve the Gnosis!

In addition, it's been shown that the stories, sayings and symbols in the bible have been lifted from other traditions. The Sumerian story "The Epic of Gilgamesh" was a huge influence on Genesis with the stories of the flood and the antedeluvian patriarchs. The Sumerian/Babylonian character of Enki/Ea and his half brother Enlil also forshadow several stories in Genesis including Cain and Abel and again, the flood story. There are several proverbs and much of Deuteronomy that was lifted from Egypt, some of it word-for-word. There was a huge Zorastrian influence on Judaism and by extention Christianity. Much of the New Testament comes from the cult of Mithras and other pagan sources. The teachings of Hermes (the Helenic Greek version of the Egyptian Thoth) was officially accepted by medieval Christians as being a precursor to Judaism and Christianity. The bible is a big melting pot of various other religious traditions and mythologies, most of them pagan. I think it's worthy of study. I've gotten lots of valuable insights from it.

I'm not saying that it's divinely inspired or that it's my primary text. It just has a lot of relevant information to my understanding of Gnostic Luciferianism. The non-cannonical texts from the Judeo-Christian tradition are excellent too, and often shed a new and very interesting light on the standard biblical texts. The Book of Enoch, for instance, is a must read by any Luciferian. As far as completely different religious texts, I personally really enjoyed and received a lot of inspiration from the Bagivad Gita. I find that it has a lot of ideas similar to Thelema, believe it or not. I'm also quite fond of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Some amazing concepts in there that make you question the nature of reality. Good stuff! Anyways, that's for another thread.

That's my two cents,
Luciftias