Lucifer, oh lucifer . . .
I love Milton's poem. It is a beautiful and difficult piece to read, especially when I read it as a believer. The above quote was one of my favorites when I was struggling with my belief. I mean, when you believe in salvation, (or, at least, want it) there is nothing more promising, in spirit, than climbing through the depths of the worst to achieve the heights of the best. I mentioned, in the blog regarding my father's death, that I always struggled with the idea of hell . . . as a believer. When thinking back on it, I think my transition to viewing hell, as a mythology versus a reality, came when I first read La Comedia and Paradise Lost. Dante's piece came first and then Milton's, but they went hand in hand really. I mention all of this specifically to tackle the idea of the fallen angel, or as popularized . . . lucifer.
First, lets begin with the fallen angel mythos. This idea is never used in the Old Testament. Not at all; no fallen angels. In the New Testament, as far as I know (or, can recollect) there are two mentions of a "fallen angel" (so to speak).
These are really only the two versus, that I view, as references to the mythological construct of a "fallen angel"; at least, the way christianity views it. In the first one, it seems like jesus may be tripping balls, or may be (at the very least) using a heightened story to grab the attention of his listeners. He mentions nothing more of this story. In the second one, someone else is tripping balls. The dragon was a red dragon and had "seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems". The dragon and his messengers were defeated and thrown down. Seven heads, seven crowns, ten horns . . . REALLY?! Read that again and tell me you believe that and I will show you a man in awe.
NOW, lets get back to lucifer. I constantly hear people refer to lucifer as the "fallen angel that defied god and led a rebellion in heaven". There are many other variations of that oversimplification, but lets continue. Where is LUCIFER in the bible?
As far as I know, that being a translation of theVulgate , it is the only place in the translation that lucifer comes through. "Morning star" is also sometimes translated as lucifer , but there is very little authorship to suggest that jesus calls himself lucifer in
I can see that there are many points that I am making here that some scholar would scoff at. The reference I just used above, for example, Jesus, in no translation, calls himself lucifer .
Sometimes, I get to this point in my "non educated" rambling and question my own rational expression and whether or not I have a true point to be made.
Fuck yeah I do. This would be a different conversation if the god that people believed in was ballsy enough to show itself and explain away all controversy. Instead, we're left with a bunch of "scholars" who use the exhaustive nature of their intellectual approach to "prove" that which cannot be proven and then try to turn phrase to mean that that of which can't be proven . . . is most certainly possible.
Translation can be argued all day and will be forever. The mythos attached to the name lucifer means nothing in regards to christian eschatology. The story of "fallen angels" (referring to the popularized tales), if granted reality, has no reality to back it up according to scripture itself. It is all vague, not to the point and, in the only two basic references we have of it in the bible, has no merit.
If you think it has merit, then I refer to the above picture of the RED DRAGON WITH SEVEN HEADS, SEVEN CROWNS AND TEN HORNS. THAT is mythology.