__Larry Bernard___
because that was the symbol the empire ( assyrian i think) used for their
emperor
___JSW___
Why do you suppose they used that symbol for the King of Babylon, Larry?
Originally, WHO WAS the "Bright and Shining Morning Star"?
To whom does this phrase allude?
__Larry Bernard___
Because it is often symbolic

-----
Well, yes! In this case, it refers to the myth of a fallen deity in
Canaanite and early Hebrew literature:

"I had thought, 'You are gods,
And all of you, sons of 'Elyon
Instead like 'Adam you shall die,
And like one of the 'Shining Ones' you shall fall"
(Psalm 82:6-7).

Here, earthly kings are considered semi-divine beings, and are compared with
"The Shining Ones" -- one of whom fell from heaven.
My point is that the name Helel ben Sahar in Isaiah 14 was not SIMPLY a name
used by the King of Babylon. Rather, it was a DIVINE name -- a name of a
Canaanite/Ugaritic DEITY. This is precisely why the name is applied to the
King of Babylon by Isaiah. This particular deity has a myth surrounding him
concerning his fall from heaven.
___JSW___
I suggest it refers to a myth --SHARED BY THE CANAANITES and EARLY HEBREWS--
about a fallen divine being. A similar tradition is repeated in the
Apocalypse of John, (i.e., the Revelation). This is to be expected, as
Christianity was initially a Jewish mystical sect.
___Larry Bernard___
I can debate the nature of christianity being a jewish sect, but not in
this forum.
----
Jesus was a Jew. Both history and the text of the NT itself indicate that
Christianity was initially a Jewish sect, which sect eventually evolved into
a separate religious tradition. The weight of scholarly opinion favors my
view, Larry. Furthermore, while you *could* debate this, it would be an
irrelevent digression since we are talking about the King of Babylon, Helel
ben Sahar, and the fall from heaven.
___Larry___
If you look at the history of the use by rulers from Babylon it was a title,
much as the ruler of england is "Defender of the Faith" a title originally
given by the pope for the King's defense of catholicism
----
I do not recall that any Babylonian King took upon *himself* this particular
title of a fallen divinity. Rather, the title is applied TO him by the Bible
Prophet, by way of comparison. This same theme (the humbling of earthly
kings) appears in Psalm 82 and elsewhere, as I have noted.
___Larry___
if we apply the logic you use, that means QEII is really catholic
----
Since I have not claimed that Babylonian Kings took upon themselves this
particular divine name, your argument is moot. YOU are the one making this
claim -- not me. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated your point by citing
any authoritative source. You have provided nothing here but your
unsubstantiated opinion.
___JSW___
The subject of "Lucifer" as a fallen "god" or "angel" is fully discussed in
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr. _The Assembly of the Gods:The Divine Council in
Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature_, Harvard Semitic Monographs Number
24, Scholar's Press 1980. The passage in Isaiah does not stand alone. There
are a number of other passages in the Hebrew Bible which refer to various
aspects of this same tradtion.

___Larry___
And that would be fine, If that were valid contextually with what the
prophet was speaking of
and it wasn't
----

Indeed IT WAS! It makes PERFECT sense IN CONTEXT. The point of using this
myth is that the King of Babylon was considered an agent of the divine, and
a kind of god-man (see H.W.F. Saggs, "The Religious Role of the King," _The
Babylonians_, London: Folio Society, 1988 p. 291). In fact, he and his wife
ritually re-enacted the Sacred Marriage, during which the two represented
the god and goddess. This is the connection the Babylonian King had with the
divine. It is for this reason, apparently, that the Prophet Isaiah compares
him with Helel ben Sahar -- a divine being who, in Canaanite and early
Hebrew literature, had place in the Heavenly Assembly: "I will sit ... upon
the mount of congregation, in the sides of the north [i.e., on Mt. Zaphon]"
(Is. 14:13). This divine being FELL, as is indicated both in Isaiah 14 and
Psalm 82. By using this myth as a metaphor, Isaiah prophesies that in like
manner will King of Babylon fall,

and not only fall but die, to be ridiculed
by mortal men, his body left unburied as carrion (Is. 14:19).
Again, the point of this discussion, you will recall, is to note that the
name Helel ben Sahar was not merely a name used by the King of Babylon.
Rather, it was a divine name. As my own Oxford Edition commentary of this
passage states:

"Heb. 'Helal son of Shahar,' possibly meaning 'Day Star, son of Dawn,' and
reflecting the names of deities."
Here, we have the name of a Canaanite/Ugaritic deity symbolically applied
to the King of Babylon.

This name -- "Helal son of Shahar" or "Helel ben Sahar" is rendered as a
proper name in the Bible -- i.e., as "Lucifer." Again, while it is intended
to identify the King of Babylon, it is a reference to the Canaanite myth of
a fallen deity, as discussed in Mullen's book.

Cheers,
Joe Swick
Heretic