Just who in the hell is Satan anyway?

[mactonite]

I was always taught that Satan(or the devil) was this evil mastermind roaming the earth, sticking anybody that gets in his path with his pitchfork. He is usually portrayed as the opposite of G-d, the ultimate adversary. However, in my studies of Judaism, Satan is generally looked at as a servant of G-d. For instance:

In Job chapter 1, we see Satan as a servant answering to G-d: And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

And then using Satan to test Job: Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears G-d and shuns evil?”

We also see G-d confirming that evil is allowed in Deuteronomy 30 verse 15:
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil".

Even Jesus referred to Peter as Satan in Mark 8:33 with the famous phrase "get behind me, Satan". Was this idea of Satan perhaps changed to a more evil entity when the Jews mingled with other popular religions of those times? Please keep in mind that this is strictly from a secular observation of the bible.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by mactonite

I was always taught that Satan(or the devil) was this evil mastermind roaming the earth, sticking anybody that gets in his path with his pitchfork. He is usually portrayed as the opposite of G-d, the ultimate adversary. However, in my studies of Judaism, Satan is generally looked at as a servant of G-d. For instance:

In Job chapter 1, we see Satan as a servant answering to G-d: And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

And then using Satan to test Job: Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears G-d and shuns evil?”

We also see G-d confirming that evil is allowed in Deuteronomy 30 verse 15:
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil".

Even Jesus referred to Peter as Satan in Mark 8:33 with the famous phrase "get behind me, Satan". Was this idea of Satan perhaps changed to a more evil entity when the Jews mingled with other popular religions of those times? Please keep in mind that this is strictly from a secular observation of the bible.

In this story no only is evil allowed its G-d doing the evil.

[TimCallahan]

In the Hebrew scriptures the being we call Satan is referred to as ha satan, Hebrew for "the adversary" or "the accuser." It's important to remember that this being is almost always referred to in this fashion, with satan preceded by the Hebrew definite article ha ("the").

"Satan" didn't become a name until it was used in the Christian scriptures, which were written in Greek. He also was not the focus of evil until they were written (ca. CE 70 - 90). For example, the Book of Enoch, a popular apocalyptic work written ca. 160 BCE, the pre-flood patriarch Enoch tells of an angelic revolt. The "watcher" angels, so called because they were to watch over the human race, instead have sex with human women, begetting the Nephilim, teach men how to make weapons and wage war, as well as teaching them magic, and, of course raise a revolt against God. Their leader is called Semihazi in some parts of Enoch and Azazel in others. The Book of Enoch seems to have been a composite work. The important thing here is that the leader of the angelic revolt in this fairly late work is not called "Satan."

I don't know where Satan, as opposed to ha satan, fits in modern Judaism.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

In the Hebrew scriptures the being we call Satan is referred to as ha satan, Hebrew for "the adversary" or "the accuser." It's important to remember that this being is almost always referred to in this fashion, with satan preceded by the Hebrew definite article ha ("the").

"Satan" didn't become a name until it was used in the Christian scriptures, which were written in Greek. He also was not the focus of evil until they were written (ca. CE 70 - 90). For example, the Book of Enoch, a popular apocalyptic work written ca. 160 BCE, the pre-flood patriarch Enoch tells of an angelic revolt. The "watcher" angels, so called because they were to watch over the human race, instead have sex with human women, begetting the Nephilim, teach men how to make weapons and wage war, as well as teaching them magic, and, of course raise a revolt against God. Their leader is called Semihazi in some parts of Enoch and Azazel in others. The Book of Enoch seems to have been a composite work. The important thing here is that the leader of the angelic revolt in this fairly late work is not called "Satan."

I don't know where Satan, as opposed to ha satan, fits in modern Judaism.

Interesting. When does the name "Lucifer" come into the picture?

[mactonite]

Hmmm... I will have to check out Enoch.

Not to get too far off of the subject but I wonder why Revelations was canonized. It seems that the whole book is out the window if Satan is not the same as the Jewish bible. My first question is who wrote the prologue? It seems like someone added it, perhaps a scribe?

[kedo1981]

Simple IT'S ALL MADE UP B.S.

[Weak Kitten]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

Simple IT'S ALL MADE UP B.S.

Yeah. But sometimes it's fun to track where the B.S. comes from. I really enjoy a good historical analysis of mythology.

I remember hearing somewhere, can't recall the source, that most of the depictions of the Lord and his angels in Jewish mythology are based on the Babylonian court. It's not uncommon for depictions of deities to reflect the ruling class in the culture they originate from or other powerful cultures in the area.

Does anyone know much about Babylonian court structure? Was there an "adversary" position?

[Bikewer]

As I recall, the story of Lucifer and the "war in heaven" which resulted in him being cast out was not added to scripture till much later.
The Lucifer figure was sort of melded with the earlier descriptions of "the accuser" and also with Pagan god-figures like Pan to make up the Medieval "Devil" or "Satan".
A sort of evolutionary process....

[TragicMonkey]

Satan is God's ex.

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Satan is God's ex.

And she's rather sexy.

[mactonite]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

And she's rather sexy.

Nice. I didn't even know Mr. Deity existed. I will definitely need to explore this further.

[mactonite]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Yeah. But sometimes it's fun to track where the B.S. comes from. I really enjoy a good historical analysis of mythology.

I agree it is enjoyable. Also, since it is so ingrained into our society, it's fun to know what all of these people believe.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by mactonite

Just who in the hell is Satan anyway?

Someone I assist

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Interesting. When does the name "Lucifer" come into the picture?

I've got a Revised Standard Version that doesn't even use the name "Lucifer", only referring to "The Day Star", which I believe is the literal translation. It is referring explicitly to a king of Babylon, and describing his defeat. The passage is in Isaiah chapter 14, and is very clear about this being a human leader.
Satan is only associated with the "ancient serpent, the devil" in Revelation 20, even though most Christians assume that Satan is the incarnation of evil throughout the Bible. Other verses reference the "devil", but Satan is not associated with anyone but God, as far as I can tell, for nearly the whole Bible. He is, as was mentioned above, considered "the adversary," one whose job is to challenge Gods subjects, but always with God's permission.

Oh, and as to the OP's title, Hell isn't mentioned until the New Testament, the ancient Hebrews used a general abode of all the dead called Sheol.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Interesting. When does the name "Lucifer" come into the picture?

Lucifer is Latin for "Light Bringer" another variation on Morning Star or Day Star. Morning Star (Venus, which is also the Evening Star) is used as a title to reference one who ascends to glory quickly and usually falls from glory even quicker. If I recall correctly it is used in a few different ways as well. In the old testament variations of this are used in reference to the King of Babylon. The Fall of Satan in the Christian sense is taken from this. A few instances in the bible use lucifer in the Latin translations that are not references to a person. In Revelations the Morning Star is referenced in poetic ways, and this is translated the same in the Latin. Fortunate for Christians who believe in a Lucifer character since one reference is Jesus refering to himself and that would be really confusing.

The story of Satan in Christian mythology is a patchwork of stories that have been bound into being about a single entity. This happened partially through contextual misunderstandings.

[bozman]

Originally Posted by mactonite

However, in my studies of Judaism, Satan is generally looked at as a servant of G-d. For instance:

Wait, you mean Gad? Or Gud? Or maybe Gyd?

[FreshHat]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Someone I assist

...assuming you play on the same line:

[mactonite]

Originally Posted by bozman

Wait, you mean Gad? Or Gud? Or maybe Gyd?

Ha, I knew this would come up and I should have addressed it in the beginning(no pun intended). I have been studying Judaism too much. They try to avoid writing the name of God and usually substitute a dash for the o.

[Bill Thompson]

he is Elohem's son and Jesus' brother, actually. Consult your LDS scripture. There is a youtube video showing what mormonism is really about somewhere.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[bozman]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Consult your LDS scripture.

You mean the Book of Mormon? The same book which says Mesoamerican people possessed steel and iron technology before Europeans arrived? And that they had animals which didn't exist on the continent at the time, like goats, horses and elephants? And that Native Americans are actually the descends from people who came to the Americas by boat from the Middle East?

Could just be me, but I'm starting to think that the Book of Mormon may have some serious credibility issues...

[Bill Thompson]

Originally Posted by bozman

You mean the Book of Mormon? The same book which says Mesoamerican people possessed steel and iron technology before Europeans arrived? And that they had animals which didn't exist on the continent at the time, like goats, horses and elephants? And that Native Americans are actually the descends from people who came to the Americas by boat from the Middle East?

Could just be me, but I'm starting to think that the Book of Mormon may have some serious credibility issues...

This discussion thread is asking who a mythological figure is to begin with. I am sorry, I assumed everyone was on that level of understanding to begin with.

But if you want my real opion, the only real "satan" or "devil" is ignorance and uneducation etc.

[TimCallahan]

It occurred to me that the beginning of the shift from ha satan, "the Accuser" to Satan can be seen in the Book of Zechariah. Using the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 version of the Masoretic Text, let's look at Zech. 3:1, 2:

He [God] further showed me Joshua, the high priest, standing before the angel of the LORD, and the Accuser standing at his right to accuse him. But the angel of the LORD said to the Accuser, "The LORD rebuke you , O Accuser; may the LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! For this is a brand plucked from the fire."

In the succeeding verses, Joshua is depicted as wearing filthy garments. The angel commands that the filthy clothes be removed and that Joshua be given priestly robes and that a diadem be placed on his head. The angel tells Joshua (v. 4), "See, I have removed your guilt from you, and you shall be clothed in priestly robes."

The word translated as "rebuke" is, in Hebrew, ga-ar, and means chide, reprove or rebuke. The portion of Zechariah (which seems to be a composite work) containing the verses above was written ca. 520 BCE, early in the reign of Darius I of Persia. The passages above (Zech. 3:1 - 4) would seem to contain the germ of two ideas. One is that since the angel of the LORD rebukes ha satan, the latter now might begin to be seen as opposing God, rather than acting as his prosecutor. This idea could have come from Zoroastrian influences on the worship of Yahweh.

That the high priest Joshua is described in v. 2 as, "a brand plucked from the fire," that he is originally in filthy garments, and the fact that when they are exchanged for priestly robes,the angel tells Joshua, "See, I have removed your guilt from you," all point to the beginnings of the idea of salvation by divine grace. The positive side of salvation by grace is that God loves and saves us, even though we are estranged from him. The negative side of the concept of grace is found in two implications of the doctrine. First, in order to require grace we must in ourselves be implicitly unworthy of salvation. Second, since Joshua was a brand snatched from the fire, the possibility (or even probability) exists that we might not be given divine grace. This leads to the concept of double predestination as expressed in Paul's epistle to the Romans.

It seem to me that the concept of Satan as opposed to ha satan developed hand-in-hand with the concept of salvation by grace, both of which are not fully developed until expressed in the Christian scriptures.

[ToddH]

Well, there are all manner of lesser imps and demons, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by mactonite

I was always taught that Satan(or the devil) was this evil mastermind roaming the earth, sticking anybody that gets in his path with his pitchfork. He is usually portrayed as the opposite of G-d, the ultimate adversary. However, in my studies of Judaism, Satan is generally looked at as a servant of G-d. For instance:

In Job chapter 1, we see Satan as a servant answering to G-d: And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

And then using Satan to test Job: Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears G-d and shuns evil?”

We also see G-d confirming that evil is allowed in Deuteronomy 30 verse 15:
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil".

Even Jesus referred to Peter as Satan in Mark 8:33 with the famous phrase "get behind me, Satan". Was this idea of Satan perhaps changed to a more evil entity when the Jews mingled with other popular religions of those times? Please keep in mind that this is strictly from a secular observation of the bible.

Meet my ex-wife sometime and you will have your answer.

[Weak Kitten]

Originally Posted by mactonite

I agree it is enjoyable. Also, since it is so ingrained into our society, it's fun to know what all of these people believe.

I think the real trick is not just in figuring out where this mythological character comes from but also trying to understand what people actually believe about it today.

Personally, when I read the ancient Greek myths and the like I find myself wondering just how many people in their culture really believed in all of that stuff. Where many of them just as skeptical as we are today and just went along with it as a cultural heritage?

[mactonite]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

This idea could have come from Zoroastrian influences on the worship of Yahweh.

It seem to me that the concept of Satan as opposed to ha satan developed hand-in-hand with the concept of salvation by grace, both of which are not fully developed until expressed in the Christian scriptures.

The Zoroastrians were a bigger influence back then which explains a lot of Christian beliefs. The virgin birth, the rising from the dead, etc...

[mactonite]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

I think the real trick is not just in figuring out where this mythological character comes from but also trying to understand what people actually believe about it today.

Personally, when I read the ancient Greek myths and the like I find myself wondering just how many people in their culture really believed in all of that stuff. Where many of them just as skeptical as we are today and just went along with it as a cultural heritage?

I live in an area that probably has 30-40 churches, in one city! That may be a low estimate. I know a few, at least, that fully believe in the Pauline teachings of the New Testament word for word. I know this because I am a former member of one. There is no questioning the teachings of the bible at these establishments which are attended by intelligent people. How can a grown intelligent person be told a story as unbelievable as the bible and not have one question about it?

[bynmdsue]

Originally Posted by ToddH

Well, there are all manner of lesser imps and demons, but the great Satan hisself is red and scaly with a bifurcated tail, and he carries a hay fork.

Oh, no. No, sir.
He's white. As white as you folks.
With empty eyes and a big, hollow voice.
He travelled around with a mean old hound, that's right.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by kedo1981

Simple IT'S ALL MADE UP B.S.

Well, I don't know if that'd pass muster with Occam's Razor, but...

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[Beerina]

This thread is progressing along what I've picked up over the years. Basically:

"Satan" = Advocate, a rhetorical device used to probe the ways and mind of God. He was a contrarian to God for the purpose of debate, rather than literally opposed, as in a Devil sense. Note Tim's emphasis on "the" being used with this word in every case. It might be interesting to study whether and when "The Advocate" began to be interpreted as a proper name in Biblical times, as well as post-Biblical up to modernity.

"Lucifer" = Light Bringer = Possibly (probably?) a mis-interpretation of a more literal "morning star" kind of thing, and not intended to be an actual being.

"Serpent" in Garden of Eden = A serpent, not the devil in disguise. It literally had legs that were removed because of this. Also not tieable to Advocate or Lucifer.


In some gnostic writings, the Serpent is the hero of Genesis, giving humans the knowledge of good and evil, which the defective god was keeping from Adam and Eve to keep them worshipping serfs.

[TimCallahan]

Some of Satan's physical accouterments - horns, cloven hooves and tail - probably resulted from the demonization of nature spirits. Early on, the Hebrew scriptures were against local nature spirits. Consider the reason the children of Israel were to make their burnt offerings at the Tabernacle (read "Temple"), rather than elsewhere (Lev. 17:7a):

So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs after whom they play the harlot . . .

That's the Revised Standard Version. The King James Version refers to the beings in question as "devils." In the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 edition of the Jewish scriptures (Tanakh) they are referred to as "goat demons." The actual word in Hebrew variously translated as satyrs, devils and goat demons is seirim, meaning literally, "shaggy ones" (Seir was another name given to Jacob's fraternal twin, Esau, because he was born covered with hair).

It's a fair bet that the Hebrew seirim were not unlike the Greek satyrs and Roman fauns. As nature spirits, they would have been associated with the old religion that was based on a cyclic view of time and whose festivals were linked to seasons and harvests. As the worship of Yahweh was converted to a linear / historic view of time, the festivals, origiinally seasonal, were given historical rationales. Thus, the festival of first fruits was converted into the "historical" celebration of the Passover. Quite a bit later, the winter solstice celebration - characterized by lighting candles, as a ritual form of sympathetic magic, inducing the sun to return - was converted into the history-based celebration of Channakuh.

So, in both Judaism and Christianity, the demonization of nature spirits, already begun in Leviticus (variously estimated to have been written in the reign of Hezekiah or during the Exile) accelerated. Just as country folk were "pagans," so nature spirits, such as Pan, the satyrs and the fauns, visualized with horns and hooves, were blended with Satan and his demons, giving us the modern bearded Satan, with horns, cloven hooves, tail and pitchfork. I'm not sure were the red color came from.

[Vortigern99]

The red color surely derives from flame and/or blood, both of which evoke horror in the viewer's mind.

Great post, BTW, Tim.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Satan" = Advocate, a rhetorical device used to probe the ways and mind of God. He was a contrarian to God for the purpose of debate, rather than literally opposed, as in a Devil sense. Note Tim's emphasis on "the" being used with this word in every case. It might be interesting to study whether and when "The Advocate" began to be interpreted as a proper name in Biblical times, as well as post-Biblical up to modernity.

The idea I've seen put forward so far, by TimCallahan and others, is that ha-Satan means 'the Accuser', not 'the Advocate' as you've suggested. The Arabic form, ash-Shaytan, is translated as 'the Adversary'. That clarified, I concur with the rest of your paragraph.

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Lucifer" = Light Bringer = Possibly (probably?) a mis-interpretation of a more literal "morning star" kind of thing, and not intended to be an actual being.

'Lucifer' is an actual being in some passages and not in others. The Fallen Serpent has shown that "In the old testament variations of this [name Lucifer] are used in reference to the King of Babylon", in the sense that Lucifer "is used as a title to reference one who ascends to glory quickly and usually falls from glory even quicker". Since this description also refers to the Angel who opposed God and fell, it is correct to apply it as a title to that entity who is also called Satan, the Adversary.

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Serpent" in Garden of Eden = A serpent, not the devil in disguise. It literally had legs that were removed because of this. Also not tieable to Advocate or Lucifer.

The link between the serpent and 'the Adversary' is made expressly in Revelations 12:9 -- "that old serpent, Satan" -- so the two certainly are "tieable", literally, in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Beerina

In some gnostic writings, the Serpent is the hero of Genesis, giving humans the knowledge of good and evil, which the defective god was keeping from Adam and Eve to keep them worshipping serfs.

So-called gnostic writings are extremely dissimilar from all other forms of Christianity, so it should come as no surprise that the gnostic Genesis account differs so drastically from the canonical version in the Torah and all other forms of the Bible that scholars recognize.

That said, it's intriguing to contemplate the degree of influence this "heroic", wisdom-imparting serpent had over early worshippers in the Levant and the Fertile Crescent, and at what point (if any) his heroic persona was degraded to that of a Betrayer, an Accuser and Adversary.

[mactonite]

This has been great information so far. Thanks! If there really were a Satan, I suppose he would rule over Las Vegas.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by mactonite

If there really were a Satan, I suppose he would rule over Las Vegas.

Yeah, that or Detroit*.

*Disclaimer: I have never been to Detroit, except for a brief stay at an airport there; however, I am assured by several persons that it is a hellish town rife with malevolence of both biblical and worldly proportions.

[PDoug]

Originally Posted by mactonite

I was always taught that Satan(or the devil) was this evil mastermind roaming the earth, sticking anybody that gets in his path with his pitchfork. He is usually portrayed as the opposite of G-d, the ultimate adversary. However, in my studies of Judaism, Satan is generally looked at as a servant of G-d. For instance:

In Job chapter 1, we see Satan as a servant answering to G-d: And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”

And then using Satan to test Job: Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears G-d and shuns evil?”

We also see G-d confirming that evil is allowed in Deuteronomy 30 verse 15:
“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil".

Satan was a member of the godhead, and was hence God. He however rebelled against the godhead, and sought to establish his own kingdom - above the godhead.

Satan is not a servant of God, but he does serve God's interest - as does all things. The point of God creating Lucifer and having him rebel to become Satan, is to provide man; all things in this world; and the rest of the Godhead, an adversary, so that they might significantly grow. Just as a soldier becomes enormously skilled through combat, or a student's mind becomes developed through the strain of education, God found it necessary to subject the world to the wickedness of Satan to stimulate it's growth.

Originally Posted by mactonite

Even Jesus referred to Peter as Satan in Mark 8:33 with the famous phrase "get behind me, Satan". Was this idea of Satan perhaps changed to a more evil entity when the Jews mingled with other popular religions of those times? Please keep in mind that this is strictly from a secular observation of the bible.

Anything that is separated from God becomes evil. God is the source of all goodness, and if something is cut off from God, so will its goodness. Evil or wickedness is akin to the condition of a branch that falls from a tree, which shrivels up and becomes ugly, as a result of it being cut off from the source of its nutrients.

It's important to note that Satan is not the only source of evil. There are wicked beings besides the angels that were kicked out of heaven, who rule this world:

Ephesians 6

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Yeah. But sometimes it's fun to track where the B.S. comes from. I really enjoy a good historical analysis of mythology.

I remember hearing somewhere, can't recall the source, that most of the depictions of the Lord and his angels in Jewish mythology are based on the Babylonian court. It's not uncommon for depictions of deities to reflect the ruling class in the culture they originate from or other powerful cultures in the area. Sentences were prescribed by law for every imaginable offence.
http://democraciaparticipativa.net/d...#39;sCode.html

Does anyone know much about Babylonian court structure? Was there an "adversary" position?

There was no adversary position in Babylonian court structure, There was a judge, and the plaintiff and the accused, the case was heard, the judge would adjudicate and the law was followed on every resulting sentence.

According to Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270 AD), all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon.

The idea of having an adversary was from the crowning act of the chief deity, who would have to overcome some powerful foe to gain the chief position. This is true for many mythologies and not just the Babylonian.

In Babylonia the God Bel Marduk had to overcome the ferocious dragon Tiamat, who threatened to destroy the Gods. Tiamat was described as a great red dragon.

A God who hadn't accomplished anything wasn't worthy of worship

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

the satyrs and the fauns, visualized with horns and hooves, were blended with Satan and his demons, giving us the modern bearded Satan, with horns, cloven hooves, tail and pitchfork. I'm not sure were the red color came from.

Red is not just a colour, its also a description of mood
red = angry
Tiamat was always described as red, yet always depicted in art as yellow.
we still do this today,
the red mist
red faced/red with anger
etc

[The Fallen Serpent]

Plus Tim Curry looked phenomenal in red with black highlights. All of the previous century's worth of adversaries to the gods being in red was just to prepare for that.

[gambling_cruiser]

To the OP:
Satan is CEO of Hell.inc
And no he doesn't rule Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman is still Mayor.

[C_Felix]

Originally Posted by PDoug

Satan was a member of the godhead, and was hence God. He however rebelled against the godhead, and sought to establish his own kingdom - above the godhead.

That's pretty much the way I remember hearing it.

The he was an angel, named Lucifer, possibly even being St. Lucifer.
He challenged God for the top spot, and God won, and banished him to hell.


Its also worth noting that the second sun in 2010 is named Lucifer, the light bringer.