sometime sun;155168 wrote:
Thanks, so I looked it up and it turns out that "Lucifer" is Latin and only indirectly Greek. Lucifer means "light bringer" rather than Morning Star and I knew that already. Venus at dawn is called "the light bringer" because it precedes the Sun. In any case, and in any Mediterranean language of the time Morning Star, light bringer et al means the same thing.
Wikipedia as usual, has great information
Lucifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's really a bit of a mess. Is Venus at Dawn bad or good?
Add to this a general distrust of "wandering stars" (what we now call planets) in Jude 1:13 and also in the book of Enoch and I think what we are really looking at is a conflict of opinion about whether or not Venus at Dawn is to be trusted.
Jude is attributed to James, the brother of Jesus as is the book of James. Both of these books are distinctly Hebrew-centric when compared to the rest of the New Testament. The Gospels are like advertisements to all who "have ears to hear" and the Gospel of John is heavily influenced by Hellenistic (i.e. not Hebraic) thought and mysticism. Here we must remember that Hebrew culture had been in crisis because of the growing infiltration of Greek culture ever since Alexander the Great if not before.
Of course Paul explicitly opened up the whole project of salvation to the Gentiles.
Point being that Jude and James are closer to the Old Testament (and Enoch should be classed noncanonical Old Testament literature) than the rest of the New Testament is.
So, though we probably should not make too much of this, it seems that Venus at Dawn is a definite point of contention between the Old and the New. The Old uniformly condemns Venus at Dawn while the New, with the possible exception of Jude 1:13, glorifies it.
I'm guessing Milton new this.