LUCIFER is neither a DIABOLUS nor a Śāṭān &c. per se

but just a male angel: the morning star, guiding them to yēšūaʿ?

φως­φό­ρος/LU­CIFER/לוציפר, VENUS (masc.), son of the dawn & her­ald of the light is no διάβολος (DIABOLUS/devil) nor a שָׂטָן (śāṭān) &c. per sē, but just a male an­gel, hav­ing the worst rep­u­ta­tion in the (known) uni­verse. may­be a demon to some, a ‘fallen an­gel’ to the same, sin­ners & sa­tanists.

yəšaʿyāhū 14:12:

אֵ֛יךְ נָפַ֥לְתָּ מִשָּׁמַ֖יִם הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָּׁ֑חַר נִגְדַּ֣עְתָּ לָאָ֔רֶץ חוֹלֵ֖שׁ עַל־גּוֹיִֽם:

(en.: ‘how you have fall­en from heav­en, said hillel ben-sahar; you have been brought down to the earth, a bur­den to the na­tions.’)

the story is about a fal­len king of baby­lon. LUCIFER (herald of the light) doesn’t even ap­pear in the tanakh.
[amend^prs.] his whole (known) iden­ti­ty is man made. why should there be a fight bet­ween an­gels? el is שדאי (shadday), om­nipo­tent and doesn’t need a michael. it’s the pre­server­esses of her cre­ation, our mothers, who ban­ish sa­tans to hell every day.

rea­gan once stated ‘it takes two to tango.’ no light with­out dark­ness. no good with­out evil. no great­ness with­out small squares. venus to some, devil to others. did he, the morning star, led the kings to yēšūaʿ? did he vis­it mary prior, be­cause of an an­gel be­ing male?

© 2004 ger­hard hü­de­pohl: venus and the moon over paranal