Why did Lucifer and his angels rebel

[The Dream Master]

what do you think about this matter  

[ioioouiouiouio]

I do believe the accepted answer is that Lucifer was prideful and thought that he could overthrow God and take over heaven. The whole, you know, ruling existance part was certainly tempting.  

[LittlePinky82]

I think this saying is appropriate: absolute power corrupts absolutley.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

LittlePinky82

I think this saying is appropriate: absolute power corrupts absolutley.

Actually, that phrase is pretty stupid when held up to the fact that God has absolute power.  

[Tarrou]

Lucifer didn't rebel; Satan did. It's a common misconception that Lucifer is another name for Satan, but a misconception nonetheless. Satan is supposedly referred to as Lucifer—the morning star—in Isaiah 14:12. However, in that context 'Lucifer' is actually a reference to the king of Babylonian (Isaiah 14:3).  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

Lucifer didn't rebel; Satan did. It's a common misconception that Lucifer is another name for Satan, but a misconception nonetheless. Satan is supposedly referred to as Lucifer—the morning star—in Isaiah 14:12. However, in that context 'Lucifer' is actually a reference to the king of Babylonian (Isaiah 14:3).

The Satan's kingdom is often referred to as babylon, so it could mean either the physical kingdom, the spiritual kingdom, or both, really.  

[Tarrou]

Cometh The Inquisitor

The Satan's kingdom is often referred to as babylon, so it could mean either the physical kingdom, the spiritual kingdom, or both, really.

Except that Isaiah 14 really is about Babylon, the kingdom. That whole book is a bunch of prophecies about Israel and the nations that oppose it, and Isaiah 14:1-23 is a continuation of the prophecy against Babylon that began in Isaiah 13. It's followed by prophecies against or about Assyria, Moab, Damascus, Cush, and Egypt. It would be very bizarre if out of all of those, the prophecy against Babylon was a metaphor for Satan's 'Babylon' (while the others really were prophecies against nations contemporary to Israel), especially since reading it that way would give it an apocalyptic bent that would be out of step with the rest of Isaiah.
I should also point out that Lucifer is a Latin word, and as such appears nowhere in the original text. It is a translation of the Hebrew Helel ben Shaḥar, which means 'the brilliant one'. Additionally, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that, 'It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star.' [1]
Lucifer is a misapplied appellation when used to refer to Satan.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Tangled Up In Blue

Except that Isaiah 14 really is about Babylon, the kingdom. That whole book is a bunch of prophecies about Israel and the nations that oppose it, and Isaiah 14:1-23 is a continuation of the prophecy against Babylon that began in Isaiah 13. It's followed by prophecies against or about Assyria, Moab, Damascus, Cush, and Egypt. It would be very bizarre if out of all of those, the prophecy against Babylon was a metaphor for Satan's 'Babylon' (while the others really were prophecies against nations contemporary to Israel), especially since reading it that way would give it an apocalyptic bent that would be out of step with the rest of Isaiah.
I should also point out that Lucifer is a Latin word, and as such appears nowhere in the original text. It is a translation of the Hebrew Helel ben Shaḥar, which means 'the brilliant one'. Additionally, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that, 'It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star.' [1]
Lucifer is a misapplied appellation when used to refer to Satan.

Hm.. I suppose that makes sense.  

[Chronowatcher]

Your answer  

[koreanusher]

Satan did because of his pride  

[koreanusher]

Tangled Up In Blue

Lucifer didn't rebel; Satan did. It's a common misconception that Lucifer is another name for Satan, but a misconception nonetheless. Satan is supposedly referred to as Lucifer—the morning star—in Isaiah 14:12. However, in that context 'Lucifer' is actually a reference to the king of Babylonian (Isaiah 14:3).

before Satan rebelled his name was lucifel. the -el means of God. there is a big different between that and -erxD  

[Berezi]

koreanusher

Tangled Up In Blue

Lucifer didn't rebel; Satan did. It's a common misconception that Lucifer is another name for Satan, but a misconception nonetheless. Satan is supposedly referred to as Lucifer—the morning star—in Isaiah 14:12. However, in that context 'Lucifer' is actually a reference to the king of Babylonian (Isaiah 14:3).

before Satan rebelled his name was lucifel. the -el means of God. there is a big different between that and -erxD

Now where did you get that from?  

[Stxitxchxes]

Better question is where the basis of this belief in Satan rebelling comes from, as it's something the Jewish community has constantly looked at the Christian community for and gone, 'Huh?'  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Stxitxchxes

Better question is where the basis of this belief in Satan rebelling comes from, as it's something the Jewish community has constantly looked at the Christian community for and gone, 'Huh?'

Mainly, from what I hear, the whole 'God cursing The Satan' for that forbidden fruit incident. It just doesn't seem very like God to punish people for following Him.  

[Tarrou]

Stxitxchxes

Better question is where the basis of this belief in Satan rebelling comes from, as it's something the Jewish community has constantly looked at the Christian community for and gone, 'Huh?'

I suspect it has to do with theodicy. Given that Satan's role in Christianity is that of a purveyor of evil, it's necessary for Christians to believe that he rebelled. Otherwise, he would be doing evil while still in the service of God, which would in turn lead to the conclusion that God actively works evil in the world. This is considered to be, shall we say, unacceptable.