Finished watching the video.

Christopher.spurling said
I’m not asking the question to create a reconstructionist approach to ancient religion, just to learn more about how Lucifer was seen socially, religiously, and how that changed over time. NOTE: This has nothing to do with Satan-worship! Pagans generally venerate nature and natural forces that pre-date Christianity. 
Thanks all!
  

I am curious about the evolution of the Christian antagonist character. 

This is very interesting story: roman-catholics are trying to convince us he was once protagonist. I accidentally learned about that period trying to figure out arianism, and whether or not Arius was condemned rightly. In my own blog I deal with that question:

But you don't have to follow me, 1 quick search, and voilà:

Saint Lucifer (Bishop of Cagliari, Sardinia) was originally a devoted champion of Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria. Lucifer bravely represented Pope Liberius at the Council of Milan (355), where he vehemently defended Athanasius against pro-Arian bishops and Emperor Constantius II, leading to his own exile. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

Another research would bring us to Andrew of caesarea who claimed analyzing the book of revelation that  is perfectly okay to use the same term LUCIFER for JESUS AND SAINTS, AND ALSO FOR THE DEVIL

We could make the suggestion, then, the Nephilim came from the constellation Orion.

= = = =

The stars in the Orion constellation do not share a single distance from Earth; they are scattered in 3D space between 240 and 2,000 light-years away.

So, it's a contradiction...

Steefen
Another contradiction.

Biglino
A god should be omnipresent but Yahweh can leave / cannot be present.

Pick up at 37:13.

In the DSS, Abraham swore his fidelity to Elyon not to Yahweh.
Elyon is not Yahweh.

Psalm 82: there is an assembly of Elohim.

God presides in the divine assembly;

He renders judgment among the gods:** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **

and show partiality to the wicked? ...

I have said, ‘You are gods;

you are all sons of the Most High.’** you do not have permission to see this link **

** you do not have permission to see this link **But like mortals you will die,

and like rulers you will fall.”

The Elohim, for example like Yahweh, were governors, somewhat--Yahweh ruled only over the family of Jacob.

Steefen:
A local god.

Mauro Biglino:
Separate Hebrews and Israel because Yahweh was only for the family of Israel/Jacob.

The Elohim were flesh and blood.

The ancient theologians allegorized and spiritualized the texts that spoke of the Elohim.

The Bible speaks of a multiplicity of beings ruling over various peoples. There are members of the Vatican and rabbis who agree with me. Monotheism is a culprit.

Biblical history is not what is narrated by theologians.

Project Unity (the interviewer):
Theologians dug themselves into a hole.

The first part of the Bible is a copy of the history of Sumer. So, we have something weird: The original is the myth and the copy is the truth.

pick up at 28:34.

56K views 1 day ago

YouTube Channel: Project Unity
Video: The Vatican Fired Him for Revealing What the Bible Really Says!

49 ratings averaging 4.7 stars 86% are 5 stars, 93% are 4 stars are better.

I know this book is not in the bibliography of my book, Historical Accuracy.

I loved her commentary on Lamentations, the Kindle of which is priced at $5.99. The Song of Songs at $83.99!

I imagine I'll be able to get it through an interlibrary loan.

I support the author, when I'm allowed to.  If there is a book I wish to read and my attempts to acquire it by proper methods are frustrated then I am perforce* left to resort to... other methods.  

*Hey, I got to use 'perforce' in a sentence!  How often does that happen?  

Perhaps, I might start reading ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and afterwards summarizing them. 

I'm reading ** you do not have permission to see this link **, by Susan Haskins a scholar and art historian.  The book traces views of Mary Magdalen in literature and art from the NT to the present day.  Hippolytus of Rome (c. 165 – c. 235 AD) wrote the earliest surviving Christian commentary on the Song of Songs.  It was written in the early third century and survives only in scattered fragments.  

Hippolytus identified the forlorn lover of Song 3 with Mary Magdalen and her longing for the missing Jesus after the Resurrection.

Upon my bed at night

I sought him whom my soul loves;

I sought him, but found him not;

I called him, but he gave no answer.

I will rise now and go about the city,

in the streets and in the squares;

I will seek him whom my soul loves.’

I sought him, but found him not.

The sentinels found me,

as they went about in the city.

‘Have you seen him whom my soul loves?’

Scarcely had I passed them,

when I found him whom my soul loves.

I held him, and would not let him go...

Haskins speculates that Hippolytus' commentary on this passage is the ultimate source of the idea of a, ahem, "special" relationship between Mary and Jesus that so seized the imagination of later commentators and interpreters like the gnostics.  Both Jews and Christians early on took a mystical interpretation of the Song, and Haskins cautions against assigning motives to Hippolytus we can't ever know, but you would have to be almost deliberately purblind to ignore the eroticism of this text.  

Perhaps we can take counsel here from our Hindu friends who when asked will tell you that the greatest image of spiritual love is sexual ecstasy!  How so?   Because that is the moment when you are most taken out of your "self" and merged into the Self.    The Children of Abraham (Jews, Christians, Muslims) have always had a hard time with this idea.  Like Augustine, sex is fine with them as long as you don't enjoy it. 

Sometimes it amuses me to imagine growing up in a tradition with no Fall and capable of depictions like ** you do not have permission to see this link **.  Not on bordellos but on Temples!  

Good poetry reminds me of what life should be: an experience –  the only way to live is to be engaged in living.

Is that your translation? 

No not really.  I checked my reading against a couple online versions, selecting the phrases I preferred. But the power of Neruda's language is his concreteness.

There are just not many ways you can translate   

Quiero hacer contigo
lo que la primavera hace con los cerezos.

I want
to do with you what spring does with the cherry trees.

but wow!  

(Just by way of experimentation I ran that last line through an AI translator and it came up with the identical reading.  Even the robots cannot improve on perfection!)