MILTON'S PARADISE LOST & SATAN Audiolibro Por Guillermo Santamaria arte de portada

MILTON'S PARADISE LOST & SATAN

Muestra de Voz Virtual

$0.00 por los primeros 30 días

Prueba por $0.00
Escucha audiolibros, podcasts y Audible Originals con Audible Plus por un precio mensual bajo.
Escucha en cualquier momento y en cualquier lugar en tus dispositivos con la aplicación gratuita Audible.
Los suscriptores por primera vez de Audible Plus obtienen su primer mes gratis. Cancela la suscripción en cualquier momento.

MILTON'S PARADISE LOST & SATAN

De: Guillermo Santamaria
Narrado por: Virtual Voice
Prueba por $0.00

Escucha con la prueba gratis de Plus

Compra ahora por $3.99

Compra ahora por $3.99

OFERTA POR TIEMPO LIMITADO. Obtén 3 meses por US$0.99 al mes. Obtén esta oferta.
Background images

Este título utiliza narración de voz virtual

Voz Virtual es una narración generada por computadora para audiolibros..

Isaiah 14:12, with its phrase hêlēl ben-šāḥar (“shining one, son of dawn”), originally referred to the King of Babylon in the form of a prophetic taunt-song (Isa. 14:4). The image of the morning star (Venus) mocked the arrogant ruler who exalted himself as divine but was cast down to Sheol. In Jewish interpretation, the passage was seen as satire of a human king, not a story about Satan. Early Christian writers, however, such as Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian (2nd–3rd centuries), were the first to apply the verse allegorically to Satan’s fall. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th century) translated hêlēl as Lucifer (“light-bearer”), and Augustine made this identification doctrinal by teaching that Satan was the original “Lucifer” who fell through pride, establishing pride as the essence of sin. Medieval theologians such as Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas reinforced this reading, and the Reformers generally inherited it: Martin Luther allowed the dual meaning (Babylon’s king literally, Satan spiritually), while John Calvin insisted that the immediate sense applied only to Babylon’s king, though he admitted the king’s pride mirrored Satan’s rebellion. Particular Baptists such as John Gill and Benjamin Keach also followed the dual interpretation, reading the text as both a taunt of Babylon’s monarch and an allegory of Satan’s fall, while later preachers like Spurgeon quoted Milton and the tradition cautiously, always subordinating it to Scripture. In contrast, modern historical-critical scholarship, beginning in the Enlightenment and cemented in the 19th century, denied the dual sense entirely, arguing that Isaiah 14:12 is about the King of Babylon alone, and that the Lucifer = Satan connection was a later Christian invention. Old School Baptists like Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott exemplified this sober approach, avoiding the Lucifer tradition altogether and instead grounding their teaching about Satan in clearer texts such as Job 1–2, Matthew 4, and Revelation 12.

Angelología y Demonología Cristianismo Teología Teoría de Salvación Realeza Tradición
Todavía no hay opiniones