The figure we call Lucifer, often understood by Christians as a primary representation of Satan in the Biblical works is one of the more opaque Biblical figures we will cover. Much of this confusion may arise from the Roman name Lucifer that was ascribed to this Biblical figure who is known in the Hebrew as Helel ben Shaḥar.
In my estimation this figure is possibly a reference to a solar God, such as Apollo or Shamash. In other words, he is an Aryan figure akin in this way to Abaddon or Apollyon in Revelation 9 and the wolf-tailed beast of Revelation 13. Here it is worth noting that the book of Isaiah, believed to be the collected sayings of three separate prophets complied around 70 B.C., was an important inspiration and source for the Book of Revelations. But what is the evidence this figure we refer to as Lucifer is an Aryan figure?
In Isaiah 14 where he is mentioned, he appears to become a name or title for the King of Babylon or the King of Babel. There, in Isaiah14:4 it is indicated that following passages will constitute a “song of contempt against the king of Babylon.” It is during these following passages where the figure of “Lucifer” is derided. Right away this would seem to indicate to us that this devil, dissimilar from the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, is a non-Jewish figure.
Indeed, in the Book of Daniel, as this study discusses, the King of Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar maybe understood as an Aryan figure, with the understanding that world historical civilizations during their dominant and relevant periods are racially Aryan in the main and especially among their noble classes, even if Semitic in tongue or culture.
For example, in Daniel 2, the golden head of colossus appearing in a dream and a ninety foot golden idol appearing in Daniel 3, both come to symbolize the Babylonian King. Gold, the “solar metal,” as this study discusses, is an Aryan identifier. The parable of the Tower of Babel appearing in Genesis 11 is also relevant here. As this study explicates, the erection of the tower and its fall, ostensibly overseen by the figure of Nimrod, represents the rise and fall of an Aryan civilization in particular.
But let’s go to the only section in the Hebrew Bible where this figure we call Lucifer is mentioned:
“Your pomp and the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you, And worms are your covering.’ How you have fallen from heaven, morning star [shinning one/Lucifer], son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God [El]; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’
“But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: ‘Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?”
The key phrase above which is commonly translated in the English as “Lucifer” is “shining one, son of the dawn!” or Helel ben Shaḥar. Yet the term for “dawn,” Shahar, describes a deity that is perhaps best understood as distinct from or poorly correlated with the minor Roman God Lucifer. Shahar, a God of the Ugarit pantheon, was understood as the twin brother of Shalim, the god of Dusk. Together they were understood as representing the temporal structure of the day. 
Clearly, between the two brothers, a parabolic distinction between powers of light and darkness is developed where one, I argue, represents a firstborn, Aryan diurnal figure and the other a second born, inheriting, nocturnal Semitic figure. The two brothers are the son of El, hence may represent also something akin to, for example, the pairing of the Aryan figure of Esau and the proto-Jewish figure of Jacob as sons of Isaac. El is referred to as well by name in the Hebrew Biblical passage above as indicated. Here, in the singular, as opposed to the plural Elohim, he is presumed as one of the titles of the Jewish God.
That these brothers are sons of El, a figure also equated with Cronus, as this study discusses, suggests a Semitic hegemony. Thus the Aryan Shahar’s relationship to a Semitic El becomes akin to the Aryan Jupiter’s relationship to a Semitic Saturn. Yet with Shahar, in contrast with Jupiter, we see a failed rebellion against a Semitic God. This is born out in the Biblical passage but it is also suggested by the cyclical aspect attributed to Shahar as dawn especially in relationship to his brother Shalim. Here again we are given a sense of Yahweh, Cronus, El or Saturn as a God presiding over time or seasons, even the mini-“seasons” expressed in the temporal structure of the day.
Readers will be fascinated to learn that Jerusalem is commonly thought to take her name from Shalim. This, of course, is corroborative of my premise and suggests a Jewish affinity for this figure, in contrast to Shahar, father of “Lucifer.” This connection to Jerusalem is particularly relevant in the context of the Book of Isiah where it is prophesized that on the “Day of Yahweh” Jerusalem will become the center of Yahweh’s rule.
Here a Jewish fealty to dusk and the nocturnal is suggested. But, of course, this fealty to the Chthonic and nocturnal is found throughout JEM as this study reveals. One senses a fundamental nihilism in Judaism when he discovers that Shahar, שָׁ֫חַר, not only means “dawn” but “meaning,” “sense” and “significance” in the Modern Hebrew. Hence “Lucifer,” an opponent of Yahweh, is the son of “meaning,” “sense” and “significance.”
It’s worth noting that the adjective shachor, שָׁחֹר, meaning “black” in the Biblical Hebrew is close to Shahar. The adjective appears twice in the Song of Solomon but the context is revealing. After the Jewish lover in this text, understood as Yahweh by Jews, describes himself as black by this adjective, he indicates the reason: “I am dark, for the sun has looked upon me.”  Hence the sense of black here appears directly related to a darkening owned to solar exposure. “Black” here we understand, of course, as swarthy.
Later the same adjective is used to describe his hair as “black as a raven.” It’s speculation but this may be a direct reference to the myth which describes Apollo blackening the raven when it reports to him the infidelity of Coronis. In the Song of Solomon, anger from the sons of his mothers, is also given as the reason for this “blackening.” Here the Jewish God is condemned to work the vineyards, hence we are given a sense of Bacchus vis-à-vis Hyperborean brothers such as Apollo. This speculation certainly would be buttressed both by the use of the color black and the symbol of the raven in contemporary JEM, whether appearing in name meanings or otherwise, as this study discusses.
It would also fit the understanding of the Song of Solomon rendered in this study, where we understand the male lover to be a swarthy Semite, akin to Bacchus, and the female lover a fair Aryan, akin to Venus. The verb form of shachar, שָׁחַר, translated as “turns black” in its one appearance in Job 30:29 of the Hebrew Bible seems to support this understanding as well. There Job complains that he is “blackened but not by the sun,” yet then describes sun burn conditions where his “skin grows black and peels.”
The name Lucifer, first appearing in the King James Bible, is a substitution for the Hebrew word, Helel, הֵילֵל. The word means “shining one” in the original Hebrew. However, in the Modern Hebrew, the word means “He whined.” In a seeming contradiction, that renders this first definition an apparent insult or taunt, the word also means the verbs “praise” “extol” “laud” and “eulogize.”
The closely related word, Hallel, הלל, means “praise” or “song of praise.” This name or title is perhaps suggestive of authority, poetry or musicianship. This in combination with “Your pomp and the music of your harps have been brought down to Sheol” is perhaps suggestive something akin to a lyre playing Apollo particularly in combination with the diurnal reference of Shahar. Here certainly a descent is being described of a figure that is celestial.
The Latin name Lucifer, substituting for this word Helel, means “Light bearer.” Here it’s important to understand that in the Greco-Roman world Lucifer is the son of the Dawn or Aurora as the Roman’s knew her. Hence certainly the tendency to relate the Helel of the Bible to the Roman Lucifer is in some manner convincing. Though, importantly, Shahar, the God or phenomena mentioned by name in the Hebrew, is a male deity in contrast to Aurora.
However the more imperfect correlation is between Shahar’s son “Helel” and the Roman Lucifer. Ostensibly both these figures might also be understood as diurnal. To the extent both are references to the morning star, unclear in the case of Helel, both might be understood as heralds of the day and the sun, hence, arguably, Aryan. To the extent both are understood as masculinized forms of an ascendant Venus or Inanna, since the planet Venus is the morning star, they might also, arguably, be understood as Aryan.
Of course there is no definitive indication that Helel is even a reference to the morning star in the Hebrew, whereas Lucifer is clearly indicated as such in the Greco-Roman Pantheon. Indeed, that Lucifer is a male stellar figure, whether of the morning or the evening, may be, by itself, a suggestion that he is Semitic, whereas all indications point to Helel as Aryan.
Lucifer’s father is often given as Cephalus, a mortal, himself often the son of the Semitic Mercury. Lucifer as well was depicted bearing a torch which may or may not suggest him akin in some ways to the Semitic fire God Prometheus. Here perhaps even a captured Venus is the light in his torch or the torch itself. Likewise Heralds of Aryan Gods, of which Mercury is the most salient example, needn’t be Aryan themselves.
The Greek equivalent of Lucifer was Phosphorus. Hesiod gives Phosphorus father as Astraeus (“starry”), the Titian God of the Dusk, presumably an equivalent of Shalim. Other writers indicate his father Cephalus or the Semitic Atlas. Hence, presumably, with no surviving indications that either Lucifer or Phosphorus are, for instance, rebelling Aryan Sons, they might be guessed to be themselves Semitic. Indeed, It’s worth mentioning here that Lucifer and Phosphorus are entirely obscure or minor figures, with hardly any Myth attributed to them.
Thus the question arises were the obscure Lucifer or Phosphorus “the [men] who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, the man who made the world a wilderness, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?” Did these figures dare “raise themselves above God?” Or was this figure something closer to the world famous and centrally important chieftain figure of Apollo or Jupiter or some near equivalent.
The ancient Semitic deity of Attar sometimes appearing as a rain and water god is cited as a possible identification for Helel. Attar, its worth mentioning, is etymologically and mythological related to the Goddess Ishtar. Likewise, Attar in his various forms might have been related either to the morning or evening stars or the planet Venus more generally. As a water God, understood as providing water to mankind, it seems possible to consider Attar akin to the Aryan figure of Enki who comes to represent not merely water but Aryan blood. Rain and rain-induced floods as well, as this study discusses, emerge as symbols of Aryan decline or “down goings.”
In my estimation, it is far more likely the Biblical figure of Helel or “shining one” describes a primary Sun God like Utu/Shamash or Apollo. Here perhaps it is meaningful as well that Shamash was known in Mesopotamia from early on as Babbar or “shining one.” Likewise we shouldn’t guess that Shamash was then or is even now an obscure deity to Jewish Esotericists. After all the Hebrew word for sun, remains, to this day, Shamash or Shemesh, שמש, as this study discusses. A humorous coincidence appears here that has a wonderful prophetic feel. Shamash’s temple was called E-Babbar translated variously as “shining house” or “white house.” Indeed, this should be Apollo’s seat again.
Regardless, the real rivalry here, as is made repeatedly clear in JEM, is between Shahar and Shalim, day and night, sun and moon, Apollo and Bacchus, the prince of Darkness, the rise or morning of Aryan civilization and its Semitized evening or fall. Hence, in Isaiah, perhaps the description is largely poetic and less concerned with known parentages of deities. Who is the son of the dawn but day or the sun itself? Indeed, we know Helel descends from the diurnal and Aryan Shahar and no mother is given. Can we then not assume that Helel is Aryan himself particularly in light of all the corroborating evidence?
In Isaiah 14:13 it says: “’I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God (El); I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.” Here with this figure placing himself “above the stars” we are getting the sense of Aryan figure that dares surpass the Semitic, Zodiacal, nocturnal powers of “El.” This sense of rising above the stars is mirrored in the wistful dream of Joseph described in Genesis 37:9. There the sun, the moon and eleven stars or Zodiacs, representing Joseph’s parents and siblings bow down to him. Joseph is an Aryan figure, as this study explicates, persecuted and eventually exploited for his arrogance by Jewish and proto-Jewish siblings, including Judah.
Other clues indicate this figure Helel as Aryan. Mount Zaphon, now known as Jebel Aqra, a mountain on the Turkey Syria border, is typically understood as the Canaanite “Mount Olympus.” Zaphon, צפון, means “North” in Hebrew. This conforms with a consistent Biblical demonization of “the North,” as this study discusses, where the North is clearly understood as the seat of Aryans. Here, in my estimation, we find the Hyperborean, the Northern invader, Apollo or his equivalent.
Interestingly the salient and knowledgeable Jewish esotericist Stan Lee will seem to esoterically identify even Lucifer as an Aryan figure. In 1965, he will create a comic book villain named Lucifer as an opponent of the X-men. In Lucifer’s second appearance, a flash back will depict how he crippled the clear Jewish Vulcan/Christ figure of Professor X through use of a stone.  The stone is a symbol of the Jewish God, as this study will make clear. However, perhaps an Aryan or Roman/Jewish “crucifixion” is being depicted as other clues will suggest Lee’s Lucifer as Aryan. Here we remember Professor X is also a reference to the wheel chair bound Vulcan whom suffered his crippling at the hands of the Aryan Jupiter.
On this particular issue, Lee was the editor and non-Jew Roy Thomas was the writer penning characters Lee created.  The “tell” here is Lucifer’s race. He is a “Quist,” a race likewise invented by Lee. The word “quist” means “wood pigeon” in West Midland and Southwest English dialect. The Swedish surname Quist means “twig.” The first origin seems more likely but both columbine and arboreal references indicate Aryan in the JEM, as this study reveals.
The important take away here is that an Aryan God, “Helel,” understood as a representative of Aryans collectively in the same manner Yahweh is understood as a representative of Jews collectively, is a primary representation of Satan in Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, the Book of Isaiah was so beloved by Christians it has frequently been referred to by patristic authors as the “Fifth Gospel.” Hence we find one more example of hatred against Aryans encoded, centrally, in the mythology of Christianity. Tragically this understanding, if accepted, will only convince many contemporary Christian Aryans that Aryan pride is, indeed, “Luciferian.” The final, deeply encoded goal of Christianity is to be unlike the ostensibly “racist,” “separatist” Pharisees.
 Song of Solomon 1:5 “I am black, yet lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon. Do not stare because I am black, for the sun has gazed upon me.” Christians commonly assert this is a description of the woman and not the man (presumed to be Yahweh) in the poem. However no evidence suggests this. Though it is clear that the poem is a dialog between lovers, speakers are not identified from this passage to that. While scholars are able to reach consensus on later passages of the poem as to which speaker is speaking, 1:1–6 is commonly classed “introduction” while 1:17 -2:7 simply Dialogue between lovers. The speaker is addressing the daughters of Jerusalem. Perhaps this suggests a male perspective particularly in the context of a love poem where the male is understood a courter. Likewise 1:6 indicates the speaker a vintner, a male profession in the ancient world, arguably equating him the Semitic Bacchus as was Yahweh by ancient mythographers. Elsewhere in the poem the female, possessing breasts or “shad,” שַׁד, is praised as “fair” or Japheth such as in 4:1. There experts are in agreement, the man is addressing the “Japheth” women. All of this, of course, is weighed against a consistent self-perception appearing in Jewish Esoteric Moralization, where Jews commonly feel themselves to be the darker man vying for fairer stocks.
 Isaiah 14:12-14:18
 Hinnells, John R. (2007). A Handbook of Ancient Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 122.
 X-man 1 #20, 1966
 X-men #20 is the first issue of the X-men series that Roy Thomas would write, taking over Lee who had penned the first nineteen issues.