PDA

View Full Version : Why did Satan leave heaven?



Todd Cornwell
Apr 18th 2007, 04:50 PM
Was Satan an angel?and if so why did he decide to leave heaven?

Paul_born_again
Apr 18th 2007, 05:02 PM
Hi Todd, welcome to the boards, I'm glad you are here :pp


Was Satan an angel?and if so why did he decide to leave heaven?

Yes, Satan is commonly referred to as a 'fallen' angel - meaning, he is an angel who rebelled and sinned against God. Angels have free-will (just like we do). He chose to disobey God. One-third of the other Angels also followed Satan and were cast out of heaven.

Ezekiel 28:14-18

You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

Souled Out
Apr 18th 2007, 05:34 PM
Yes, Satan is commonly referred to as a 'fallen' angel - meaning, he is an angel who rebelled and sinned against God. Angels have free-will (just like we do). He chose to disobey God. One-third of the other Angels also followed Satan and were cast out of heaven.

Ezekiel 28:14-18

You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

Paul, the word satan just means adversary. If the above is your story and you're sticking to it, then you're going to have to explain why God and the The Angel of the Lord is also referred to as satan and adversary in scripture. :hmm:

Are you supposing that they too are fallen angels?

Kimberlydiscover7
Apr 18th 2007, 05:55 PM
Why would he do that, want so much more if heaven was so wonderful? Many people here on earth, who even serve God struggle with humanly things such as power and greed. We may stop and realize it, but that human way is still there. Would that happen in heaven?Are there any more fallen angels, now even?

RogerW
Apr 18th 2007, 06:00 PM
Was Satan an angel?and if so why did he decide to leave heaven?

What makes you believe Satan chose to leave heaven? He really had no choice in the matter...guess that blows the theory of his having a free will! Satan can only do what God permits.

Lu 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Re 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

RW

Harrison Potter
Apr 18th 2007, 06:27 PM
Hi Todd, welcome to the boards, I'm glad you are here :pp



Yes, Satan is commonly referred to as a 'fallen' angel - meaning, he is an angel who rebelled and sinned against God. Angels have free-will (just like we do). He chose to disobey God. One-third of the other Angels also followed Satan and were cast out of heaven.

Ezekiel 28:14-18

You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

The passage you quote here is talking of the King of Tyre, not Satan. It has been talked about in another thread which you have not visited yet. The first part in your own words is good though. You got the number right and the right idea of what happened. Satan asked to be equal to God and actually has declared himself god, but we all know that didn't work out very well for him. Never ask for a raise if you know you won't get it.

hugh:idea:

Paul_born_again
Apr 18th 2007, 09:40 PM
The passage you quote here is talking of the King of Tyre, not Satan. It has been talked about in another thread which you have not visited yet. The first part in your own words is good though. You got the number right and the right idea of what happened. Satan asked to be equal to God and actually has declared himself god, but we all know that didn't work out very well for him. Never ask for a raise if you know you won't get it.

hugh:idea:

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I had read it before and when I put it together with Satan it seemed to have fit in my mind, but I may be wrong.

Can you link me to the thread you mentioned? I would love to read it. Thanks! :)

Harrison Potter
Apr 19th 2007, 01:00 AM
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I had read it before and when I put it together with Satan it seemed to have fit in my mind, but I may be wrong.

Can you link me to the thread you mentioned? I would love to read it. Thanks! :)

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=83673 Sorry it took so long had to find it figure out how to do it and that was after I traved a coupl states. Started out in NH went through MA and am now in CT at a picnic area. I think it didn't really get addressed till close to the end of the 2nd page, but it is in there.:idea:

Paul_born_again
Apr 19th 2007, 01:23 AM
Thank ya brother :)

Kahtar
Apr 19th 2007, 01:48 AM
‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering: The Sardis, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your tabrets and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.
The king of Tyre was anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so God ordained him.
The king of Tyre was on the holy mount of God;
The king of Tyre walked among the fiery stones.

The king of Tyre was blameless in his ways
from the day he was created
till wickedness was found in him.

Through his widespread trade
he was filled with violence,
and he sinned.
So God drove him in disgrace from the mount of God,
and God expelled The king of Tyre the guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

The king of Tyre's heart became proud
on account of his beauty,
and he corrupted his wisdom
because of his splendor.
So God threw him to the earth;
God made a spectacle of him before kings.

By his many sins and dishonest trade
he desecrated his sanctuaries.
So God made a fire come out from him,
and it consumed him,
and God reduced him to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

:hmm: Sorry, can't buy it.

Harrison Potter
Apr 19th 2007, 02:56 AM
The King of Tyre was a man. He had a house built for David and built a temple for King Solomon to give offerings to God which was requested by King Solomon in a letter he sent to the King of Tyre. He was above Kings and at that time in history was their gaurdian. Also if you claim this to be Satan he is talking of then Satan wasn't cast out or sinned against God until after Daniel. I suggest you look into things a little further.

Harrison Potter
Apr 19th 2007, 03:26 AM
One more little point using the scripture you quoted here.

So God made a fire come out from him,
and it consumed him,
and God reduced him to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

read it carefully... God reduced him to ashes. Past tense meaning already taken place, done, finished. So what you are saying is that Satan has been reduced to ashes and no longer exists, correct?

hugh

Kahtar
Apr 19th 2007, 06:22 AM
The King of Tyre was a man. He had a house built for David and built a temple for King Solomon to give offerings to God which was requested by King Solomon in a letter he sent to the King of Tyre. He was above Kings and at that time in history was their gaurdian. Also if you claim this to be Satan he is talking of then Satan wasn't cast out or sinned against God until after Daniel. I suggest you look into things a little further.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are addressing my post.
Question: At what point was the King of Tyre in Eden?
Question:At what point was he cast to the earth, and if he was cast to the earth, how did he get off the earth to begin with?
I suspect you'll be telling me those things are metaphorical and I shouldn't take them so literally.
I don't imagine that you would consider the possibility that this could be an overview of the entire existence of satan, from his creation to his being cast into the lake of fire, because, because after all, it clearly says 'King of Tyre' right there at the very beginning. And I should take literally.

When Peter tried to convince Jesus that he would not die, Jesus turned and addressed the spirit who suggested it, saying 'get behind me satan'.
Now we know that it was Peter that said it. So because it was Peter, should we then believe that Jesus was addressing Peter and not really speaking to or about satan?

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:22-23We can read all about the things the King of Tyre did, and if it's in the Word, I believe it. But the spirit driving the King of Tyre was who this passage was speaking of.
The prince of Persia also hindered Michael the archangel from delivering a message to Daniel. Are we to think that the actual human being who was the prince of that empire at the time was able to hinder the angel Michael in any way? I think not. I think the prince being spoken of was one of those 'principalities and powers of darkness in high places' that Paul spoke of, specifically the one assigned to the Persian Empire.

Without obvious condescension perhaps I could politely make the same suggestion you made:
I suggest you look into things a little further.
So what you are saying is that Satan has been reduced to ashes and no longer exists, correct?If you saw this in my post, then I would have to say 'yes', but since I didn't say or imply that, and it does not appear in my post, then I can only answer 'no'.

read it carefully... God reduced him to ashes. Past tense meaning already taken place, done, finished.Sometimes God's Word speaks of future events as though they've already occurred:

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. Revelation 21:2-3On another note:
Now in my previous post I also did not in any way attack you or make any rude, condescending or derogatory statements about you. I don't think you are stupid or uneducated. Didn't even mention you, in fact, so there is no reason for you to have to defend yourself, or to feel offended by anything I wrote. I would appreciate your mutual respect.
You stated what you believe, and you are free to say and to believe that.
I have stated what I believe, and don't believe. I also am free to do that.

JesusPhreak27
Apr 19th 2007, 02:24 PM
I thought that the reason the Devil was cast out of Heaven was because he felt that he was "equal" to God. Instead of bringing angels to worship God he began to have them worship him?

Kahtar
Apr 19th 2007, 02:42 PM
I was told that the text that I tried to put in here was too long. Therefore I will just put the url for you to go to. Maybe you will listen to someone who has a name and is more knowlegable.
The fact that he has a name is of little consequence. However, out of respect for you and him, I will take a look at it.
A brief glance thus far has shown me this:
This is one man, clearly well-educated, with a clearly stated agenda:

The foregoing observations are prompted by meditation upon the theological notions regarding Satan. The lack of real examination of the Scriptures on this matter is especially notable, and the passages which have been forced to buttress the theory that Satan is a fallen angel are little short of a tragedy, both as regards method as well as results.
His 'opponents' are the numerous men, equally educated, whose clear objective was to COLLECTIVELY translate the Word of God from Greek, Hebrew, Latin, to English.
So we have one man with an agenda to debunk the notion of Satan being an angel cast out of heaven, and a group of men with an agenda to translate God's Word, who all agree with the translation they provided.

Now I'll read through what this man with a name has to say.;)

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 03:11 PM
‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering: The Sardis, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your tabrets and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.
The king of Tyre was anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so God ordained him.
The king of Tyre was on the holy mount of God;
The king of Tyre walked among the fiery stones.

The king of Tyre was blameless in his ways
from the day he was created
till wickedness was found in him.

Through his widespread trade
he was filled with violence,
and he sinned.
So God drove him in disgrace from the mount of God,
and God expelled The king of Tyre the guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

The king of Tyre's heart became proud
on account of his beauty,
and he corrupted his wisdom
because of his splendor.
So God threw him to the earth;
God made a spectacle of him before kings.

By his many sins and dishonest trade
he desecrated his sanctuaries.
So God made a fire come out from him,
and it consumed him,
and God reduced him to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

:hmm: Sorry, can't buy it.

Kahtar,

An inaccurate assumption often requires other inaccuracies to support it. As a result, the real truth becomes obscure.

The correct understanding of the translation of Ezekiel 28 can only be had by looking at the original Hebrew, and the Greek through the LXX where necessary. Faulty premises can only yield faulty conclusions so we need to look at this from a solid premise – a solid foundation in order to get a proper, biblical understanding.

This is Ezekiel 28 from the LXX as opposed to what you commonly read based on the Authorized:

Against the Governor/Ruler of Tyre
28:1 And the word of YHWH (Yahweh) came to me saying, 'Son of man, say to the Governor [or Ruler] of Tyre,
"The Master YHWH (Yahweh) says this:
In your arrogance you say, 'I am El;
I sit throned like Elohim on the high seas.'
Though you are a man and not El,
you try to think the thoughts of Elohim.
3 What? Are you wiser than Daniel?
Has no secret been hidden from you?
4 By your wisdom and intelligence
you have amassed great wealth for yourself,
you have gathered gold and silver into your treasuries.
5 By your skill in trading you have increased your riches,
and with your riches your arrogance has grown.
6 Therefore the Master YHWH (Yahweh) says this:
Because you try to think the thoughts of Elohim
7 I will bring foreigners against you,
the most barbarous of the nations.
They will draw sword against your fine wisdom,
they will defile your splendor,
8 they will throw you down into the pit to die
a death of disgrace on the high seas.
9 Will you still dare to say you are Elohim
before your assailant slays you?
No, you are a man and not El,
in the clutches of your assailants.
10 You will die strengthless,
at the hands of foreigners.
For I have spoken - it is the Master YHWH (Yahweh) who speaks."'

The fall of the King of Tyre
28:11-12 And the word of YHWH (Yahweh) came to me saying, 'Son of man, raise a dirge over the king of Tyre.
Say to him, "The Master YHWH (Yahweh) says this:
You were once a seal-print [exemplar] of perfection,
full of wisdom, perfect in beauty.
13 You came into luxury, a paradise from Elohim,
gems of every kind were your covering,
Sardin, topaz, diamond, chrysolite, onyx,
jasper, sapphire, carbuncle, emerald.
Your jingling beads were of gold,
and the spangles you wore were made for
you on the day of your birth.
14 I had provided you with a guardian cherub;
you were in the set-apart mountain of Elohim,
and you walked proudly among the stones that flashed with fire.
15 You were blameless in all your ways
from the day of your birth until iniquity came to light.
16 Your busy trading has filled you with lawlessness and sin,
so I thrust you down from the mountain of Elohim,
and the guardian cherub banished [or destroyed] you from
among the stones that flashed like fire.
17 Your heart has made you arrogant
because of your beauty.
You have corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
I have thrown you to the ground;
I have made you a spectacle for other kings.
18 So great was your sin in your wicked trading,
that you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I kindled a fire within you, to consume you.
I left you as ashes on the ground for all to see.
19 Of the nations, all who know you were aghast;
you became waste, gone forever."
The LXX compared with the Authorized Version reveals several distinct differences.

There are many critical results with the correct rendering. This link gives an early (OT or Jewish) perspective vs. the mainstream Church perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

This is 100% in line with both historical and biblical accounts of Tyre and its King. Book notes can be very helpful as they supply lots of historical and background information on geography, kingdom and their rulers.

By reading the passage as it is above, it becomes imposible to get this story of satan: Lucifer, created perfect in Heaven with God, because of a rebellion devised of his own free will, took 1/3 of the angels with him; after which he becomes satan.

The entire supposition begs so many questions, the least of which is, does this mean that the Kingdom of God was divided against itself from the very beginning and will fall? That's what our Lord said would happen to such a kingdom.

And if so, how do we know that it won’t happen again? Is the creations’ free will that powerful that even being in the presence of the Creator’s Glory is no match for it?

Even still, this story puts satan in Heaven, then thrown out, then back in Heaven again for Jesus to have seen him fall like lightning from heaven as the 70 returned from preaching. That’s twice he’s there and twice he’s been expelled. How is God allowing this?

There are so, so, so, so many questions, issues and implications to this doctrine that simply cannot be answered or overcome in any way. This proposition of the Fall of Satan is a faulty one at its core and renders to no affect, God's nature and His purpose for all things. It elevates satan to superstar status to the point where he is omnipotent, where he is all powerful and where he is victor.

The carcasses on the side of the road are God’s sovereignty, power, will, Kingdom, love and so much more, and it renders Him powerless, weak and at every turn, defeated. Most importantly this idea of satan blinds the world to so much of the Glory and truth that is found only in Christ Jesus and His work at the Cross.

There is a purpose to the adversary and God doesn’t need us to create doctrines upon doctrines in order to save His skin and reputation. A study of Scripture bears this out.

The only ones needing saving is us; that’s why the other story behind the literal message of the King is the story of us, not satan. We are God’s masterwork, not satan. We are the ones constantly exalting ourselves over God, not some super figure called satan.

Satan is the god of this world and he disguises himself as an angel of light. I believe he’s done his job very well with this unscriptural doctrine as it is plainly one of the biggest errors that has been perpetuated within and without the Church.

I’m sorry but this thing grieves me because this simple little story decimates God, His genius craftsmanship, His purposes and renders Him at best, a bumbling scientist trying soooo hard to get this creation thing right, but just can't.

If anyone is a berean you can study this on your own and let the Holy Spirit guide you to all truth on this matter. Here is a good start:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/a_study_of_ezekiel_28

Additional sources - commentaries and book notes:

Matthew Henry commentary:
http://studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=28&verse=1#Eze28_1 (http://studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=28&verse=1%23Eze28_1)

1599 Geneva Study Bible:
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=eze&chapter=028

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=eze&chapter=028

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Book Notes
http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/21170/eVerseID/21175/opt/BN/RTD/JFBBN (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/21170/eVerseID/21175/opt/BN/RTD/JFBBN)

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 03:59 PM
Warning!!

Thanks for leading me to look into that site as I had used the CLV as a study aid some but don't think I will be doing that anymore.

Looking into the writing on that site the organization denies the full deity of Jesus and God in trinity.

This often leads to making Jesus and the enemy “brothers” or similar creations by God so it makes sense they would be denyiny the enemy was an angel at one time and then justify him differently. As it will permeate their translation and teachings as they change the words to suit their purpose. They are basically saying God created the enemy to do evil on purpose, I don’t see that fits very well.

I would not trust anything from that site even though there will be intermingled truth, that is how the enemy best deceives people. With part truths.

Peace,

Joe

Kahtar
Apr 19th 2007, 04:14 PM
Thank you SoldOut. I have printed out a copy from that link provided and will, as I said, examine it, and draw my own conclusions.

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 04:22 PM
Warning!!

Thanks for leading me to look into that site as I had used the CLV as a study aid some but don't think I will be doing that anymore.

Looking into the writing on that site the organization denies the full deity of Jesus and God in trinity.

This often leads to making Jesus and the enemy “brothers” or similar creations by God so it makes sense they would be denyiny the enemy was an angel at one time and then justify him differently. As it will permeate their translation and teachings as they change the words to suit their purpose. They are basically saying God created the enemy to do evil on purpose, I don’t see that fits very well.

I would not trust anything from that site even though there will be intermingled truth, that is how the enemy best deceives people. With part truths.

Peace,

Joe


Walstib, what site are you talking about?

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 04:25 PM
Thank you SoldOut. I have printed out a copy from that link provided and will, as I said, examine it, and draw my own conclusions.

You're welcome. If you study other sources that provide additional insight, at least you can draw your own conclusions based on having more facts.

OneStep
Apr 19th 2007, 04:55 PM
Kinda like some who want to do things there own way instead of the way God has shown and instructed them to do. That ole' flesh is a monster!!!!
Makes me believe Satan is the leader of the pack of New Agers that believe also that they can attain godship by via many incarnations....but that is going off topic...sorta
Satan is an individual that wants to god with. And God says that is not possible because there is no other god beside Him or before Him.....etc.

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 04:58 PM
Jumping in here even though not addressed to me.


An inaccurate assumption often requires other inaccuracies to support it. As a result, the real truth becomes obscure.

Hmmm.. where does a statement like this get us? I could say the exact same thing from my position, I dont see it goes anywhere. Truth? Yes but it certainly does not prove anything.


The correct understanding of the translation of Ezekiel 28 can only be had by looking at the original Hebrew, and the Greek through the LXX where necessary. Faulty premises can only yield faulty conclusions so we need to look at this from a solid premise – a solid foundation in order to get a proper, biblical understanding.

Did you do this looking? I just don’t see where absolutes like you have stated do anything for healthy discussion. I don’t see the value of playing the telephone game through the LXX. What are the translations you used? Why if this is so important would Theos/God not be the “correct” translation instead of YHWH? Why say use the original Hebrew and then through the LXX. Paradise/paradeisou/παράδεισος instead of eden/‛êden/ עדן …garden/gan/ גּן as in the Hebrew?

This reasoning here I am interested in before addressing anything further please. For me your foundation has already crumbled.

Peace,

Joe

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 05:03 PM
Walstib, what site are you talking about?

The Concordant Publising Concern website. It was linked to by the person I responed to. I had been there for the bible they offer before but never did any reading on thier teachings.

Peace,

Joe

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 05:15 PM
The Concordant Publising Concern website. It was linked to by the person I responed to. I had been there for the bible they offer before but never did any reading on thier teachings.

Peace,

Joe

I would say a lot of translations have their own slant on whatever it is they want to uphold. I've read from the CLV and see that it too does the same thing. You may find the LXX online helpful:

http://www.septuagint.net/

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 05:48 PM
I would say a lot of translations have their own slant on whatever it is they want to uphold. I've read from the CLV and see that it too does the same thing. You may find the LXX online helpful:

Thanks :)

I have I think three versions of it for e-sword. One with a Strongs reference with voice tense and mood. Maybe something you would be inrterested in?

EZE 28:1 (LXX+)και 2532[CONJ] εγενετο 1096[V-AMI-3S] λογος 3056[N-NSM] κυριου 2962[N-GSM] προς 4314[PREP] με 1473[P-AS] λεγων 3004[V-PAPNS]


Peace,


Joe

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 06:47 PM
Jumping in here even though not addressed to me.
Hmmm.. where does a statement like this get us?



Souled Out:
An inaccurate assumption often requires other inaccuracies to support it. As a result, the real truth becomes obscure.

I could say the exact same thing from my position, I don’t see it goes anywhere. Truth? Yes but it certainly does not prove anything.Where does a statement like that get us? Hopefully to a point where we can make accurate assumptions - no matter what doctrine is being discussed. The foundation for any of our beliefs should be based on what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written and what He shows to us as we Scripture.

If a translation tells us that a man is a cherub vs. another saying that he was with a cherub, whichever one you believe will become the basis of whatever beliefs you add on to that. YMMV. :idea:


Did you do this looking? I just don’t see where absolutes like you have stated do anything for healthy discussion. I don’t see the value of playing the telephone game through the LXX. What are the translations you used? Why if this is so important would Theos/God not be the “correct” translation instead of YHWH? Why say use the original Hebrew and then through the LXX. Paradise/paradeisou/παράδεισος instead of eden/‛eden/עדן…garden/gan/גּן as in the Hebrew?
I am firm in my belief on this because I have studied it. That certainly doesn’t provide for an unhealthy discussion IMO, but it can definitely provide for a lively one. We all want to get to know God and to know more about Him and what He is doing. I would hope so, Joe.

I don’t use just one translation, even though some people swear by just one (pun intended). I read and study using several bible translations, concordances and encyclopedias so that I can get a better understanding of the words themselves, their meanings in the time they were written and their Scriptural usage. Some sources are better than others, and what I posted is based on the LXX. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it but the Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures and was used by the early Church, so I see it as reliable. But I still use my concordances with everything.

It's not enough to just look at the etymology of words because meanings change over time, and that too can become the basis of error.

In the Scriptures He is called Jehovah, Lord, Yahweh, Adonai, El, among other names. God is our English word for Him, so there’s no rhyme or reason for me to choose one over the other, even though I’m sure someone who has studied all the names could point out the nuances and differences. ;)

BTW, what is a telephone game? Never heard that expression before.

This reasoning here I am interested in before addressing anything further please. For me your foundation has already crumbled.

Peace,

Joe
Those are my reasons and the basis of my foundation. God’s Word is preserved in its inspired language and Jesus didn’t speak English. :lol:

Souled Out
Apr 19th 2007, 06:51 PM
Thanks :)

I have I think three versions of it for e-sword. One with a Strongs reference with voice tense and mood. Maybe something you would be inrterested in?

EZE 28:1 (LXX+)και 2532[CONJ] εγενετο 1096[V-AMI-3S] λογος 3056[N-NSM] κυριου 2962[N-GSM] προς 4314[PREP] με 1473[P-AS] λεγων 3004[V-PAPNS]


Peace,


Joe


Thanks. I love e-Sword and have about 10 bible versions installed so far. It is such a handy tool. :)

Bick
Apr 19th 2007, 06:58 PM
Was Satan an angel?and if so why did he decide to leave heaven?

Hi Todd. Just reading the posts might be confusing. I will set forth my understanding, based upon all we might glean from the Scriptures.

First: The book of Revelation is yet future, for John wrote what he saw in the vision when he was "in spirit in the Lord's day"---literal translation.
"The Lord's day" was not Sunday, it was his way of saying "The day of the Lord", because he was in "the day". There are also many other reasons.

THEREFORE, the war in heaven when Satan and one third of the angels are cast down to the earth, has not happened!

Second: The whole text of Ezek. 28 must be considered. The first 10 verses are about 'The prince of Tyre'.
Because, in verse 8, we read "They shall thrust you down to the Pit, and you shall die a violent death in the heart of the seas", it is obvious he is a man and will die.
Yet, in vs. 2, it reads, "Because your heart is proud and you have said, 'I am a God; I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas.' " NIV.
This is something a number of kings/rulers think or say, as recorded in the Bible, because they are so rich and powerful.

Verse 11 says it is a saying (satire) about the king of Tyre.
The phrase, "You were in Eden, the garden of God" sure sounds as if the king is, in truth Satan, being in the garden of God.

But, a word study is enlightening: Ezek. 31 is a saying against Pharoah king of Egypt, and his hordes, concerning their demise.
First, his greatness is extolled; he is figured as a tall magnificant tree which even the cedars in the garden of God could not rival. In vs. 9 we read, "I made it beautiful with its mass of branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God." And in vs. 16 it further clarifies that the trees of Eden are the trees of Lebanon. Later in that chapter the destruction of the Pharoah is described.

To me, "Eden", or "garden of Eden" is a figure used for any beautiful garden or forest, such as in Lebannon. Tyre was an Island kingdom right next to Lebannon.

As for being "created" (vs.13) making him Satan, since, supposedly, we aren't created, what do the Scriptures say?

Isa. 21:30 "In the place where you were created, in the land of your ancestory.." speaking of the Ammonites.
Isa. 43:1 "But now, this is what the Lord says---he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel.."
Isa. 45:12 "It is I who made the earth and created mankind in it.." NIV.
54:16 "See. it is I who created the blacksmith.."
Psa. 102:18 "Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord."

So, just because the king of Tyre is said to be created, isn't describing Satan.

CONCLUSION: Satan, the devil, the dragon, that old serpent, is created as the necessary Adversary in God's plan of redemption.

John 8:44 speaking of the devil (Satan) says,
"He was a murder from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

1 John 3:8 reads, "Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning."

God bless, Bick

Walstib
Apr 19th 2007, 10:34 PM
Where does a statement like that get us? Hopefully to a point where we can make accurate assumptions - no matter what doctrine is being discussed. The foundation for any of our beliefs should be based on what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written and what He shows to us as we Scripture.


If a translation tells us that a man is a cherub vs. another saying that he was with a cherub, whichever one you believe will become the basis of whatever beliefs you add on to that. YMMV.

First I am glad you understood I was not attacking and opening discution. Thinking back to what I had posted I know it could have been taken as harsh. I am always trying to get better at that and sorry if it seemed that way.

Next I agree with everything you are saying here. I just think that if we all, myself included, started assuming people know this already things would go smoother and the more sensitve people would be honoured and not feel attaked. I have very thick skin and want people to tear apart my posts but not everyone is like that. Part of the reason I said what I did.


I am firm in my belief on this because I have studied it. That certainly doesn’t provide for an unhealthy discussion IMO, but it can definitely provide for a lively one. We all want to get to know God and to know more about Him and what He is doing. I would hope so, Joe.


I don’t use just one translation, even though some people swear by just one (pun intended). I read and study using several bible translations, concordances and encyclopedias so that I can get a better understanding of the words themselves, their meanings in the time they were written and their Scriptural usage. Some sources are better than others, and what I posted is based on the LXX. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it but the Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures and was used by the early Church, so I see it as reliable. But I still use my concordances with everything.

BTW, what is a telephone game? Never heard that expression before.

I am thinking we are pretty lively so far ;) I am firm in my belief too and willing to change at the drop of a hat if the Spirit convicts me otherwise. I have been a goof on a number of occations where I had not seen the second or third deeper meaning to something and argued against it at first.

The telephone game is sitting in a circle and one person wispers something in the ear of the person next to them and it continues like this around the circle untill the last person says out loud what they heard said to them. The odds of the same thing being said at the end are low indeed. That was why I was saying why go through the LXX when we have access to what they translated from.

I see the value of checking into what they said but would go with the first source primarily. Very much the point of your words as I understand you. Still… to go back to our topic at hand.

Eze 28:13, in the Hebrew the word Eden is used and the only other place it is used is Gen 2:8. A proper name as I understand it even if it can mean pleasure alternately. I think it is quite logical that the Greeks at the time the LXX was writen assumed everyone at that time reading would understand that paradise was the garden of Eden. This is purly speculation but I can’t see why from the origionl “a paradise” would be the “best” translation into English with the knowledge that we have now directly from the Hebrew texts.

Conclusivly show me why the garden of Eden is not the best fit for this passage and I will be open to reviewing all the other parts and maybe even changing my view.

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Joe

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 12:52 AM
I post a url, cause a big discussion, get a warning, and am way behind and and lots to read.

I hope I didn't cause a problem.

hugh:blush:

Kahtar
Apr 20th 2007, 01:44 AM
Well, I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but ultimately, you brought about discussion and promoted study. There's always a bright side.:)

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 10:43 AM
I became a Christian many years ago. I have had my ups and downs, but I never lost faith in God. I have lived with a witch, one that was ordained and could start her own coven and have even gone to one coven meeting. I learned a lot about the enemy during that time, but not once did my faith in God weaken. Just the oposite happened, my faith grew stronger. She even accused me of infering that she was demon possessed once. She is presently living in Albuquerque, NM in case you would like to pray for her. Her name is Lucinda. That is all I will give you.

On the subject of Ezekiel it confirmed some of what I believed that passage said and also added something I knew from years ago but forgot. That was about the Cherubs or guardians that have areas on this earth and they are there to keep evil in check. I don't know how many of you have traveled to other countries, but part of the reason why a Christian can feel a bit strange is because the demons are not the ones that you are used to feeling around you. The demons have their areas of the earth they work on and you can get a totally different feeling when you enter an area with demons that have a slightly different agenda.

Ok, I said enough, and probably started some more discussion, but I have to drive and I can't read, type etc while driving. Have to be in Atlanta tomorrow and I am still in PA.

hugh:idea:

Souled Out
Apr 20th 2007, 02:48 PM
First I am glad you understood I was not attacking and opening discution. Thinking back to what I had posted I know it could have been taken as harsh. I am always trying to get better at that and sorry if it seemed that way. :kiss:


Next I agree with everything you are saying here. I just think that if we all, myself included, started assuming people know this already things would go smoother and the more sensitve people would be honoured and not feel attaked. I have very thick skin and want people to tear apart my posts but not everyone is like that. Part of the reason I said what I did.It's all a part of being a good berean, teacher and student. :) I can certainly relate.


I am thinking we are pretty lively so far ;) I am firm in my belief too and willing to change at the drop of a hat if the Spirit convicts me otherwise. I have been a goof on a number of occations where I had not seen the second or third deeper meaning to something and argued against it at first.Haven't we all? :lol: That's what caused me to student this subject because I was taught the Lucifer/satan thing and said it must be true because everyone else believes. As we grow in Christ we become more senstive to His leadings and that's what happened on this subject as well as others.

I've learned over the last few years that just because we're taught something doesn't necessarily make it truth. It just means that's what most people believe.


The telephone game is sitting in a circle and one person wispers something in the ear of the person next to them and it continues like this around the circle untill the last person says out loud what they heard said to them. The odds of the same thing being said at the end are low indeed. That was why I was saying why go through the LXX when we have access to what they translated from.I never knew that's what it was called. :spin: Who'da thunk?


I see the value of checking into what they said but would go with the first source primarily. Very much the point of your words as I understand you. Yes and and knowing the inspired words is only the beginning, although that is extremely important. Then we have to be open to what is the message of the passage (or the layers of messages) in relation to the rest of the word.


Still… to go back to our topic at hand.

Eze 28:13, in the Hebrew the word Eden is used and the only other place it is used is Gen 2:8. A proper name as I understand it even if it can mean pleasure alternately. I think it is quite logical that the Greeks at the time the LXX was writen assumed everyone at that time reading would understand that paradise was the garden of Eden. This is purly speculation but I can’t see why from the origionl “a paradise” would be the “best” translation into English with the knowledge that we have now directly from the Hebrew texts.

Conclusivly show me why the garden of Eden is not the best fit for this passage and I will be open to reviewing all the other parts and maybe even changing my view.

Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

JoeI don't see the Eden reference as a hurdle, but I think the struggle with Ezekiel is that people tend to take this symbolic book as literal.

Saying that since Eden is mentioned so this must be talking about satan, is taking a huge leap, IMO.

Like you, I do recognize that Eden can be both symbolic or literal and Proper. In this passage I actually see both. I see that Eden is symbolic in the natural, but literal in the spiritual. Let me explain.

Ezekiel 31 speaks of another who was in the garden of God:

“...Whom art thou like in thy greatness...the water made him great, the Deep set him up on high...Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field...All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations...no tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him. To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden: yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. THIS IS PHARAOH and all his multitude. ” Ezk. 31:2,5,6,8,9,18

In the literal sense this passage isn’t about satan, Adam, or Eve. Like Ezekiel 28, the subject here is a ruler, specifically, Pharaoh.

So since we know Pharaoh has never stepped his sized 10 sandals in the proper Garden, we can safely say that Eden here is symbolic of some other paradise.

We can then say without stretching the meaning or losing the integrity of the Scripture that paradise here is used because it describes accurately what both the king of Tyre and Pharaoh enjoyed in their rule. We can even back up this notion with additional scripture that testify to the fact of their rich kingdoms.

They had everything until they exalted themselves which ultimately lead to their falls. Now here's where the spirutal meaning starts to take shape.

In the spiritual reading, Eden is literal because the same thing that happened to the rulers is exactly what happened to Adam. He had everything. He was clothed only with precious stones around him, blameless until wickedness was found in him, driven from the mount of God, was with a covering cherub, etc. This is verified in Genesis.

The downfalls of the kings are admonitions to us because what happened to them and Adam, happens everyday when God gives us a little power and money, and we too start thinking we’re like God. This ultimately leads to sin and a hard, humbling downfall.

So I see Eden as whatever paradise God gives to any one of us, which we ultimately lose and am run out of when we sin and decide to exalt ourselves as God.

For Adam it was the literal Garden of Eden. For the kings it was their kingdoms. For us it could be that big ministry, house or job that God blesses us with.

So I do recognize both the literal and spiritual meaning of Eden spoken of in both Ezekiel passages. As I see it, the message is not changed or hinged upon Eden being proper or symbolic as both descriptions accurately describe men or man as he falls from grace.

That's why I don't see a firm foundation for the Lucifer/satan doctrine in this passage, especially in light of Ezekiel being such a highly symbolic book.

Hopefully this will give you a better idea of my view. :)

Kahtar
Apr 20th 2007, 05:34 PM
Okay, here's a question for you guys/gals:
What is the importance of whether Satan was an angel cast out of heaven, or some other kind of being, equally cast out of heaven?
I think we all agree that he was or will be cast out of heaven at some point, and that there is an actual being variously named the 'Serpent', 'Dragon', 'Devil', and 'Satan', whom Christ conquered at His resurrection from the grave, and will ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire, and who currently goes about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour.
Does it really matter whether he is an angel, or some other created being?
Another, related question:
What doctrine falls apart if this passage in Ezekiel is in fact speaking of the King of Tyre, and not Lucifer/Satan?

awestruckchild
Apr 20th 2007, 05:41 PM
Where is the Angel of the Lord referred to as satan? Are you referring to how satan is sometimes called the angel of light?

Walstib
Apr 20th 2007, 06:39 PM
Okay, here's a question for you guys/gals:

What is the importance of whether Satan was an angel cast out of heaven, or some other kind of being, equally cast out of heaven?
I think we all agree that he was or will be cast out of heaven at some point, and that there is an actual being variously named the 'Serpent', 'Dragon', 'Devil', and 'Satan', whom Christ conquered at His resurrection from the grave, and will ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire, and who currently goes about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour.
Does it really matter whether he is an angel, or some other created being?
Another, related question:
What doctrine falls apart if this passage in Ezekiel is in fact speaking of the King of Tyre, and not Lucifer/Satan?

Hi Kahtar,

I see and respect your points here. I guess for me the biggest point is the difference between asking questions, discussing possibilities, and teaching one way or the other to be the “true Word of God” to others. Once you start into teaching something and saying "I am right and you are wrong" there is another level of accountability there. How many here should be teaching compared to those who should be questioning if they have that authority over those that they accuse of being wrong. When are people defending their own understanding from the flesh compared to being lead to explain something by the Holy Spirit. If the precepts one is teaching is based on whether or not satan was good at one time and rebelled with free will from that position it starts to make a difference. I personally think this goes to the core of free will or no free will for the creation. Would God create something to do evil on purpose. Know your enemy. This is how I see it matters to me personally with my questions. And why one would post about it based on my understanding of the hierarchy in the body of Christ.

No doctrine that I can think of stands of falls on one passage. Then this board does exist for discussion as well. Iron on iron learning. I have come to new understanding often though someone showing me I was wrong through a discussion. I am often lead to new questions through trying to explain my own understanding of something. And I also learn about my flesh that would seek to justify itself through posting out of selfish pride here which I know I have been guilty of, and most likely I will fail again. I learn how to be more sensitive to the delicate parts of the Christ’s Body and find personal relationships with others in fellowship. Is this passage critical to that? No. But I do see the benifits in going over it.

So I strayed a bit off topic there… your intentions are well taken.

Peace,

Joe

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 07:09 PM
Where is the Angel of the Lord referred to as satan? Are you referring to how satan is sometimes called the angel of light?

Is Satan a fallen angel?

There is compelling textual evidence within the Bible which indicates that
originally Satan was one of the angels who inhabited the heavenly realm, and
that he (with others) departed from a righteous state and rebelled against
God. In two separate New Testament passages, reference is made to a revolt
among the angels in heaven. The apostle Peter said that “God did not
spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them
into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). Another
inspired New Testament writer wrote: “And the angels who did not keep their
proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting
chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Since the
Bible also refers to Satan as “the prince of demons” (Matthew 12:24), and
speaks of “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, emp. added), the only
logical conclusion is that Satan is the leader of a group of rebellious angels
expelled from heaven to eventually spend eternity in hell.

From references such as these, it is clear that God created angels (just as
He has men) with the powers of reason and free will, which made it possible
for them both to think and to choose. Apparently, certain of the angels
chose wrongly, which is why Peter referred to angels “who sinned.” But John

wrote that sin is “lawlessness” (i.e., transgression of God’s law; 1 John 3:4).
In some fashion, then, the angels’ sin consisted of breaking God’s law by not
keeping their “proper habitation,” but instead departing from whatever appropriate
position it was that God had established for them.
Since Scripture speaks of “the devil and his angels,” it becomes reasonable
to suggest that Satan was either the instigator, or leader (or both) of this
heavenly revolt.

Why has Satan arrayed himself agaist both God and man?

In any study of Satan, the question is bound to arise: Why has Satan established
himself as God’s archfiend and man’s ardent foe? No doubt a portion
of the answer can be found in the fact that he, too, once inhabited the
heavenly realm but, as a result of his defiant rebellion against the great “I
Am,” was cast “down to hell” (2 Peter 2:4). Satan’s insurrection failed miserably,
and that failure had dire, eternal consequences. His obstinate attempt
to usurp God’s authority cost him his position among the heavenly host and
doomed him to “everlasting chains under darkness” (Jude 6). In the end, his
sedition gained him nothing and cost him everything. Regardless of the battle
plan he adopted to challenge the Creator of the Universe, regardless of the
battlefield he chose as his theater of war, and regardless of the strength or
numbers of his army, the simple fact of the matter is that—in themost important
contest of his existence—He lost! Yet, his anger at having been defeated
fueled his determination to strike back in revenge.
But strike back at whom? It was futile to attempt a second mutiny. God’s
power was too great, and His omnipotence too all-consuming (Job 42:2; 1
John 4:4). Another target was needed; another repository of satanic revenge
would have to be located. And who better to serve as the recipient of hell’s

unrighteous indignation than mankind—the only creature in the Universe
made “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27)? Thus, with the
creation of man, the battle was on—and has been ever since.
In his war against Heaven, Satan will stop at nothing; it is a “no holds barred/
winner take all” battle.Witness, for example, his cruel deception of Eve
(Genesis 3:1-6) with its temporal and eternal consequences of physical/
spiritual death (1 Corinthians 15:21; Ezekiel 18:20). Recall the trials, tribulations,
and tragedies visited upon the Old Testament patriarch, Job (Job 1-
2).Weep in sadness at the Great Adversary’s so successfully convincing Judas
to betray His Lord (John 13:2) that Christ referred to him as “the devil”
(John 6:70). Or, tremble in dismay at the potential ruin of humanity, had
Satan succeeded in causing Christ to sin when he tempted Him in the wilderness
those many years ago (Matthew 4:1-11). Had Jesus yielded, there

would have remained “no more a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26), and
man would have been doomed—destined to inhabit forever the “blackness
of darkness” (Jude 13) in hell.
Make no mistake about it. Satan has arrayed himself against both God
and man. He is God’s archfiend, and man’s ardent foe. Nothing short of
an absolute victory will satisfy him; nothing short of a hell filled with every
single member of the human race will dissuade him. He is, indeed, “the enemy”
(Matthew 13:39).
..............................................
Does this shed any light on the subject?

hugh:idea:

Souled Out
Apr 20th 2007, 07:58 PM
Okay, here's a question for you guys/gals:
What is the importance of whether Satan was an angel cast out of heaven, or some other kind of being, equally cast out of heaven?
I think we all agree that he was or will be cast out of heaven at some point, and that there is an actual being variously named the 'Serpent', 'Dragon', 'Devil', and 'Satan', whom Christ conquered at His resurrection from the grave, and will ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire, and who currently goes about roaring like a lion seeking whom he may devour.
Does it really matter whether he is an angel, or some other created being?
Another, related question:
What doctrine falls apart if this passage in Ezekiel is in fact speaking of the King of Tyre, and not Lucifer/Satan?

Kahtar, I respect you for asking this question. :)

The Savior and Heaven are the biggest promises to man and anything that threatens those IMO, deserve some hard looking in to.

When I actually pondered the problems created by this doctrine of a fallen satan, I realized that I could not for certain say that hostility will be forever gone and that we shall be forever at peace in the Lord, when we get to Heaven.

Pre-supposing for a moment that Lucifer was created perfect and somehow, somewhere attained corruption on his own, even while he knew the goodness of God (Pure Agape Love), STILL rebelled, what hope do we as mortal people, who know the difference between good and evil, have when we get to heaven?

We have no security, no true hope. It would be a disaster waiting to happen all over again.

That is a divided kingdom and Jesus said that a Kingdom divided against itself shall never succeed.

The one thing that makes this doctrine go down easy is the doctrine of free-will. Then you can just say total free will made satan's fall possible. I see that as nothing but faulty rationalization!

Don't get me wrong. I do believe in free-will but I don’t exalt it to the point of saying that it has the ability to foil God’s Will. We are nothing without God, so to think our will somehow has more imprtance than God gave it is craziness to me. Then man becomes the real god and God is merely subject to us.

No other creature, except for man, was created with the capacity or the ability to choose between good and evil. That’s a part of being created in the image of God and only man was created as such.

In regards to satan being an angel. There’s a reason why he is never said to be one. He’s actually the antithesis of an angel. Angels are mighty servants and messengers of God and in the Book of Hewbrews are said to be ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation. They keep and protect us and guardian angels continually behold the face of God. Angels constantly serve Him always doing His will.

None of these things describe satan.

He was created the dragon, serpent that he always was. He has never been in the truth, never known the truth. He was created the adversary and even in this, he is in submission to God at all times. He cannot do anything outside the scope of God’s will because all creation is subject to its Creator on some level, whether they know, realize or admit it.

Scripture never presents satan as one that chooses good or evil. Satan is all bad, all the time. He’s always been that way. That’s his job to eat dust (flesh).

Jesus said in John 8:38 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Evil itself, like satan is not it’s own entity. It does not have power without man. People give satan power. He has no power on his own. And I will boldly say that without people satan does not exist. His first appearance is in the Garden with Eve.

In Matthew 12:29, Jesus presents us with a picture of Satan being like a strong man who must be bound in order that his house can be plundered. This was the result of the authority granted to Jesus at the cross. He is strong but we now have all power over him.

In light of this, we know that:
Jesus defeated Satan and all spiritual forces of evil at the cross (Colossians 2:14-15). That’s why we now have the power to resist the devil and he will flee. He has not choice in the matter.
The testimony and work of Christians is helping to defeat Satan (Revelation 12:11).
Satan's ability to accuse us before God has been (or will be) limited (Revelation 12:10).
Satan will finally be defeated and his destiny is in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10; Matthew 25:41) That’s why in the end satan is no longer a threat. God's work will be complete in us. We will have put on incorruption and there will be no need or a place for an adversary. There will be no more dirt for the serpent to feast on. That is our assured future.
The doctrine of Lucifer/satan makes this future most uncertain and shaky at best. It doesn't resemble the promise of immortality that God puts on us. I don't believe God sacrificed His Son to give us a so-so future filled with uncertainty, fear and confusion.

This is just one implication, but there are many, many more. All it takes is a little leaven to spoil the whole lump, and it only takes a little untruth to rob the Gospel of a lot of its saving power.

The Lucifer/satan doctrine actually requires our views of other doctrines to be aligned with it in order to accomodate it. Doctrine and views on free-will, an All Powerful, All Knowing, Sovereign God, God as Creator of all things (including the adversary), among others, IMO, will be affected.

I've always believed in the above doctrines and still do, but for me they’ve just grown and matured in clarity. Doctrine is always subject to Scripture and if it’s not then it’s wrong and definitely not worth holding on to.

I apologize for going long, but I wanted to answer your question with some assemblage of thought.

It is important, even though I understand some may not see it as such. But I love ya'll anyway! :)

awestruckchild
Apr 20th 2007, 08:31 PM
ummmm.no, sorry, that didn't clear it up in my mind about someones previous post that Jesus was called satan somewhere in the Bible. I couldn't for the life of me figure where they got that unless they were referring to any verses that call satan an angel of light.

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 09:10 PM
ummmm.no, sorry, that didn't clear it up in my mind about someones previous post that Jesus was called satan somewhere in the Bible. I couldn't for the life of me figure where they got that unless they were referring to any verses that call satan an angel of light.


kjv
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

The World English Bible

IS 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low!

This should be closer to what you were looking for. Only thing is if you look up morning star in the Bible dictionary it says that that was another name for Lucifer. It does not mentioning it as a name for Jesus. If you do a search for the same in Bible verses it only comes up with the same. And that is checking 12 different translations.

hugh:idea:

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 09:24 PM
ummmm.no, sorry, that didn't clear it up in my mind about someones previous post that Jesus was called satan somewhere in the Bible. I couldn't for the life of me figure where they got that unless they were referring to any verses that call satan an angel of light.

2COR 11:14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.

It doesn't say he is the Angel of Light or was called such. It just says he could transform or disguise himself as and Angel of Light. You would have to look and the whole thing to see what it is talking of. This is the only verse I found that put the two together in and form.

hugh:idea:

awestruckchild
Apr 20th 2007, 09:38 PM
That must have been where this person got that! Thank you. You are a very kind penguin.

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 09:56 PM
That must have been where this person got that! Thank you. You are a very kind penguin.
Wait I just found a little more......

When I looked up the name Lucifer in my new edition of Webster's dictionary, the definition of Lucifer was morning star. As we know, Jesus Christ the Lord is the morning star. Knowing by faith and study the KJV is the pure word of God, and does not contradict itself, I knew that this could not be right. Looking in an older (1960's) encyclopedia, Lucifer does not mean morning star, as the dictionary tells us, nor does it mean day star. Lucifer was a name given to the planet Venus, by ancient astromaners in Latin, meaning as you pointed out, light bearer. Venus will sometimes appear as a morning star, however, it is not a star at all, but a planet that reflects the light of the sun. I hope you see the difference here. These folks knew that this was a planet body, rather than an actual star. How well does this fit satan? Very well indeed....because he is now the phony star, not the morning star. So to tell us that Lucifer means morning star is not accurate at all, because it is only half of the truth, which means it is a lie, and satan is the father of liars. We know and should not be surprised that satan will transform himself into an angel of light, but, he most definitly is not an angel of light, just as venus appears as a star, but it has no light of it's own, and is not a star at all. I hope this clarifies this with folks that may believe that Lucifer means morning star.

I think I will have to make a copy of this one for myself too.

hugh:idea:

Walstib
Apr 20th 2007, 10:39 PM
Souled Out,

I am understanding your view better for sure. I also see your connection with a spiritual meaning in Ezekiel relating to man and the fall and thanks for pointing that out as I was yet to see it. That said I still right now see relation to the enemy as well. A big connection to him and the fall of man, a shadow within a shadow if you will.

I give you also that fussing about what word is used in the original Hebrew does not “prove” anything and will not dwell on that point. So maybe leaving that behind us right now I am interested in discussing the free will aspect of this after reading your posts.

I see your point about whether it would be possible to rebel from inside heaven… at least I think I do. There are a couple things that came to mind I would ask you.


Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: (Job 4:17-18)

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jud 1:6)

To me these scriptures are saying; One, that the angels had folly, if they were made evil why would they be charged with it? Second the “kept not” and “left their” parts of the second verse to me show a will. Why would you say this is not so?

Third one and the biggest one for me…

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1Co 6:3)

Why would we judge angels if they were just doing their job?

Thanks,

Joe

Souled Out
Apr 20th 2007, 10:47 PM
ummmm.no, sorry, that didn't clear it up in my mind about someones previous post that Jesus was called satan somewhere in the Bible. I couldn't for the life of me figure where they got that unless they were referring to any verses that call satan an angel of light.

Hi, paintdiva. :)

Satan is a Hebrew word that means adversary. Satanas is the Aramaic. The definition bears repeating so that it’s meaning or usage in Scripture is not lost. The satan/adversary was everything from spirits, nations, people and even God served as adversary against man for man's benefit.

”Satan” is translated "adversary, "resist," "withstand," and is also transliterated as just plain ole "satan".

It is translated "adversary" in the following verses: Num. 22:22, I Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22- I Kings 5:4,11:14,23,25- Psalm 38:20; 71:13; 109-4,20,29.

It is translated "withstands" in Numbers 22:32.

It is translated "resist" in Zech. 3:1.

It is translated "Satan" in 1 Chron. 21:1; Job 1:6,7,8,9,12; 2:1,2,3,4,6,7; Psalm 109:6; Zech. 3:1,2; Matt. 4:10; 12:26; 16:23; Mark 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; 8:33; Luke 4:8; 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3,31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3, 26:18 Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:9- 1 Tim. 1:20, 5:15, Rev. 2:9,13,24, 3:9,12:9, 20:2,7.

In Scripture “satan” has been used to describe evil thoughts (Luke 22:3; John 13:27; Acts 5:3), the flesh (Acts26:18), the world as adverse to God's ways (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20), governments (Rev. 12:9; Luke 10:18), God when He opposes Israel’s plans (1 Chron. 21:1 corresponds with 2 Samuel 24:1 ), an "Angel of the Lord" (Num. 22:22,32), good and evil men (1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; Psa. 38:20), an Apostle (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33), adverse religious communities (Rev. 2:9), sickness (Luke 13:16).

The meaning doesn’t change in any of the passages, but with some translations you wouldn’t know that unless you looked the word up in Strong’s or some other Hebrew or Greek dictionary or lexicon. It's one extra step but it certainly provides a better understanding. :)

awestruckchild
Apr 20th 2007, 11:14 PM
That was VERY interesting Hugh! Thank you! I have been told I am not supposed to talk to you guys for 8 days so I am going to make this my last reply until then because I'm a good girl and want to follow the rules. I still can't quite understand how my posts are getting to you since I assume I am supposed to be blocked from speaking, but I am not very computer literate. I appreciate that info on the morning star and I will be back when I am allowed.
I got onto a board that was men only and somehow they zapped me a message ( computers still amaze and scare me). They probably freaked, as I would have, I guess, at a man named paintdiva. I was horrified at the time but now I can't stop giggling about it. It gives me a mental picture of a bunch of guys grabbing for their towels like I accidentally walked into the mens locker room.
Anyway, I will use the time until I'm allowed to chat to try to find the rule book so as not to offend again. Thanks! I will be back with so MANY biblical questions you may wish you never met me!

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 11:34 PM
Souled Out, You had this verse in your post.
Jesus said in John 8:38 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

According to Vincent Word Studies, which is part of the E-Sword that I downloaded due to posts earlier in this thread, The word beginning in this verse refers to the begining of the human race. Also the word murderer refers to Satan being the author of death to the human race. Hense the begining of death in the Garden of Eden. It does not refer to him before being cast out. At least that is what I am getting out of this.

hugh

Harrison Potter
Apr 20th 2007, 11:44 PM
I will still be here then hopefully. The guys must not be quite as understanding as the ladies were with me or maybe you posted more than once. Will look for you after 8 days then. Take care
hugh

writergirl
Apr 21st 2007, 12:32 AM
Hey paintdiva!

I just wanted to clarify for you (and Hugh ;) ) in case you haven't read our response yet, that you are in no way in trouble or restricted at all. Mistakes happen, and as long as they are honest mistakes it isn't a big deal. (The guys here are very understanding too, as long as it doesn't become a repetitive mistake, which I know it won't in your case. :) )

The 8 days refers to the PM system only...you have full posting priveleges on the forum....well, except for Solomon's Porch, of course. :P

Souled Out
Apr 21st 2007, 04:00 AM
I am understanding your view better for sure. I also see your connection with a spiritual meaning in Ezekiel relating to man and the fall and thanks for pointing that out as I was yet to see it.Thank you for listening. :)



That said I still right now see relation to the enemy as well. A big connection to him and the fall of man, a shadow within a shadow if you will. I can appreciate that and I can definitely see a fall of the enemy in Ezekiel, but I see his fall quite as Jesus saw it as the 70 returned from preaching in Acts. So, I don’t see this fall as a fall from grace because Scripture nevers says that he ever had grace.

But I can see some type of fall.



I give you also that fussing about what word is used in the original Hebrew does not “prove” anything and will not dwell on that point. So maybe leaving that behind us right now I am interested in discussing the free will aspect of this after reading your posts.
Ahh, discussing free-will is always fun. :lol:



I see your point about whether it would be possible to rebel from inside heaven… at least I think I do. There are a couple things that came to mind I would ask you.

Shallmortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: (Job 4:17-18)

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jud 1:6)

To me these scriptures are saying; One, that the angels had folly, if they were made evil why would they be charged with it? Second the “kept not” and “left their” parts of the second verse to me show a will. Why would you say this is not so?“Angel” simply means messenger and I see that there are three types of angels in Scripture - human messengers, celestial messengers, and the Christophany (The Angel of the Lord) in the OT, so context determines which one is in view.

I believe that:

Angel – celestial beings (do not fall)
Angel – human messengers that speak for God (can and do fall)
Angel - Christophany (Christ)

So IMO, and I believe Scripture supports this, that fallen angels are humans, called men (messengers) of God who fall from grace, and that fallen angels do not reference the celestial beings that are always subject to the Face of God.

For example, Haggai, David and John the Baptist were called messengers or "angels" of the Lord because they spoke for Him (Haggai 1:13, 1 Samuel 29:9, Malachi 3:1).

In Revelation 19:10 the apostle John fell at the feet of an angel to worship him, and the angel said, "See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!"
John later echoes this idea when he speaks of "The measure of a man, that is of an angel" in Revelation 21:17.



Third one and the biggest one for me…

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1Co 6:3)

Why would we judge angels if they were just doing their job?
In my view, the angels that we will judge are human messengers.

Thanks,

Joe
Thank you.

Souled Out
Apr 21st 2007, 04:36 AM
Souled Out, You had this verse in your post.
Jesus said in John 8:38 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

According to Vincent Word Studies, which is part of the E-Sword that I downloaded due to posts earlier in this thread, The word beginning in this verse refers to the begining of the human race. Also the word murderer refers to Satan being the author of death to the human race. Hense the begining of death in the Garden of Eden. It does not refer to him before being cast out. At least that is what I am getting out of this.

hugh

Here is the actual word "beginning" that is being used in that passage.

Strong's Number: 746 a¹rxh/
Original Word Word Origin
a¹rxh/ from (756)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Arche ar-khay'
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Feminine 1:479,81
Definition

1.beginning, origin
2.the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3.that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4.the extremity of a thing
a.of the corners of a sail
5.the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a.of angels and demons

Translated Words

KJV (58) - beginning, 40; corner, 2; first, 2; misc, 6; principality, 8;

NAS (55) - beginning, 38; corners, 2; domain, 1; elementary, 1; first, 1; first preaching, 1; principalities, 1; rule, 4; rulers, 6;

Since Jesus is talking about satan's origin, I don't see the basis of his conclusion. We're never told that satan existed before man. There just aren't any scriptures to attest to this. IMO its just speculative and reading beyond what scripture actually says.

Walstib
Apr 21st 2007, 02:51 PM
In my view, the angels that we will judge are human messengers.

I agree that there are messengers of this world and messengers not of this world. Jesus being called an angel I have not looked into much so maybe I should read that other thread hear some but this is not really on focus to our discussion. Still I am not finding agreement with your conclusion for the verse from Corinthians.

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1Co 5:10-13)

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (1Co 6:1-4)

I did just put one verse down but did not do so without assuming it would be taken in it’s full context. Paul teaches that it is proper to judge the sin on a person. Both believers and non believers. He specifies that the saints will judge the world. A earthly messenger of God would be of this world. He then goes on to compare it to angels to show the depth of what the children of God will become. They are not of this life as shown in his comparison. “this life” referring to “of this world”.

Even with the definitions you give of the different kinds of angels I don’t see it fitting the context of the verse. How would you say that my reasoning here in this passage is wrong?

Peace,

Joe

Toolapc
Apr 21st 2007, 10:47 PM
Was Satan an angel?and if so why did he decide to leave heaven?

Satan didnt decide to leave heaven and GOD didnt kill satan. Instead GOD threw satan out of heaven for being the creator of Darkness. satan in the bible is also known as the LORDs tempest meaning God has power over satan.

IN heaven there is no killing and there is no darkness satan created these things and we are bound to this darkness because we have a corruptible body that is not Christ like. human kind is above all other creations because we have to suffer with a corruptible body unlike the angels.

Harrison Potter
Apr 21st 2007, 11:42 PM
Hey paintdiva!

I just wanted to clarify for you (and Hugh ;) ) in case you haven't read our response yet, that you are in no way in trouble or restricted at all. Mistakes happen, and as long as they are honest mistakes it isn't a big deal. (The guys here are very understanding too, as long as it doesn't become a repetitive mistake, which I know it won't in your case. :) )

The 8 days refers to the PM system only...you have full posting priveleges on the forum....well, except for Solomon's Porch, of course. :P

Hope this doesn't show up twice, but first time didn't make it I guess as browser said it could load the next page after I hit submit.

Anyway I said thank you from both of us. I knew about mine. What I don't know is if she will be back to read you response here before the 8 days are up. Thank you again though.

By the way how does one turn on this messaging thing I keep being told that isn't on? I would be glad to do it if I could just find it and take care of it.

hugh:idea:

Harrison Potter
Apr 21st 2007, 11:59 PM
Souled Out, I agree it does not say when. We don't know how long Adam was on his own in the Garden before Eve and the only time he seems to show up is after God created Eve. Then we don't know how long both Adam and Eve spent in the Garden either before Satan tempted her. Time from what we have been told did not start till they were sent out of the Garden. Just for the sake of formulating an opinion on it from what I have read and understood, I have come to believe that there is a strong possibility that Satan and the others were not cast out from the presence of God until after Eve was created. So now I have a revised opinion from what I had, but that is all we can have as there are no concrete answers to this one.

hugh

Souled Out
Apr 23rd 2007, 03:39 PM
I agree that there are messengers of this world and messengers not of this world. Jesus being called an angel I have not looked into much so maybe I should read that other thread hear some but this is not really on focus to our discussion. Still I am not finding agreement with your conclusion for the verse from Corinthians.

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1Co 5:10-13)

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (1Co 6:1-4)

I did just put one verse down but did not do so without assuming it would be taken in it’s full context. Paul teaches that it is proper to judge the sin on a person. Both believers and non believers. He specifies that the saints will judge the world. A earthly messenger of God would be of this world. He then goes on to compare it to angels to show the depth of what the children of God will become. They are not of this life as shown in his comparison. “this life” referring to “of this world”.

Even with the definitions you give of the different kinds of angels I don’t see it fitting the context of the verse. How would you say that my reasoning here in this passage is wrong?

Peace,

Joe

I wouldn't say that it is wrong, it's just different than how I see it. The scripture, to me is an escalation of responsibility: first judging things of this world, then judging things in heaven.

“Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?" Things that pertain to this life vs. things pertaining to the next life.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77