PDA

View Full Version : Lucifer?



DavidStrickland
Sep 25th 2008, 09:58 AM
Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?
Some hints from the passage

It was the equal to the kings of the earth (vs. 9-10)
It is in the Grave(vs. 11)
It is covered with worms (vs.11)
It had Fallen from on High (vs. 12)
It weakened the Nations (vs. 12)
It was Proud (vs. 13)
It thought it's self a god. (vs. 13,14)
It was a man(human) (VS. 16)
He Had body(Carcass) (vs. 19)
He had Children (vs. 21)

OK before you immediately jump to an answer do you have any supporting biblical text to back up who you believe Lucifer to be. If Lucifer has another name or identity it would have to be someone we know from either Biblical or Historical evidence that matches up to the description given in Isaiah 14.

Interested to hear your input.

David Taylor
Sep 25th 2008, 12:00 PM
"Lucifer" like the names "scratch" or "boogeyman" are common-lore names for the devil, Satan.

Regardless of their origins or biblical corroboration/lack thereof, they are commonly known and accepted names for Satan in English speaking cultures.

markedward
Sep 25th 2008, 12:49 PM
Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

faithfulfriend
Sep 25th 2008, 01:11 PM
The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

To back this point up:

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

There's not getting around it. Lucifer is the King of Babylon. All you have to do now is find out who the King of Babylon was :)

tgallison
Sep 25th 2008, 01:32 PM
The word "lucifer", meaning "light-bearer" was a poor Latin translation of the original Hebrew "heylel", meaning "shining one". The original text uses the term as an adjective, not a name. The person being view in Isaiah 14 is not Satan, but a mere man who was the king of Babylon.

I believe we sometimes miss the broader picture, when we delve to narrowly into individual word meanings.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", Jesus was speaking to the spiritual power behind Peter.

When Satan offered up the kingdoms of this world to Jesus, Jesus said the same thing, "Get thee behind me, Satan. (Luke 4:8)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and Ezekiel speaks and says, the king of Tyrus was in Eden, the garden of God, is this not both speaking of a man and Satan. (Ezekiel 28:13)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and he was told to speak to the king of Egypt, and he describes the king as a cedar tree, that was in Eden, the garden of God, isn't it true that the word is describing both the man king, and the power behind all kingdoms on earth. (Ezekiel chapter 30)

Doesn't the word describe leviathan as Satan, when he says leviathan beholds all high things, he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34)

matthew94
Sep 25th 2008, 02:48 PM
I agree with the assumed aim of the OP. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are, at the very least primarily, about the kings of Babylon and Tyre. If some of the statements in those passages apply to Satan as well, it has some application to him. But some of the statements can be made to apply to just about anybody.

What we need to realize is that much of our 'doctrine' of satan is derived from these 2 passages. Because of this, I hold a concrete doctrine of satan very loosely. There is an adversary and we know a lot of the kinds of things he does, but we simply don't know much about his origins.

David Taylor
Sep 25th 2008, 03:04 PM
Scripture also at times, uses 'the king of Babylon', 'the king of Persia', 'the king of Tyre' as personifications of evil and wickedness; whether the devil directly, or simply wickedness in general.

tgallison
Sep 25th 2008, 03:18 PM
I agree with the assumed aim of the OP. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are, at the very least primarily, about the kings of Babylon and Tyre. If some of the statements in those passages apply to Satan as well, it has some application to him. But some of the statements can be made to apply to just about anybody.

What we need to realize is that much of our 'doctrine' of satan is derived from these 2 passages. Because of this, I hold a concrete doctrine of satan very loosely. There is an adversary and we know a lot of the kinds of things he does, but we simply don't know much about his origins.

Jesus has many names. The Rock, the Word, the bread of life, the temple, the right arm, the living water, the light of the world, as well as many others.

Satan also is called by many names.

If a passage says, a person was in Eden, the garden of God, it doesn't leave much to the imagination of who it is referring to. There is much more than two passages that contain information on Satan.

petepet
Sep 25th 2008, 04:02 PM
Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?
Some hints from the passage

It was the equal to the kings of the earth (vs. 9-10)
It is in the Grave(vs. 11)
It is covered with worms (vs.11)
It had Fallen from on High (vs. 12)
It weakened the Nations (vs. 12)
It was Proud (vs. 13)
It thought it's self a god. (vs. 13,14)
It was a man(human) (VS. 16)
He Had body(Carcass) (vs. 19)
He had Children (vs. 21)

OK before you immediately jump to an answer do you have any supporting biblical text to back up who you believe Lucifer to be. If Lucifer has another name or identity it would have to be someone we know from either Biblical or Historical evidence that matches up to the description given in Isaiah 14.

Interested to hear your input.

As has been said, it is quite clear that this applies to the king of Babylon who at this stage was obviously laying great claims to semi-deity. There are no grounds for attaching the name Lucifer (shining one) to Satan which arise prior to post New Testament times. In the Sybilline oracles (2nd century BC) Lucifer is simply one of a number of stars along with Leo, Capricorn, Taurus, Orion, Virgo, Pleiad, Pisces, Cancer, Aquarius, all engaged in battle with each other. That is the only other mention of his name that I know of prior to the coming of Christ Jesus.

On the other hand the passage says that it is the king of Babylon who sees himself like this. It must be remembered that the kings of Babylon took a major part in the annual mythical representations which were intended to 'move' their gods into action. During such representations he no doubt 'ascended on high'. Isaiah also shows him as descending into a physical grave and being eaten by physical worms.

The passage in Ezekiel 28 has in mind that certain Tyrian temples were constructed so as to represent Paradise, including trees which could be laden with jewels (offerings) and an artificial mountain. Thus he too in mythical representation would walk in Paradise, clother is splendour, amid the surrounding jewels (stones of fire) and the surrounding trees. and upon the holy mountain. (Indeed Tyre and Lebanon with its cedars and firs were seen as 'the garden of God' - Ezekiel 31.8). There is nothing there that requires a supernatural figure.

Pharaoh meanwhile continued to see himself as a god.

The truth is that Scripture gives us no indication of how Satan came to be what he was. The first hint we have is in the Garden of Eden. But even there it is the snake that we see not Satan himself. We only know that the evil power behind the snake was Satan because it is revealed in the New Testament. As for the fall of angels, the first hint we have of it is in Genesis 6.1-4, which may in fact be the time whn they 'fell'.

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 04:57 PM
Excellent responses all around! There's also evidence that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was deferred to by the KJV translators over the Masoretic Hebrew Text when the two sources differed textually from each other. Allegorical interpretation was common in Jerome's day, and he most likely saw Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as depictions of Satan's fall that he simply inserted Lucifer into his Latin translation.

markedward
Sep 25th 2008, 06:38 PM
I believe we sometimes miss the broader picture, when we delve to narrowly into individual word meanings.

[quote]When Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", Jesus was speaking to the spiritual power behind Peter.Except for this: Jesus explicitly said "Satan." In Isaiah 14, people assume that (a) "lucifer" is a name, and (b) that "lucifer" refers to Satan. Nothing in the text infers that Satan was being spoken of except for the one who reads it into the text.


When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and Ezekiel speaks and says, the king of Tyrus was in Eden, the garden of God, is this not both speaking of a man and Satan. (Ezekiel 28:13)No, it is not speaking of Satan. Reading chapter 28 in context of chapters 26 and 27, it's not difficult to see that the "cherub" and "garden of God" were used as hyperbolic metaphors for how "beautiful" the king of Tyre thought he and his kingdom were.


Doesn't the word describe leviathan as Satan, when he says leviathan beholds all high things, he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34)Except, again, you assume that "leviathan" is referring to Satan, when nothing in the text says so or implies as much. You're reading your interpretation into the text, not out of it.

A summary study of ancient history reveals that nearly all kings, emperors, and pharaohs of those ancient kingdoms mentioned (Tyre, Babylon, Egypt, even on to Rome) considered themselves as "deities."

Hence...

"You have said in your heart 'I will ascend to heaven.'" Isaiah does not describe it as a literal action, but it was the will of the king of Babylon's heart. His internal intent was to deify himself - self-deification was widespread among rulers of the ancient world.

Likewise with Ezekiel 28: "In the pride of your heart you say, 'I am a god.' But you are a man and not a god." Read chapters 26-28. The overall emphasis of the chapters is Tyre's perfect beauty and how it became rich through trade. When you finally reach Ezekiel 28's lament over the king of Tyre, and it speaks of him as a cherub in Eden, this is metaphor to describe just how beautiful and rich his kingdom was. Specifically, in verse 16, we are directly told that the "cherub's" sin was caused by his "widespread trade". Did Satan first sin as a result of "widespread trade". Scripturally, no. The "cherub" is obviously pure metaphor in this chapter for the man-king of Tyre, and it is not a "reference" to Satan.

DavidStrickland
Sep 25th 2008, 06:56 PM
Wow thanks great comments. Mathew94's comment probably sums up where I am at this point myself. I had always just assumed Lucifer was Satan's first name. More recently though I began to start looking at all these a fresh and the result was a re classification of many of my "Facts" to be "Opinions". Kind of wondered if anyone else was in the same boat which led to the post.

What led to this evaluation was the Idea of the "fall" of Satan. If Satan could be created Perfect and then chose to fall some time in eternity past could not men then in eternity future chose to do the same thing.

Considering Eternity is just that Eternal anything that could happen eventually would happen and the ultimate result would be everything would eventually end up fallen.

Emanate
Sep 25th 2008, 07:01 PM
Following the topic:

Satan does not always refer to "the devil." Satan in Hebrew means Adversary. I forget the greek counterpart, but it is similar in meaning to the Hebrew.

tgallison
Sep 25th 2008, 08:52 PM
Following the topic:

Satan does not always refer to "the devil." Satan in Hebrew means Adversary. I forget the greek counterpart, but it is similar in meaning to the Hebrew.

The word Satan always refers to the devil. What you mean is adversary does not always mean Satan.

matthew94
Sep 25th 2008, 09:13 PM
If a passage says, a person was in Eden, the garden of God, it doesn't leave much to the imagination of who it is referring to. There is much more than two passages that contain information on Satan.

tgallison,

Yours is a classic case of curiously circular contemporary logic. Instead of taking the literal statement that it's about a human king and using common sense to equate the Eden imagery as metaphor, you take the imagery as literal as historical statement as metaphor!

Suppose you and I went to Pizza Hut. Upon seeing the buffet, I might say "Oh boy, this buffet is heavenly!" I would, of course, mean that Pizza Hut is a real place, but eating pizza is so delightful, for me, that it compares to the delight I'll experience in heaven. You, on the other hand, would be inclined to say that we were actually IN HEAVEN, but that the delight experienced there was akin to a slice of pizza!

As I said before, we KNOW the passage is talking about an earthly King because it says so. It makes all the sense in the world that the Eden imagery is used to describe how lovely his life was at some point prior to the coming judgment of his nation.

theBelovedDisciple
Sep 25th 2008, 09:18 PM
A question for you.. interesting discussion about the King of Tyre... can the devil, Satan.. an angelic being.. a spirit.. can he and those fallen angelic spirits ,who followed him.. can they 'indwell' humans or possess humans and their flesh?... According to Biblical Scripture.....Jesus Himself and His followers 'cast' out devils or demons or wicked spirirts from people, 'flesh'.. these wicked spirits were possessing these people.....

I will tell you without a shadow of a doubt they 'do' possess human flesh.. I will tell u without a shadow of a doubt that 'iniquity' or 100% pure evil has a 'face'.....literally..

Scripture refers to the 'devil' himself entering Judas... and when Peter confronted Jesus Himself about not going to Calvary.. it wasnt Peter speaking but Satan Himself.. the supernatural is real.. its as real as the five fingers on your hands.. may your eyes and ears be opened to that...

Its in Satans best interest to keep his true identity 'hid' or masqueraded... he is a deciever and a liar... he is a 'counterfiet'... his best defense is to get people to believe that he isnt who the Scripture says he is.. or that he really doesnt exist.. he wants that and he plants those who he uses who will teach deception to the masses about him and his true identity...


Lucifer, Satan, accuser of the brethern, thief, murderer, slanderer.. are just a few of his names...

livingword26
Sep 25th 2008, 09:20 PM
Rev 20:2
(2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,


I agree that Satan and the devil are synonymous. I also agree that Lucifer is not a refrence to Satan, but to man, who lost his brightness when he (we) fell.

Emanate
Sep 26th 2008, 12:19 PM
The word Satan always refers to the devil. What you mean is adversary does not always mean Satan.


No, sorry. What I mean is the word satan in Hebrew means adversary. Which is very close to what I said previously. I usually say what I mean, not what you think.

RoadWarrior
Sep 26th 2008, 01:21 PM
When we are attempting to understand the symbolism and language used in Isaiah 14, it is useful to also look at Daniel 10. When the heavenly messenger came in answer to Daniel's prayer, he was "withstood by the prince of the kingdom of Persia" (see verse 13) and helped by Michael, one of the chief princes, the prince of Israel (see verse 21). Verse 20 mentions the prince of Persia, and the prince of Greece. These are not the earthly princes named in history but the spiritual forces behind their kingdoms.

The things that are happening on earth visibly have forces behind them, that are happening on an invisible to us, spirtual level.

There was in the time of Isaiah the earthly kingdom of Babylon, but there was (and is) also the spiritual kingdom of Babylon.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 is another view of the same spiritual entity. There is an interesting thing to note, in verse 1, the prince of Tyre is addressed, and in verse 12 the king of Tyre is addressed.

Jewish literature is to be understood on more than one level. For example, there is "peshat" the simple, surface truth. Then there is "Remezh", a hint, a hidden truth under the surface.

Search the scriptures to find truth. Pray and seek the wisdom of God, it is greater far than the wisdom of man.

To gain a full understanding of Satan study these scriptures:

Ezekiel 28:12-19
Revelation 12: 7 ff
Isaiah 14:12-17
Job 1:6 ff
Rev 20:7-10

matthew94
Sep 26th 2008, 01:49 PM
Roadwarrior,

There is a difference in genre from Daniel to Isaiah, one being apocalyptic and the other historical judgment narrative. I don't think anyone, here, is denying that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 might have some applications toward Satan. But making applications and exegeting the passage are two different things. We should all agree that the primary meanings of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are in reference to earthly kings. Anything beyond this is speculative. What I have a problem with is people ignoring the primary meaning completely (or, at least, mostly) and interpreting the passage as if it is primarily and certainly about satan. They do this so fast that they ignore the fact that tons of verses in each passage no longer make sense when applied to Satan. It's classic proof-texting. If you were JUST reading Isaiah or Ezekiel in their entirety, you'd be very unlikely to associate those texts with Satan. But if you're doing a topical study on Satan, and you're told to turn to those passages, you feel like it fits very nicely, especially since you only look at the well-fitting verse numbers.

RoadWarrior
Sep 26th 2008, 02:28 PM
Hi Matthew,

I appreciate your post. I agree with you about the earthly kings. However, there are some points there which cannot possibly apply to earthly kings. If you don't apply them to the understanding on a spiritual level, what do you do with those passages?

This is likely one of those issues which never get resolved. :cry: I know that for me in my early struggles with Christianity, those two passages filled in the blanks and helped me to understand, together with the other scriptures I quoted, who Satan is and what is his role in the earth.

Not all people struggle with that issue, and I applaud all those who just accept without question. But if someone is asking how evil came to be, it requires the understanding of who Satan is, and what is his relationshp with God. Why is he here, why is he allowed to continue.

Augustine defined evil not as something that was created, but as non-being, a corruption of the perfect. The example is given of a shirt, which is whole and complete. If the shirt is torn, something new has not been created, but a corruption of the perfect has happened. His view is derived at least in part from Platonism. It does not address the very real fact of spiritual warfare.

Whether Lucifer is a correct name for the serpent, the dragon, the devil, the adversary... is not so important IMO as understanding who he is, and why he is our enemy.

divaD
Sep 27th 2008, 12:17 AM
Roadwarrior,

There is a difference in genre from Daniel to Isaiah, one being apocalyptic and the other historical judgment narrative. I don't think anyone, here, is denying that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 might have some applications toward Satan. But making applications and exegeting the passage are two different things. We should all agree that the primary meanings of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are in reference to earthly kings. Anything beyond this is speculative. What I have a problem with is people ignoring the primary meaning completely (or, at least, mostly) and interpreting the passage as if it is primarily and certainly about satan. They do this so fast that they ignore the fact that tons of verses in each passage no longer make sense when applied to Satan. It's classic proof-texting. If you were JUST reading Isaiah or Ezekiel in their entirety, you'd be very unlikely to associate those texts with Satan. But if you're doing a topical study on Satan, and you're told to turn to those passages, you feel like it fits very nicely, especially since you only look at the well-fitting verse numbers.



Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me


No one should be able to deny that satan has earthly kingdoms. It shows it to be true, right within this passage. Putting 2 and 2 together, when ever we read about earthly kingdoms, if we can't associate those kingdoms to the kingdom of God, then you can bet that it's likely one of satan's earthly kingdoms. Notice that it states "all the kingdoms of the world" as in more than one. A good place to start, to see where one of these kingdoms origated, you might try reading Gen ch 10.

Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.


We see here that the beginning of his kingdom was babel. Here we just established the beginning of a kingdom. The question is, the beginning of the kingdom of God, or the beginning of one of satan's earthly kingdoms? In which he later would be willing to give to Jesus in return, if Jesus bowed down and worshipped him.

And as far as what you stated to roadwarrior in relation to using also Daniel, in order to understand the spiritual behind the earthly kingdoms, you just simply miss the point. IMO, roadwarrior made an excellent point in that regard, and I tend to agree with her, assuming that I'm correctly understanding her point.

Bick
Sep 27th 2008, 04:40 AM
I believe we sometimes miss the broader picture, when we delve to narrowly into individual word meanings.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan", Jesus was speaking to the spiritual power behind Peter.

When Satan offered up the kingdoms of this world to Jesus, Jesus said the same thing, "Get thee behind me, Satan. (Luke 4:8)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and Ezekiel speaks and says, the king of Tyrus was in Eden, the garden of God, is this not both speaking of a man and Satan. (Ezekiel 28:13)

When the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, and he was told to speak to the king of Egypt, and he describes the king as a cedar tree, that was in Eden, the garden of God, isn't it true that the word is describing both the man king, and the power behind all kingdoms on earth. (Ezekiel chapter 30)

Doesn't the word describe leviathan as Satan, when he says leviathan beholds all high things, he is a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34)

MY COMMENTS: Hi tg. You've brought out some interesting thoughts.

I had a hard time believing "Lucifer" i.e. "the shining one" was Satan until I did a thorough research. More tomorrow.

RogerW
Sep 27th 2008, 01:21 PM
Wow thanks great comments. Mathew94's comment probably sums up where I am at this point myself. I had always just assumed Lucifer was Satan's first name. More recently though I began to start looking at all these a fresh and the result was a re classification of many of my "Facts" to be "Opinions". Kind of wondered if anyone else was in the same boat which led to the post.

What led to this evaluation was the Idea of the "fall" of Satan. If Satan could be created Perfect and then chose to fall some time in eternity past could not men then in eternity future chose to do the same thing.

Considering Eternity is just that Eternal anything that could happen eventually would happen and the ultimate result would be everything would eventually end up fallen.

Greetings David,

This is a valid assumption that I too have considered. This is one of the reasons I began to question the validity of calling Satan a fallen angel. That Satan is spirit finds much support in Scripture, but does this mean that all created spirits are angels?

Angel is defined as a messenger of God, but the spirit being called Satan is not a messenger of God, but the accuser; i.e. the devil. Now the devil is a false accuser, a slanderer; that old serpent. The serpent is a snake; an artful malicious person. You see how diverse these two spirit beings are.

We assume that Satan was created good and then in pride fell from his high angelic position, by misunderstanding Isa 14 and Eze 28. Since the Lord created all things in heaven and earth, he also created that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, and his demonic spirit messengers.

I am one who believes that sin and evil have always been used by God to accomplish His eternal covenant. There are instances where God has permitted sin and evil to demonstrate His power and glory. Consider for instance how God used Pharaoh. Therefore it is my belief that God created that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan to be subtil, crafty and cunning as we see him in the garden with Eve (Gen 3:1) as the serpent.

I don't believe Satan was ever a good or holy messenger (angel) of God, whose pride caused him to fall. I believe he is exactly what God created him to be; i.e. subtil, crafty and more cunning then any other creature. God does not make Satan, or for that matter anyone to sin, but God did create him to be subtil, crafty and cunning, and then allowed him to tempt His created humans. God knew that Adam and Eve would be deceived and fall, and is why He (God) provided an answer for the problem of sin before the foundation of the world; i.e. Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

Why? Why would God create man very good and then allow a subtil, crafty and cunning spirit being to deceive them and cause them to disobey Him? I believe it is because mankind was chosen to bear His image. God determined to set His love upon mankind. But mankind, before the fall had no knowledge of good or evil. So how could mankind know what God's all encompassing love truly is, unless they know the evil, and what the love of God has done to save them?

People often say that God does not desire robots, but that He wants mankind to love Him freely. Could man, without knowledge of good or evil know how to love God the way He desires them to? No, it just makes sense, at least it does to me, that God, while not causing anyone to commit sin, uses sin and evil to accomplish His redemptive purposes for mankind.

Though God has permitted this evil, spirit being called Satan to work his subtil, craft and cunning throughout His created universe, he will not exist in the new heavens and the new earth. In fact we find in Rev 12 how Satan has already been cast out of heaven, along with his evil messengers after Christ defeated death and sin at the cross. Satan is a defeated foe, used by God to fulfill His will, and once the Kingdom of God is complete there will be no more need for this evil adversary of God and His people.

Many Blessings,
RW

paidforinfull
Sep 29th 2008, 07:21 PM
Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?


The name Lucifer which means 'light-bearer' or 'brilliant star' only appears once in some versions of the Bible, and not at all in others. It appears in a prophesy by the prophet Isaiah against a Babylonian king called Lucifer, but the prophesy has been written in such a way that some scholars believe it to be a metaphor to describe the fate of the fallen angel called Satan.

paidforinfull
Sep 29th 2008, 07:21 PM
Isaiah 14 Speaks of a being named Lucifer. Who or what is Lucifer?


The name Lucifer which means 'light-bearer' or 'brilliant star' only appears once in some versions of the Bible, and not at all in others. It appears in a prophesy by the prophet Isaiah against a Babylonian king called Lucifer, but the prophesy has been written in such a way that some scholars believe it to be a metaphor to describe the fate of the fallen angel called Satan.

DavidStrickland
Oct 2nd 2008, 04:25 AM
the fallen angel called Satan.

Paid for in full. Do you have any scripture to back up the idea that Satan is a fallen angel?

paidforinfull
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:46 PM
Paid for in full. Do you have any scripture to back up the idea that Satan is a fallen angel?
Dear David: Road Warrior has already given you all the relevant scriptures.

Just a note here: Ezekiel 28:1-10 clearly speaks about a man (the ruler of Tyre), but verses 12-19 speaks of another entity (the king of Tyre). Now, this 'king of Tyre' used to be a guardian cherub in the garden of Eden, which means that he is actually more powerful than an angel (Cherubim are of a higher order than the angels). Sad that one of the guardians of Eden became the ultimate traitor. Satan is indeed a very powerful being - more so than what most people realize.

God bless.

Emanate
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:26 PM
Dear David: Road Warrior has already given you all the relevant scriptures.

Just a note here: Ezekiel 28:1-10 clearly speaks about a man (the ruler of Tyre), but verses 12-19 speaks of another entity (the king of Tyre). Now, this 'king of Tyre' used to be a guardian cherub in the garden of Eden, which means that he is actually more powerful than an angel (Cherubim are of a higher order than the angels). Sad that one of the guardians of Eden became the ultimate traitor. Satan is indeed a very powerful being - more so than what most people realize.

God bless.


When can I find a guide to angels and their various rankings?

Also, I am not the least bit concerned with how powerful the adversary is, I carry the name of the One who has defeated him.

RoadWarrior
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:32 PM
When can I find a guide to angels and their various rankings?

Also, I am not the least bit concerned with how powerful the adversary is, I carry the name of the One who has defeated him.

If you read Hebrews, you will learn that angels are messengers, and are sent as helpers. In Daniel, you will see that the messenger/angel who came to Daniel in response to his fasting and prayer, had to do battle with a "prince" before he could reach Daniel.

Are you interested in a careful study of spritual beings? Be ready for spiritual warfare.

Emanate
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:34 PM
If you read Hebrews, you will learn that angels are messengers, and are sent as helpers. In Daniel, you will see that the messenger/angel who came to Daniel in response to his fasting and prayer, had to do battle with a "prince" before he could reach Daniel.

Are you interested in a careful study of spritual beings? Be ready for spiritual warfare.


I was referring to something that lists the types of Angels everyone talks about (cherubim, seeraphim, etc..) and their listed rank in the hierarchy.

RoadWarrior
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:50 PM
I was referring to something that lists the types of Angels everyone talks about (cherubim, seeraphim, etc..) and their listed rank in the hierarchy.

I don't think the Bible tells us all the details we would need to know in order to build such a chart. There is a great deal of mystery involved still, in the things of God.

Therefore if you come upon a chart, it will be a construct of man's attempts. The religion of the man constructing it will influence what he puts together. I.E., there will be a Christian one, a Hebrew one, a Kabbalistic one, a New Age one, etc., etc.

In any case, we are never to worship angels as some do, nor to pray to them as some do, nor to look to them for protection as some do.

We are to worship God, pray to God, and look to God for protection. If God chooses to send an angel as the messenger or the protector, still the power comes from God and not from the angel.

If you have an interest in a particular type of angel, get your concordance and search it out. Read it in context and with prayer, and allow the Holy Spirit to teach you.

If you wish, you may start a new thread with that particular subject and we can study it out together.