|
Post by stormyknight on Aug 7, 2019 12:05:56 GMT -6
venge, I wonder if John 8:44 is referring to Satan influencing Cain to kill Able or perhaps his knowing that tempting Eve would lead to hers and Adam's death, thus murdering them. If either one is the case, then,while both events were in the beginning, relatively, there was time passing before these events. We must also remember " ALL the Sons of God shouted for joy" Job 38:6-7, when the foundations of the Earth were laid. I still contend that Lucifer and other 'satans' mentioned may or may not be the same entity being talked about, but, the one entity in Ezekiel 28:11-19 must have been a pretty important being. He was decked out similar to the High Priest of the Temple, God placed him in His Holy Mountain as a Guardian Cherub, etc. While this may not be Lucifer/Halel Ben Shachar, it most definitely is an entity of great importance and is the one that was in the Garden of Eden. I don't think the scriptures say anywhere that he was an archangel, but that possibly could be implied. Just my speculations, venge. I do my best to avoid trying to make verses fit my thought train. As my boss likes to say, "it is what it is." If scripture says thus, then thus it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 12:31:57 GMT -6
Can you please elaborate, why you do find it fascinating and what exactly is fascinating?
BTW Lucifer/Satan was a cherub according to Ezekiel 28.
Ezekiel, in verse 2, says: Not Satan or the devil. And in verse 12, God continues by saying: And he describes the Kig of Tyre in a fanciful way of imagery. Its quite beautiful actually. Never once is Satan said, or the devil. God even says that this is a man in verse 2. The word "lucifer" does not mean Satan or Devil or advesary or evil one, liar or any other wicked thing. shining one, son of the morning etc...describing the brightness he had over the nations. EDIT: The Cherub was considered full of light and had a brightness. His anointing in the verse shows his wings out stretched implying this man of Tyre had far reaching capability with his power. mimshach: perhaps expanded or far-reaching wings Original Word: מִמְשַׁח Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: mimshach Phonetic Spelling: (mim-shakh') Definition: perhaps expanded or far-reaching wings
The fact that this resembles the King of Babylon where he is called bright and also is rebuked for his pride and both told they will be removed from power shows God's greatness. Both texts are extremely similar with different people in power at different times.
I disagree with your notion that Ez 28 does not mention Satan/Lucifer and find it very confusing, if I understand you correctly. And I still don't get the fascinating moment....so I guess you being ironic there...?
All commentaries I have read regarding this scripture agree, that within this chapter Satan is mentioned and the king of Tyre serves as a type for Satan. Btw the text later referres in v14 to the man (supposedly the king of Tyre) as annointed cherub what can surely be not valid for a fleshly man...
I see Ez 28 clearly describing the origins of Satan/Devil/Lucifer
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 7, 2019 13:52:17 GMT -6
Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.stormyknight , I dont recall the pastor saying anything other than Satan couldn't kill you. Maybe I'll watch it again. Its obvious from Job that Satan is quite powerful and cant cause great harm and havoc in lives of those who fear the Lord. I think the point being made was 'direct physical harm'. I do understand that practically it can be stated that Satan could indirectly kill someone. Many believers have burned at the stake, Peter and other apostles crucified, tortured, etc. That is all Satanic, however God permits it (but that is another thread). venge - the first post in the thread you stated "Satan didnt fall prior because Christ was not lifted up..." How would Jesus make a statement like He did in Luke before He was lifted up then? I don't see the logic in your progression. He used the verb 'saw' which is past tense. Christ witnessed this at some point in the past or He used a past tense to describe a future event. Seems very odd to describe it that way, but then again time doesnt exist in the heavenlies. Can you help me understand that point better? Jesus was yet to be 'lifted up' yet He saw Satan fall like lightning (cast to earth). If he fell after Christ was lifted p how could Jesus see Him fall? Also as the pastor in the video states the translation of Lucifer is not accurate but should be Heylel ben Shakar (Isa 14:12). You have said in many cases that stars often represent angels but in this case you seem to contradict that position. Why is that friend (venge)? The NASB translates Lucifer as "star of the morning" why isnt this an angel in this case from your view?Onto Ezekiel - I do agree with you venge that Eze may start with dialogue about a king of Tyre, but that dialogue doesnt seem to apply to a man once we hit verse 13 and as @reepicheep stated, he is called an anointed covering cherub, which again wouldnt be a man. In fact none of the description below makes me think this is a man. Neither would the king of Tyre have been found in Eden the garden of God. The serpent was though, he was in the garden for certain (Gen 3:2). Moreover, the angels were created. Adam was created after that God has everything reproduce after its own kind. I was not created in that manner, not perfect at all. In fact we find contradiction with Psa 51:5. So I lean towards this not being a man so as to maintain harmony.Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. <<Cross reference casting to the ground back to Luke>>I want to close out with this venge. I do appreciate your stance on things however in cases I see you apply things that are written one way as allegory (i.e. trees=people, seas=people, mountain=kingdoms, etc) to which things you have helped open my understanding. Yet when things like this (above) which may not align with your understanding, you seem to interpret another way, perhaps fitting your current understanding. Also in many other posts you indicate that you don't rely on the understanding of other but in this thread you cite Blue Letter bible, other bible commentaries & Wikipedia (C'mon man Wiki?). It shouldnt be both...I certainly dont want you to take this as attack on your view or you. Writing is not my strong suit (yours either IIRC?) so perhaps I dont read your position properly. You are entitled to your perspective, just as I am to mine. None of us hold everything in perfect clarity and this being a non-essential (salvation) item, we are simply trying to learn from each and grow in understanding. When I asked in my reply to your first post to "agree to disagree" it seems to me that you have persisted to disprove others views, which is not in alignment with rule 3. Maybe i'm wrong about the intent and mis-reading you and if so I greatly apologize to you
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 8, 2019 6:51:54 GMT -6
venge, I wonder if John 8:44 is referring to Satan influencing Cain to kill Able or perhaps his knowing that tempting Eve would lead to hers and Adam's death, thus murdering them. If either one is the case, then,while both events were in the beginning, relatively, there was time passing before these events. We must also remember " ALL the Sons of God shouted for joy" Job 38:6-7, when the foundations of the Earth were laid. I still contend that Lucifer and other 'satans' mentioned may or may not be the same entity being talked about, but, the one entity in Ezekiel 28:11-19 must have been a pretty important being. He was decked out similar to the High Priest of the Temple, God placed him in His Holy Mountain as a Guardian Cherub, etc. While this may not be Lucifer/Halel Ben Shachar, it most definitely is an entity of great importance and is the one that was in the Garden of Eden. I don't think the scriptures say anywhere that he was an archangel, but that possibly could be implied. Just my speculations, venge. I do my best to avoid trying to make verses fit my thought train. As my boss likes to say, "it is what it is." If scripture says thus, then thus it is. I understand and you are correct. It does say Cherub. It’s also says a man. And Prince of Tyre. But Lucifer, the title of the thread, is not translated as devil, adversary, evil, wickedness, belial etc The word being a representation of the person than an actual name. Is not Christ a morning star? Does not he promise to give us the morning star in Revelation?
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 8, 2019 6:54:27 GMT -6
Ezekiel, in verse 2, says: Not Satan or the devil. And in verse 12, God continues by saying: And he describes the Kig of Tyre in a fanciful way of imagery. Its quite beautiful actually. Never once is Satan said, or the devil. God even says that this is a man in verse 2. The word "lucifer" does not mean Satan or Devil or advesary or evil one, liar or any other wicked thing. shining one, son of the morning etc...describing the brightness he had over the nations. EDIT: The Cherub was considered full of light and had a brightness. His anointing in the verse shows his wings out stretched implying this man of Tyre had far reaching capability with his power. mimshach: perhaps expanded or far-reaching wings Original Word: מִמְשַׁח Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: mimshach Phonetic Spelling: (mim-shakh') Definition: perhaps expanded or far-reaching wings
The fact that this resembles the King of Babylon where he is called bright and also is rebuked for his pride and both told they will be removed from power shows God's greatness. Both texts are extremely similar with different people in power at different times.
I disagree with your notion that Ez 28 does not mention Satan/Lucifer and find it very confusing, if I understand you correctly. And I still don't get the fascinating moment....so I guess you being ironic there...?
All commentaries I have read regarding this scripture agree, that within this chapter Satan is mentioned and the king of Tyre serves as a type for Satan. Btw the text later referres in v14 to the man (supposedly the king of Tyre) as annointed cherub what can surely be not valid for a fleshly man...
I see Ez 28 clearly describing the origins of Satan/Devil/Lucifer
If you cannot see it, you cannot see it. What is apparent to some may not be to others.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 8, 2019 8:00:06 GMT -6
Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.stormyknight , I dont recall the pastor saying anything other than Satan couldn't kill you. Maybe I'll watch it again. Its obvious from Job that Satan is quite powerful and cant cause great harm and havoc in lives of those who fear the Lord. I think the point being made was 'direct physical harm'. I do understand that practically it can be stated that Satan could indirectly kill someone. Many believers have burned at the stake, Peter and other apostles crucified, tortured, etc. That is all Satanic, however God permits it (but that is another thread). venge - the first post in the thread you stated "Satan didnt fall prior because Christ was not lifted up..." How would Jesus make a statement like He did in Luke before He was lifted up then? I don't see the logic in your progression. He used the verb 'saw' which is past tense. Christ witnessed this at some point in the past or He used a past tense to describe a future event. Seems very odd to describe it that way, but then again time doesnt exist in the heavenlies. Can you help me understand that point better? Jesus was yet to be 'lifted up' yet He saw Satan fall like lightning (cast to earth). If he fell after Christ was lifted p how could Jesus see Him fall? Also as the pastor in the video states the translation of Lucifer is not accurate but should be Heylel ben Shakar (Isa 14:12). You have said in many cases that stars often represent angels but in this case you seem to contradict that position. Why is that friend (venge)? The NASB translates Lucifer as "star of the morning" why isnt this an angel in this case from your view?Onto Ezekiel - I do agree with you venge that Eze may start with dialogue about a king of Tyre, but that dialogue doesnt seem to apply to a man once we hit verse 13 and as @reepicheep stated, he is called an anointed covering cherub, which again wouldnt be a man. In fact none of the description below makes me think this is a man. Neither would the king of Tyre have been found in Eden the garden of God. The serpent was though, he was in the garden for certain (Gen 3:2). Moreover, the angels were created. Adam was created after that God has everything reproduce after its own kind. I was not created in that manner, not perfect at all. In fact we find contradiction with Psa 51:5. So I lean towards this not being a man so as to maintain harmony.Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. <<Cross reference casting to the ground back to Luke>>I want to close out with this venge. I do appreciate your stance on things however in cases I see you apply things that are written one way as allegory (i.e. trees=people, seas=people, mountain=kingdoms, etc) to which things you have helped open my understanding. Yet when things like this (above) which may not align with your understanding, you seem to interpret another way, perhaps fitting your current understanding. Also in many other posts you indicate that you don't rely on the understanding of other but in this thread you cite Blue Letter bible, other bible commentaries & Wikipedia (C'mon man Wiki?). It shouldnt be both...I certainly dont want you to take this as attack on your view or you. Writing is not my strong suit (yours either IIRC?) so perhaps I dont read your position properly. You are entitled to your perspective, just as I am to mine. None of us hold everything in perfect clarity and this being a non-essential (salvation) item, we are simply trying to learn from each and grow in understanding. When I asked in my reply to your first post to "agree to disagree" it seems to me that you have persisted to disprove others views, which is not in alignment with rule 3. Maybe i'm wrong about the intent and mis-reading you and if so I greatly apologize to you To your first question, I will go back later and re read what was originally written to respond. Can’t do that at work. EDIT: Regarding Luke 10:18, Christ spoke of Satan falling like lighting because of the works that the apostles did. For they said "even the demons submit to us". And Christ says that in truth, he gave them power to tread over all the enemy. This power able to change men's minds from a child of darkness to a child of the light. Not a literal falling of a demon called Satan but the adversary of God. Truly Christ beheld the adversary fall and it was like lightning because it shown forth for all the world to see it. Satan, himself, was not cast out because he could still roam. Did he not even try to deceive Christ? For till Christ died and descended, he did not hold the keys to hell and death. Satan did. But when Christ was lifted up, he controlled all power. But I surmise that we will not agree on this. We can have different opinions and I wont go into a long reasoning of scripture that demonstrates this but I will post 2 commentaries that perhaps explain my position that is easier to read. Ellicott: the primary meaning of our Lord’s words is that he was now dethroned from his usurped dominion in the “high places” (comp. Ephesians 6:12), which symbolised the spiritual region of the soul and mind of manBarnes: The whole expression then may mean, "I saw at your command devils immediately depart, as quick as the flash of lightning. I gave you this power - I saw it put forth Now when I relate to Christ being lifted up I direct you to John 12:31-32 I wont put the rest of the scriptural sources there but I am relating this one to point you to why I said that in the first post. Also, I had responded to this question previously in another thread mike . I will link it below: May 13, 2019 at 11:25am via mobile cwood85 likes this Quote Edit To the second question, I had said angels can be heavenly or man. And so can stars. I can’t force you to see what you don’t see and perhaps my explanation was subpar. I don’t think less of anyone if they feel differently. To the last statement, some things that are apparent to me, may not be to you. I am not here to drill it in. I did not come to some conclusions for over 30 years. We grow in different areas. I prefer to explain when I’m not working and my longer replies with sources are attached rather then a reply. I prefer to use the Bible with occasional quotes of others but I still limit those. You said blue letter Bible? I only quote 99% from KJV and occasionally NIV. That in all my bible quotes. Don’t know how blue letter got in there. Your comment that I try to disprove others is false. It’s not my job to do so and that is counterproductive. If I disagree, I am vocal - I’m sure no one doubts that. And scripture is a soft spot on our minds, we want to be careful to know truth and as you said..not to force our own ideas. I don’t need the word Lucifer to fit anything. IMO, It does nothing to add to Salvation, to the gospel, to grace and love. The original argument was why people call Satan Lucifer when the King of Babylon was called son of the morning or light bringer etc. and there is no sign of Satan in that text. That is why the commentaries I had posted agree with this. This is not me vs everyone else. There are many respected people who argue this. That doesn’t make them right, it makes it worth noting and worth looking into.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 8, 2019 13:43:12 GMT -6
Yeah Venge, I don't see this the way you and vice versa, however I do see where you are coming from and can see how it could be an application even if I don't see it interpreted that way. Moving on
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Aug 8, 2019 20:07:56 GMT -6
There's nothing wrong with agreeably agreeing to disagree...
|
|