|
|
Post by stormyknight on May 20, 2019 12:53:51 GMT -6
mike, the way Dr. Jeremiah explains it is what I've always understood it as well. But, when I was doing the research for that post, I was trying to use scripture to interpret scripture. Isa. 14 has similar language in it's description of Lucifer to other passages, like 'star', so I'm thinking the general practice was to just assume that Lucifer/the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14:12 is one and the same as the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11-19. But, focusing on the details makes me wonder. One's job is/was to bring the dawn/light, the other was a guardian, a covering cherub that walked among the fiery stones(whatever that means), that wore nine precious stones. I realize one can have more than one job, but it still makes me wonder. I believe details like this are recorded for identification, but why? Why doesn't it say something like, 'oh btw, this is the same guy as the one Ezekiel wrote about (or vice versa).' or when Jesus said He saw satan fall like lightning, why didn't he say Lucifer or Azazel or Abbadon? What He did say was that He saw "Satanus" or "The Adversary", which we assume is Lucifer, fall from Heaven like lightning. That's all fine, but then who is Azazel and why is all sin ascribed to him? If he is the one who taught the world to sin, wouldn't he be the one that was in Eden? (I'm just full of questions, aren't I?) I've always wondered about all the angels' names. As far as I understand, Michael and Gabriel are the only two non-fallen angels that are named in Scripture. But having grown up attending St. Raphael's catholic church, I was taught that there are four archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael and I'm not sure where Uriel and Raphael come in. Also, if Michael and Gabriel are seemingly the most important then why are Michael and Lucifer the two angels depicted on the Ark of the Covenant. That is if Lucifer was/is the "anointed cherub who is covering" Ezek. 28:14 YLT I know the answer is 'in there' somewhere or we just don't need to know right now. Either way, it's an interesting search and study.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on May 20, 2019 20:02:54 GMT -6
mike , the way Dr. Jeremiah explains it is what I've always understood it as well. But, when I was doing the research for that post, I was trying to use scripture to interpret scripture. Isa. 14 has similar language in it's description of Lucifer to other passages, like 'star', so I'm thinking the general practice was to just assume that Lucifer/the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14:12 is one and the same as the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11-19. But, focusing on the details makes me wonder. One's job is/was to bring the dawn/light, the other was a guardian, a covering cherub that walked among the fiery stones(whatever that means), that wore nine precious stones. I realize one can have more than one job, but it still makes me wonder. I believe details like this are recorded for identification, but why? Why doesn't it say something like, 'oh btw, this is the same guy as the one Ezekiel wrote about (or vice versa).' or when Jesus said He saw satan fall like lightning, why didn't he say Lucifer or Azazel or Abbadon? What He did say was that He saw "Satanus" or "The Adversary", which we assume is Lucifer, fall from Heaven like lightning. That's all fine, but then who is Azazel and why is all sin ascribed to him? If he is the one who taught the world to sin, wouldn't he be the one that was in Eden? (I'm just full of questions, aren't I?) I've always wondered about all the angels' names. As far as I understand, Michael and Gabriel are the only two non-fallen angels that are named in Scripture. But having grown up attending St. Raphael's catholic church, I was taught that there are four archangels, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael and I'm not sure where Uriel and Raphael come in. Also, if Michael and Gabriel are seemingly the most important then why are Michael and Lucifer the two angels depicted on the Ark of the Covenant. That is if Lucifer was/is the "anointed cherub who is covering" Ezek. 28:14 YLT I know the answer is 'in there' somewhere or we just don't need to know right now. Either way, it's an interesting search and study. Hi stormy. I was reading your post and took a look at Ezekiel 28:11-19 and thought that I would give you my take; hope you don't mind. Verse 28:13 references ten stones and these are the ten northern tribes that are Ephraim. Since Verse 28:3 tells us that Tyrus thinks he is wiser than Daniel and no secret can be hidden from him, and Verse 28:4-5 tells us that Tyrus gained his treasures via his wisdom; he thinks. Then Tyrus is the anti-Christ beast spoken of in Daniel. Because, the ten northern tribes at Daniel's time had long since been taken. Therefore, Chapter 28 is speaking of the latter days in which these tribes exist as Ephraim that are the Christians. Thus, Tyrus the beast is walking in the midst of Ephraim that are the Christians in the United States to wit: "thou wast upon the holy mountain of God" that is the holy nation Ephraim that are the stones of fire in the U. S. (KJV v. 28:14). Therefore, "I will bring forth a fire from the midst of thee and it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes" (v. 28:18). This is Revelation 19:11-20 with the type of Gideon wherein the beast's armies destroy themselves. Additionally, the beast is Satan's boy thus the "cherub" and "perfect" language. Sorry about the KJV and I am going to find the version that everyone is now working from. To walk "up and down in the midst of the stones of fire" is to stamp Christians with his feet (Dan. 7:19). |
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on May 21, 2019 14:15:50 GMT -6
boraddict , do I mind? I am grateful for your input! I can see why this could be the end-time beast controlled by (a) satan. I believe it is scripturally established in Rev. 9:11 that the end-time beast will be 'controlled' or 'possessed' by Abaddon/Apollyon. A satan/adversary in his own right. This is from www.gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html"Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others." From the movie "Wall Street with Micheal Douglas as Gordo Gekko, "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much."
This, to me, depicts The United States to a T. Not the people, but the powers that be. Gov't/Corporations/banks/etc.
The stones are what trips me up though. There are nine named, not ten. I understand that the high priest wore a vestment(ephod) that had twelve stones and that they represented the twelve tribes, but there are only nine here. Perhaps Levi was put with Judah and Benjamin, leaving only nine tribes to the northern kingdom? It would be nice to know which stone represented which tribe, and maybe this is possible through references in scripture, but that would take some intense scriptural mining for sure. From what I can decipher, Opal, Agate, and Amethyst are the ones missing in Ezekiel. I remember through the WWCoG we were taught that Great Britain and the USA were Ephraim and Mannasah, but whether that's absolutely true or not, or if some aspects of it are true, I don't know.
But I digress.
|
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on May 21, 2019 17:32:22 GMT -6
stormyknight, take a look at the stones in sets of 3 from Ezek. 28:13, to wit: 1-3) (Rev. 4:3) sardius, topaz, diamond 4-6) beryl, onyx, (Rev. 4:3) jasper 7-9) sapphire, Rev. 4:3) emerald, carbuncle 10) gold Notice that within each set is a reference to a stone that represents in Rev. 4:3 a member of the Godhead. The sardius (sardine) stone represents the Father, the jasper stone represents the Son, and the emerald represents the Holy Ghost. (Side note: the sardius and jasper are interchangeable as shown in the change-up in Ezek. 28:13 to Rev. 4:3. Secondly, notice that the remaining three stones (10-12) are represented by the highest order of the metals that is Gold. So rather than listing one of these three remaining stones that would detract from the emphasis of the prophecy in relation to the Godhead; the three remaining are listed as one (gold) . Consequently, this gives not only a reference to the Godhead but also a dual prophecy. In the first prophecy the ten stones emphasize Ephraim, and in the second the ten stones emphasize all of Israel. I first noticed this when I was looking at the verses but did not want to detract from the first prophecy. So lets just say that Chapter 28 is a dual prophecy chapter that first emphases the beast against Christians and secondly the beast against all Israel (Ephraim the Christians and Judah the Jews).
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Jun 5, 2019 6:07:19 GMT -6
stormyknight, take a look at the stones in sets of 3 from Ezek. 28:13, to wit: 1-3) (Rev. 4:3) sardius, topaz, diamond 4-6) beryl, onyx, (Rev. 4:3) jasper 7-9) sapphire, Rev. 4:3) emerald, carbuncle 10) gold Notice that within each set is a reference to a stone that represents in Rev. 4:3 a member of the Godhead. The sardius (sardine) stone represents the Father, the jasper stone represents the Son, and the emerald represents the Holy Ghost. (Side note: the sardius and jasper are interchangeable as shown in the change-up in Ezek. 28:13 to Rev. 4:3. Secondly, notice that the remaining three stones (10-12) are represented by the highest order of the metals that is Gold. So rather than listing one of these three remaining stones that would detract from the emphasis of the prophecy in relation to the Godhead; the three remaining are listed as one (gold) . Consequently, this gives not only a reference to the Godhead but also a dual prophecy. In the first prophecy the ten stones emphasize Ephraim, and in the second the ten stones emphasize all of Israel. I first noticed this when I was looking at the verses but did not want to detract from the first prophecy. So lets just say that Chapter 28 is a dual prophecy chapter that first emphases the beast against Christians and secondly the beast against all Israel (Ephraim the Christians and Judah the Jews). Where are you getting other stones in Rev 4:3? There is no diamond or others.. 3And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Jun 6, 2019 1:02:45 GMT -6
stormyknight , take a look at the stones in sets of 3 from Ezek. 28:13, to wit: 1-3) (Rev. 4:3) sardius, topaz, diamond 4-6) beryl, onyx, (Rev. 4:3) jasper 7-9) sapphire, Rev. 4:3) emerald, carbuncle 10) gold Notice that within each set is a reference to a stone that represents in Rev. 4:3 a member of the Godhead. The sardius (sardine) stone represents the Father, the jasper stone represents the Son, and the emerald represents the Holy Ghost. (Side note: the sardius and jasper are interchangeable as shown in the change-up in Ezek. 28:13 to Rev. 4:3. Secondly, notice that the remaining three stones (10-12) are represented by the highest order of the metals that is Gold. So rather than listing one of these three remaining stones that would detract from the emphasis of the prophecy in relation to the Godhead; the three remaining are listed as one (gold) . Consequently, this gives not only a reference to the Godhead but also a dual prophecy. In the first prophecy the ten stones emphasize Ephraim, and in the second the ten stones emphasize all of Israel. I first noticed this when I was looking at the verses but did not want to detract from the first prophecy. So lets just say that Chapter 28 is a dual prophecy chapter that first emphases the beast against Christians and secondly the beast against all Israel (Ephraim the Christians and Judah the Jews). Where are you getting other stones in Rev 4:3? There is no diamond or others.. 3And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. Venge, nothing gets past you and I love that. I was using the KJV when I started that post and then realized a difference in the version here at Unsealed. So I need to provide more clarification and I will when I have more time to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 2, 2019 18:10:12 GMT -6
This is so deep! Please watch it
|
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Aug 2, 2019 21:52:45 GMT -6
I watched 8 minutes into it and will have to watch the rest later.
BUT I am already hearing something that is very assumed and at least not that I know of biblical. In the video the speaker claims Satan ruled over the earth before Adam and Eve the same way Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth. But because Satan sinned and was the prized creation before Adam and Eve, he lost his dominion. Is he implying Adam and Eve were in an essence a round 2? Welp Gods first top creation of supreme beauty and intelligence just blew it, so let’s try this again. I am understanding this correctly? I don’t want to jump to a final conclusion without watching the whole video, but if that’s where he is going with that, it’s a bit concerning tbh. Did he forgot about the other previous chapters of Genesis?
Here is what Satan is and always has been, a nothing. Darkness isn’t a real thing, it is just the absence of light. There is love and then there is the absence of love, to be void of love. Some will say well hate is the opposite of love, but it’s not. Hate is the absolute loathing of something and that something could be for the good. I hate the violence in the world and that hate stems from love. God hates things, the Bible is pretty clear on that and his hate is based on love. To feel that much, to have that much loathing and passion against or for something or even someone can only be done when the other side of it has been experienced, love.
Satan causes us to be nothing like him when we are tempted and fall. When we are nothing we are destroyed and experience destruction. Satan fools us to think we can control things that are out of our control, inflates our pride and vanity. When we believe this we fall, fail and are in darkness. We hide in the shadow of ourselves rather than face the light and the Good graces and mercies of God.
Adam and Eves sin was thinking they could be like God, and disobedience resulted from both of them acting in their sin. Instead of resting in the Good and knowing the good of God, they saw it hanging on a tree and tried to consume and control the good thinking it would make them good. They were already good, God said they were good when He created them, they just didn’t know or believe it so they tried to make themselves good by their own works and choices. They thought they could make themselves good because of pride and vanity, which has always been their since the beginning like Isaiah says. They believed a nothing who only wanted to see them become nothing like him and fall into destruction.
Satan never had anything and he cannot create anything.
It’s the same story with humanity happening over and over since day one,
We believe we can make ourselves good and constantly try to make ourselves good by taking and controlling it instead of resting and believing the only one who is good when He said we are VERY GOOD in His eyes.
since the beginning.
Satan doesn’t want us to know or believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 3, 2019 7:07:56 GMT -6
I watched 8 minutes into it and will have to watch the rest later. BUT I am already hearing something that is very assumed and at least not that I know of biblical. In the video the speaker claims Satan ruled over the earth before Adam and Eve the same way Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth. But because Satan sinned and was the prized creation before Adam and Eve, he lost his dominion. Is he implying Adam and Eve were in an essence a round 2? Welp Gods first top creation of supreme beauty and intelligence just blew it, so let’s try this again. I am understanding this correctly? I don’t want to jump to a final conclusion without watching the whole video, but if that’s where he is going with that, it’s a bit concerning tbh. Did he forgot about the other previous chapters of Genesis? Here is what Satan is and always has been, a nothing. Darkness isn’t a real thing, it is just the absence of light. There is love and then there is the absence of love, to be void of love. Some will say well hate is the opposite of love, but it’s not. Hate is the absolute loathing of something and that something could be for the good. I hate the violence in the world and that hate stems from love. God hates things, the Bible is pretty clear on that and his hate is based on love. To feel that much, to have that much loathing and passion against or for something or even someone can only be done when the other side of it has been experienced, love. Satan causes us to be nothing like him when we are tempted and fall. When we are nothing we are destroyed and experience destruction. Satan fools us to think we can control things that are out of our control, inflates our pride and vanity. When we believe this we fall, fail and are in darkness. We hide in the shadow of ourselves rather than face the light and the Good graces and mercies of God. Adam and Eves sin was thinking they could be like God, and disobedience resulted from both of them acting in their sin. Instead of resting in the Good and knowing the good of God, they saw it hanging on a tree and tried to consume and control the good thinking it would make them good. They were already good, God said they were good when He created them, they just didn’t know or believe it so they tried to make themselves good by their own works and choices. They thought they could make themselves good because of pride and vanity, which has always been their since the beginning like Isaiah says. They believed a nothing who only wanted to see them become nothing like him and fall into destruction. Satan never had anything and he cannot create anything. It’s the same story with humanity happening over and over since day one, We believe we can make ourselves good and constantly try to make ourselves good by taking and controlling it instead of resting and believing the only one who is good when He said we are VERY GOOD in His eyes. since the beginning. Satan doesn’t want us to know or believe that. I believe so Cwood. I am not dogmatic about Satan's fall. Some people think there is a gap between Gen 1:1 & 1:2, some don't. The Bible isn't exactly clear and I think this pastor subscribes to that (though I haven't seen his series yet where that may be expounded). Your view on Satan being a nothing. What do you mean? He is/was one of the chief angels or at least some think so. He is quite powerful for certain. My perspective on him is if Michael has to subdue him and lock him up, he's powerful. Moreso if Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, his works had to pretty significant. Don't underestimate your enemy  |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 3, 2019 15:36:00 GMT -6
Was thinking more about my reply and realized I missed a component which should align with yours cwood. The pastor here stated something to the effect that Satan can't really harm believers. His dominance over humanity was broken, but only for those who accept the truth. With that I think Satan is very powerful indeed but no where near the greater One who lives in us |
|
|
|
Post by cwood85 on Aug 3, 2019 18:27:23 GMT -6
Was thinking more about my reply and realized I missed a component which should align with yours cwood. The pastor here stated something to the effect that Satan can't really harm believers. His dominance over humanity was broken, but only for those who accept the truth. With that I think Satan is very powerful indeed but no where near the greater One who lives in us With referring to Satan being a nothing, that is not meant to infer that he cannot do anything or has no affect or influence but quiet the opposite. That influence and ability is not absent from believers and I don’t agree with that pastor saying that Satan cannot influence or tempt someone who claims to be a believer. Maybe that belief he views is tied into seeing Satan as always wrestling or competing with God for our souls. When I talk of him being a nothing it is meant as he is the ultimate absence of light, love, and the truth. He is the utter absence of anything good. He is the darkness. I also do not believe Satan was once the highest arch angel and then fell from heaven and the passage that is always tied to this is talking about pride and the sin and lawlessness of humans thinking we are like God or a god. Those thoughts and the actions that follow as a result of acting in pride of oneself and abilities are acts of disobedience and this is the root of sin. Satan was created for a purpose and isn’t an accident, just like placing the tree of good and evil in Eden wasn’t an accident. I am not here to debate that however and I know many believe Satan was once a glorious cherub angel. The passage in Jude about Micheal and Satan is often thought as Satan trying to steal Moses body for himself. Satan does not harbor souls, Satan means accuser and that is why Michael was rebuking him because Satan was most certainly accusing the one chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. “9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Michael was telling Satan the Lord will strongly disapprove and chastise him and we read later on in the book of revelation how this happens. Michael has no authority to do such a thing, only God does. |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 5, 2019 9:32:50 GMT -6
cwood85I find it fascinating that those that believe Satan was an archangel possibly forget John 8:44, 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. So how is a chief angel a murderer from his beginning? Who did he murder in heaven? He didn’t murder adam or Eve. This is a rhetorical question not for cwood85
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 4:49:07 GMT -6
I find it fascinating that those that believe Satan was an archangel possibly forget John 8:44, ....
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Aug 7, 2019 10:54:16 GMT -6
Was thinking more about my reply and realized I missed a component which should align with yours cwood. The pastor here stated something to the effect that Satan can't really harm believers. His dominance over humanity was broken, but only for those who accept the truth. With that I think Satan is very powerful indeed but no where near the greater One who lives in us With referring to Satan being a nothing, that is not meant to infer that he cannot do anything or has no affect or influence but quiet the opposite. That influence and ability is not absent from believers and I don’t agree with that pastor saying that Satan cannot influence or tempt someone who claims to be a believer. Maybe that belief he views is tied into seeing Satan as always wrestling or competing with God for our souls. When I talk of him being a nothing it is meant as he is the ultimate absence of light, love, and the truth. He is the utter absence of anything good. He is the darkness. I also do not believe Satan was once the highest arch angel and then fell from heaven and the passage that is always tied to this is talking about pride and the sin and lawlessness of humans thinking we are like God or a god. Those thoughts and the actions that follow as a result of acting in pride of oneself and abilities are acts of disobedience and this is the root of sin. Satan was created for a purpose and isn’t an accident, just like placing the tree of good and evil in Eden wasn’t an accident. I am not here to debate that however and I know many believe Satan was once a glorious cherub angel. The passage in Jude about Micheal and Satan is often thought as Satan trying to steal Moses body for himself. Satan does not harbor souls, Satan means accuser and that is why Michael was rebuking him because Satan was most certainly accusing the one chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. “9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Michael was telling Satan the Lord will strongly disapprove and chastise him and we read later on in the book of revelation how this happens. Michael has no authority to do such a thing, only God does. I must have missed him saying Satan can't influence or tempt believers and I don't agree with that, but I do agree he cannot hurt believers physically. He is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44 So the only way for him to harm us is to get us to harm ourselves or rather put ourselves in harms way. And I think the pastor put it succinctly, by 'snake handling', by being "lukewarm" Christians, Rev. 3:16. |
|
|
|
Post by venge on Aug 7, 2019 12:04:20 GMT -6
I find it fascinating that those that believe Satan was an archangel possibly forget John 8:44, ....
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. |
|
