Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who adopt a preteristic interpretation of Scripture would agree with you. I'm not a preterist, and hold to the futuristic view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
And Jews get to say what their scriptures are speaking of, not Christians...
Preterism, which again, I do not hold to is not a matter of Jewish versus Christian interpretation. Further, as you well know, the first Christians were Jews. Further still, Christians do indeed 'get to' say what the Hebrew Scriptures say and mean. Being a Jew doesn't mean that you understand the Hebrew scriptures anymore than being a Christian means that you necessarily understand the New Testament. Knowledge and understanding do not adhere to religious orientation, but are matters of study and learning.
I'm not taking the time to go into each of your arguments from post #262. Collectively, your arguments simply disregard the fact that it is specifically stated in Matthew 4 that Jesus was tempted by the devil, and Jesus and the devil spoke to one another. That is not symbolic language.
I don't understand how, if your belief of Mat 4 is correct it would demonstrate how my arguments in other "Satan" texts would be wrong. However I'll address the temptation of Christ as told in Mat 4 and Luke 4 only in this response as an example of how I think you misunderstand what's being said. The rest of your "rebuttal" I will address in a separate cover. I had asked many question about the temptation and you did not answer even one. Thus I repeat some of them here.
Firstly, please explain how if this "devil/tempter" is a fallen angel was anything depicted about this scenario even remotely a temptation to Christ? Did Christ really need a fallen angel to suggest food to Him after having fasted for forty days? When you are tempted to eat, is it because of a fallen angel or is it because your body or flesh is desiring food?
If you and I were on top of a high building would you be tempted to jump on a dare from me? What would possibly make anyone, much less God in the flesh do something that obtuse? Where's the temptation?
If I took you to a place where I could show you every kingdom on earth would you believe I could give them to you? Even if you did, would you worship me in order to get it? But if you understood the Bible says God is the only one who has that power , would you think there was any validity in anything I said?
What do these verses mean to you? (emphasis mine):
KJV Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL, AND SETTETH UP OVER IT THE BASEST OF MEN.
KJV Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high GOD GAVE NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER A KINGDOM, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
KJV Psalm 75:7 But God is the judge: HE PUTTETH DOWN ONE, AND SETTETH UP ANOTHER.
KJV 1 Samuel 2:7 THE LORD MAKETH POOR, AND MAKETH RICH: HE BRINGETH LOW, AND LIFTETH UP. 8 HE RAISETH UP THE POOR OUT OF THE DUST, AND LIFTETH UP THE BEGGAR FROM THE DUNGHILL, TO SET THEM AMONG PRINCES, AND TO MAKE THEM INHERIT THE THRONE OF GLORY: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
KJV 1 Samuel 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, THE LORD HATH RENT THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL FROM THEE THIS DAY, AND HATH GIVEN IT TO A NEIGHBOUR OF THINE, that is better than thou.
KJV 1 Samuel 16:1*¶ AND THE LORD SAID unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I HAVE REJECTED HIM FROM REIGNING OVER ISRAEL? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I HAVE PROVIDED ME A KING AMONG HIS SONS.
KJV 2 Samuel 6:21 And David said unto Michal, it was before THE LORD, WHICH chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to APPOINT ME RULER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD, OVER ISRAEL: therefore will I play before the LORD.
KJV Jeremiah 27:4-5 And command them to say unto their masters, THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; 5 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, AND HAVE GIVEN IT UNTO WHOM IT SEEMED MEET UNTO ME.
Do you see a fallen angel anywhere at all in any of those verses? Yet who do those verses say has the power over the kingdoms of men? Do you think a fallen angel chose the rulers over Israel? Even the few good ones? Show me one verse that says God relinquished this power to a fallen angel please.
Please show where Mat 4 or Luke 4 says "the devil"/"the tempter' is a fallen angel. Why did Christ have to fast forty days in order to be tempted by a fallen angel? It seems you are taking a lot for granted here. Do you think it is possible that Christ was in such excellent physical health that He had to go without the sustenance of the flesh forty days in order to make it weak enough to be tempted?
As for symbolic language, I'm not saying Matthew or Luke is using symbols. I'm saying they are relating an experience of Christ's via of language the Bible uses to define things. Who does the Bible say is the temple or tabernacle of Christ? Is it not His people (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21)? Is Christ not the "pinnacle" or chief cornerstone of that temple (Luke 20:17-18; Acts 4:11-12; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:7-8)? Was not this "pinnacle" of God's temple to die for the temple (Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 3:16)?
Lets say I'm correct and God is the one and not some "fallen angel" who has the power to give kingdoms to whom He pleases. Seeing that Christ is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col 2:9) would He not be over who ruled in the kingdoms of men? If so, and He was in the flesh and tempted in all ways as flesh is tempted (Heb 2:17; 4:15), do you think He like so many of us do when we're tempted argue with ourselves or our flesh to do what we think is right or not?
Have you never had such struggles with your temptations? Of course you have! Christ did too or He wasn't tempted as we are tempted. Do you think His flesh wanted to die? Would not the Most High God have to power to give Himself a new people so that He wouldn't have to die? Wouldn't that be a true temptation and not worshipping a fallen angel who has no power?
Which scenario do you think would be a true temptation to Christ? Your belief He was tempted on a dare from a "fallen angel" to jump off a building or my understanding that He was debating with His flesh to remove Himself from having to die for His people?
I think the identity of the "tempter" is revealed when He is said to be tempted to eat after not eating for forty days. In Luke the "tempter" is said to be "the devil Luke 4:3)." Strong defines the Greek word "diabolos" translated "the devil" here as a "false accuser" and is so translated In 2 Tim 3:2 and Titus 2:3. Jesus, Himself said the false accuser/witness is in the flesh of men (Mat 15:18-19).
After His temptation Christ said, as per the kJV "get thee hence, Satan" (Mat 4:10). The definition of the translated Hebrew word "satan" is "adversary":
YLT Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus to him, 'Go -- Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.'
Do you not think your flesh has ever been an "adversary" to you?
It is my belief you are simply applying an extra-Biblical belief to words in the Bible that you can't show are defined in the same way via the Bible. In other words, had you never been told about a fallen angel called "Satan" and "the devil" you couldn't find this belief in the pages of Scripture. This is why "scholars" have to improvise with passages e.g., from Ezekiel 28 that say nothing of a "fallen angel" or use words like "devil" or "satan" and say they mean something they can't prove.
The event described in Revelation 12:7 and following in which the archangel Michael and his angels war with the dragon (Satan) and his angels takes place during the middle of the Tribulation when Satan loses access to heaven and is confined to the earth.
I am not arguing the meaning of Revelation. So called "scholars" disagree with each other over just what The Revelation is and when it takes place. When you suppose Eze 28 is speaking of a fallen angel being cast to earth, even though no such thing is said in that chapter anywhere is it speaking of the event in Revelation? Does this mean a "fallen angel" had no power prior to the future of John in the first century A.D. and since you apparently don't think The Great Tribulation has happened does this mean a "fallen angel" known as "Satan" is still in heaven with God today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The issue of what Revelation means by shortly coming to pass isn't relevant to the fact that Satan is said to be thrown down from heaven and his angels along with him.
I must disagree with you. If Christ is revealing things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 1:1) and there's no indication that John is speaking of a historical event then we must understand that John is speaking of things to come. Not things that have happened:
Revelation 4:1-2 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
4 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice which I had heard addressing me like [the calling of] a [a]war trumpet said, Come up here, and I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT MUST TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
The "future" would include anything about "satan." When Jesus said. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven Luke 10:18)" when His disciples told them about their trip to do the "harvest" of His people was He talking about the event you say happened in Revelation or was He talking about something that happened in the distant past?
[quote=Mike555;53888548]
Satan is also identified here with the serpent of old which can only be a reference to Genesis.
[quote]
Why does this have to be a reference to the "serpent" in Genesis? What attributes of that being relates to anything of the "serpent" in Revelation? I contend that you think it has to be this way in order to hold onto the "fallen angel" belief. I see no reason to equate them. Why isn't the Revelation "serpent" equated to the tribe of Dan, which is also called a "serpent (Gen 49:17)?"
Where in Genesis do we find the "serpent" defined as "a dragon", "satan", "devil", "having ten horns", "a tail" and "having seven heads with seven crowns on them?"
I don't think there's an angel fallen or not that fits that description in the Bible. I would say symbolism like "mountains", "kings" and "crowns" would indicate governments of men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The text of Revelation 12:9 refers to Satan as the great dragon, the serpent of old, and the devil.
Satan is a literal being.
I agree that a literal being can be a "satan" just as Christ called Peter "satan (Mat 16:23)", but I don't think you can show one place where an angel fell from heaven and was named "satan" or "The Devil." Ezek 28 does not do that regardless of what "scholars" say. That is addressed to the King of Tyre and no one else. Superimposing another creature into that scenario is just wishful thinking IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
But the language in Revelation 13 is not referring to Satan. It is referring to the beast or antichrist who will be given power by Satan during the Tribulation.
Where does this creature get his power if ALL power is given to Christ (Mat 28:18)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The language concerning the ten horns and the seven heads is symbolic language for the revived Roman empire. This language goes back to Daniel 7. In Daniel 7 the ten horns are said to be ten kings who will arise out of the fourth beast which is also said to be a forth kingdom on the earth. If you are to understand Revelation you must understand the Old Testament.
My hope here is to simply identify who the "satan" in Revelation is not. We can discuss the meaning of Revelation another time. BTW I don't think the NT would be very clear without understanding the OT.
Lets start with the word "satan" in Revelation 12. That word first appears in v. 9 where we find that this "satan" is AKA "the devil" and is identified as "the great red dragon." This "dragon" is described having seven heads and ten horns with crowns upon them (v. 3). Water comes out of his mouth (v. 15). This doesn't say these are governments a fallen angel gives power to. It is a description of this "satan." Later in Revelation we're told these seven heads are kings (17:10) and the ten horns are also kings (17:12). These are not separate from this "satan", they are part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Satan is not mentioned in Genesis. Nevertheless, John, the writer of Revelation identifies Satan with the serpent of Old in Revelation 12:9.
I don't think so. There is no reason to do this. Any connection would have to be subjective to the viewer. You have to take for granted there was an angel that fell from God's graces even though there is no place in the Bible such a thing occurs. You have to have faith there is a fallen angel even though the Bible says ALL angels are ministering spirits (Heb 1:14). The Greek word translated "all" in that verse is "pas" and is defined by Strong as "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything." Where is there any room for even one angel to not be included much less a third of them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Since Satan is leading his angels as per Revelation 12:7 he himself is also a spirit being whether you use the general term 'angel,' are the more specific term Cherub which is a higher ranking spirit being.
and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Scholars understand that in Ezekiel 28 Ethbaal III, the king of Tyre is being compared with someone else. There are only two choices. The majority of scholars believe that Ethbaa III is being compared with Adam in the Garden of Eden. The minority view among scholars, and again, it is the view to which I hold, is that the king of Tyre is being compared with a Cherub being. This would most naturally refer to Satan. As I said in another post, the language used in Ezekiel 28:11 and following simply cannot apply to a man, including Adam.
If "Satan" is spirit, how can he devoured by fire and become ashes (Eze 28:18)? I can find no place in the Bible that equates "cherubim" with being spirit.
Firstly, you either think the king of Tyrus, to whom the description, in this verse applies (Eze 28:12) is synonymous with a fallen-angel or you're simply ignoring the salutation of this "lamentation" of God.
Secondly, you seem think the word "cherub" applies to such an angel when the verse mentions nothing of an angel. God put "cherubim" outside the garden (Gen 3:24). Why? To keep or preserve the way of the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24). This was done via of a flaming (Heb 1:7; Psa 104:4) sword (Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17) or the Word of God through ministers in all directions (every way) in order to preserve or keep the law of God.
We have an example of cherubim and what they do in the design of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.:
(Exo 25:20-21 KJV) "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee."
So a cherub is one that protects the seat of the Law. They uphold God's Law! We see that the human king of Tyrus did this in the beginning of his reign, but he eventually sinned causing God to destroy him. The king of Tyre was a protector of the Law of God until.... Until what? Until he sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). Until then he was a Law-keeper because we know sin is the breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4). And the term "wings" as used to described the "cherubim" over the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, that is simply symbolic of protection. Notice that the Bible says God has wings also:
(Psa 91:2-4 KJV) "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. {3} Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. {4} >>>He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings<<< shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."
This would make God, Himself a cherub. So a cherub simply protects and upholds God's Law. That's why the King of Tyrus was one when he was first made king. But he fell when he sinned. As for being anointed. That's what happens to a flesh and blood person when they become king of a nation (1 Sam 15:1). And that was a necessity for the king of Tyrus in order for him to be king. And remember that this king in Ezekiel 28 is not only referred to as a "man" (Ezek 28:2). He is to be in a grave (Ezek 28:8).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
That Satan is a fallen angel is understood from the greater context of the Bible rather than by pointing to some particular verse and saying that verse doesn't call Satan a fallen angel.
Unless you can show where this creature came into being you have nothing but supposition. The Bible requires us to prove all things (1 Thes 5:21). Unless you can show in the context of the Bible the existence of a fallen angel you must create him. I see nowhere such a creature can even slightly be spoken of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And yes, Satan is called a murderer from the beginning because it was he who tempted Adam and the woman and caused the fall of man. Satan wasn't created as a fallen being who was a murderer. Satan fell, just as Adam later did.
I don't think it's possible for a creature to be both perfect and a murdering liar from his beginning or origin. I believe that's called "cognitive dissonance."
Ezekiel 28:18 to me means the ' ashes of destruction '. 'Fire' being symbolic of destruction.
As the fires of Gehenna ( garbage pit outside of Jerusalem ) was used to bring things to ashes, never to exist again.
And as Hebrews 2:14 B lets us know that Jesus will ' destroy ' Satan.
ALL the wicked ( Satan is wicked ) will be ' destroyed forever ' as per Psalm 92:7
I don't understand how, if your belief of Mat 4 is correct it would demonstrate how my arguments in other "Satan" texts would be wrong. However I'll address the temptation of Christ as told in Mat 4 and Luke 4 only in this response as an example of how I think you misunderstand what's being said. The rest of your "rebuttal" I will address in a separate cover. I had asked many question about the temptation and you did not answer even one. Thus I repeat some of them here.
Firstly, please explain how if this "devil/tempter" is a fallen angel was anything depicted about this scenario even remotely a temptation to Christ? Did Christ really need a fallen angel to suggest food to Him after having fasted for forty days? When you are tempted to eat, is it because of a fallen angel or is it because your body or flesh is desiring food?
If you and I were on top of a high building would you be tempted to jump on a dare from me? What would possibly make anyone, much less God in the flesh do something that obtuse? Where's the temptation?
If I took you to a place where I could show you every kingdom on earth would you believe I could give them to you? Even if you did, would you worship me in order to get it? But if you understood the Bible says God is the only one who has that power , would you think there was any validity in anything I said?
What do these verses mean to you? (emphasis mine):
KJV Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL, AND SETTETH UP OVER IT THE BASEST OF MEN.
KJV Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high GOD GAVE NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER A KINGDOM, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
KJV Psalm 75:7 But God is the judge: HE PUTTETH DOWN ONE, AND SETTETH UP ANOTHER.
KJV 1 Samuel 2:7 THE LORD MAKETH POOR, AND MAKETH RICH: HE BRINGETH LOW, AND LIFTETH UP. 8 HE RAISETH UP THE POOR OUT OF THE DUST, AND LIFTETH UP THE BEGGAR FROM THE DUNGHILL, TO SET THEM AMONG PRINCES, AND TO MAKE THEM INHERIT THE THRONE OF GLORY: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
KJV 1 Samuel 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, THE LORD HATH RENT THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL FROM THEE THIS DAY, AND HATH GIVEN IT TO A NEIGHBOUR OF THINE, that is better than thou.
KJV 1 Samuel 16:1*¶ AND THE LORD SAID unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I HAVE REJECTED HIM FROM REIGNING OVER ISRAEL? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I HAVE PROVIDED ME A KING AMONG HIS SONS.
KJV 2 Samuel 6:21 And David said unto Michal, it was before THE LORD, WHICH chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to APPOINT ME RULER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD, OVER ISRAEL: therefore will I play before the LORD.
KJV Jeremiah 27:4-5 And command them to say unto their masters, THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; 5 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, AND HAVE GIVEN IT UNTO WHOM IT SEEMED MEET UNTO ME.
Do you see a fallen angel anywhere at all in any of those verses? Yet who do those verses say has the power over the kingdoms of men? Do you think a fallen angel chose the rulers over Israel? Even the few good ones? Show me one verse that says God relinquished this power to a fallen angel please.
Please show where Mat 4 or Luke 4 says "the devil"/"the tempter' is a fallen angel. Why did Christ have to fast forty days in order to be tempted by a fallen angel? It seems you are taking a lot for granted here. Do you think it is possible that Christ was in such excellent physical health that He had to go without the sustenance of the flesh forty days in order to make it weak enough to be tempted?
As for symbolic language, I'm not saying Matthew or Luke is using symbols. I'm saying they are relating an experience of Christ's via of language the Bible uses to define things. Who does the Bible say is the temple or tabernacle of Christ? Is it not His people (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21)? Is Christ not the "pinnacle" or chief cornerstone of that temple (Luke 20:17-18; Acts 4:11-12; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:7-8)? Was not this "pinnacle" of God's temple to die for the temple (Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 3:16)?
Lets say I'm correct and God is the one and not some "fallen angel" who has the power to give kingdoms to whom He pleases. Seeing that Christ is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col 2:9) would He not be over who ruled in the kingdoms of men? If so, and He was in the flesh and tempted in all ways as flesh is tempted (Heb 2:17; 4:15), do you think He like so many of us do when we're tempted argue with ourselves or our flesh to do what we think is right or not?
Have you never had such struggles with your temptations? Of course you have! Christ did too or He wasn't tempted as we are tempted. Do you think His flesh wanted to die? Would not the Most High God have to power to give Himself a new people so that He wouldn't have to die? Wouldn't that be a true temptation and not worshipping a fallen angel who has no power?
Which scenario do you think would be a true temptation to Christ? Your belief He was tempted on a dare from a "fallen angel" to jump off a building or my understanding that He was debating with His flesh to remove Himself from having to die for His people?
I think the identity of the "tempter" is revealed when He is said to be tempted to eat after not eating for forty days. In Luke the "tempter" is said to be "the devil Luke 4:3)." Strong defines the Greek word "diabolos" translated "the devil" here as a "false accuser" and is so translated In 2 Tim 3:2 and Titus 2:3. Jesus, Himself said the false accuser/witness is in the flesh of men (Mat 15:18-19).
After His temptation Christ said, as per the kJV "get thee hence, Satan" (Mat 4:10). The definition of the translated Hebrew word "satan" is "adversary":
YLT Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus to him, 'Go -- Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.'
Do you not think your flesh has ever been an "adversary" to you?
It is my belief you are simply applying an extra-Biblical belief to words in the Bible that you can't show are defined in the same way via the Bible. In other words, had you never been told about a fallen angel called "Satan" and "the devil" you couldn't find this belief in the pages of Scripture. This is why "scholars" have to improvise with passages e.g., from Ezekiel 28 that say nothing of a "fallen angel" or use words like "devil" or "satan" and say they mean something they can't prove.
You're repeating the same arguments that I told you I wasn't going to take the time to individually address, but that collectively, your arguments simply disregard the text which plainly states that Jesus was led out to the desert to be tempted by the devil. The same text has Jesus carrying on a conversation with the devil ---with Satan. Thus Satan is depicted as a real entity. Your attempts at argumentation do nothing to change what the text plainly states.
I've already addressed the fact that since Satan is said in Revelation 12:7-9 to have angels under his command, just as the archangel Michael is said to have angels that are under his command, then Satan is an angelic being -- actually a Cherub if Ezekiel 28:11 and following is indeed the entity to whom the king of Tyre is being compared as I believe, as well as do some scholars. He rebelled against God. He fell. He is a fallen angel.
Your last paragraph is utterly ridiculous since it is the Biblical text which states that Satan is a fallen angel. You don't get that from any one specific verse but from what is said of him throughout the Bible.
One thing I'll address from your post is that you are attempting to take the reference to the temple symbolically when the text clearly states in Matthew 4:5 that the devil took Jesus into the holy city (Jerusalem) and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple. That is literalistic language --not symbolic.
Again, you are attempting to explain away the fact that in the overall Biblical context, Satan is portrayed as a rebellious fallen angel who is the enemy of God and of man.
And lastly, Biblical scholars are vastly more qualified then you are to interpret the Biblical passages.
I don't understand how, if your belief of Mat 4 is correct it would demonstrate how my arguments in other "Satan" texts would be wrong. However I'll address the temptation of Christ as told in Mat 4 and Luke 4 only in this response as an example of how I think you misunderstand what's being said. The rest of your "rebuttal" I will address in a separate cover. I had asked many question about the temptation and you did not answer even one. Thus I repeat some of them here.
Firstly, please explain how if this "devil/tempter" is a fallen angel was anything depicted about this scenario even remotely a temptation to Christ? Did Christ really need a fallen angel to suggest food to Him after having fasted for forty days? When you are tempted to eat, is it because of a fallen angel or is it because your body or flesh is desiring food?
If you and I were on top of a high building would you be tempted to jump on a dare from me? What would possibly make anyone, much less God in the flesh do something that obtuse? Where's the temptation?
If I took you to a place where I could show you every kingdom on earth would you believe I could give them to you? Even if you did, would you worship me in order to get it? But if you understood the Bible says God is the only one who has that power , would you think there was any validity in anything I said?
What do these verses mean to you? (emphasis mine):
KJV Daniel 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL, AND SETTETH UP OVER IT THE BASEST OF MEN.
KJV Daniel 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that THE MOST HIGH RULETH IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN, AND GIVETH IT TO WHOMSOEVER HE WILL.
KJV Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high GOD GAVE NEBUCHADNEZZAR THY FATHER A KINGDOM, and majesty, and glory, and honour:
KJV Psalm 75:7 But God is the judge: HE PUTTETH DOWN ONE, AND SETTETH UP ANOTHER.
KJV 1 Samuel 2:7 THE LORD MAKETH POOR, AND MAKETH RICH: HE BRINGETH LOW, AND LIFTETH UP. 8 HE RAISETH UP THE POOR OUT OF THE DUST, AND LIFTETH UP THE BEGGAR FROM THE DUNGHILL, TO SET THEM AMONG PRINCES, AND TO MAKE THEM INHERIT THE THRONE OF GLORY: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
KJV 1 Samuel 15:28 And Samuel said unto him, THE LORD HATH RENT THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL FROM THEE THIS DAY, AND HATH GIVEN IT TO A NEIGHBOUR OF THINE, that is better than thou.
KJV 1 Samuel 16:1*¶ AND THE LORD SAID unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I HAVE REJECTED HIM FROM REIGNING OVER ISRAEL? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I HAVE PROVIDED ME A KING AMONG HIS SONS.
KJV 2 Samuel 6:21 And David said unto Michal, it was before THE LORD, WHICH chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to APPOINT ME RULER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD, OVER ISRAEL: therefore will I play before the LORD.
KJV Jeremiah 27:4-5 And command them to say unto their masters, THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, the God of Israel; Thus shall ye say unto your masters; 5 I HAVE MADE THE EARTH, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, AND HAVE GIVEN IT UNTO WHOM IT SEEMED MEET UNTO ME.
Do you see a fallen angel anywhere at all in any of those verses? Yet who do those verses say has the power over the kingdoms of men? Do you think a fallen angel chose the rulers over Israel? Even the few good ones? Show me one verse that says God relinquished this power to a fallen angel please.
Please show where Mat 4 or Luke 4 says "the devil"/"the tempter' is a fallen angel. Why did Christ have to fast forty days in order to be tempted by a fallen angel? It seems you are taking a lot for granted here. Do you think it is possible that Christ was in such excellent physical health that He had to go without the sustenance of the flesh forty days in order to make it weak enough to be tempted?
As for symbolic language, I'm not saying Matthew or Luke is using symbols. I'm saying they are relating an experience of Christ's via of language the Bible uses to define things. Who does the Bible say is the temple or tabernacle of Christ? Is it not His people (1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21)? Is Christ not the "pinnacle" or chief cornerstone of that temple (Luke 20:17-18; Acts 4:11-12; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:7-8)? Was not this "pinnacle" of God's temple to die for the temple (Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 3:16)?
Lets say I'm correct and God is the one and not some "fallen angel" who has the power to give kingdoms to whom He pleases. Seeing that Christ is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col 2:9) would He not be over who ruled in the kingdoms of men? If so, and He was in the flesh and tempted in all ways as flesh is tempted (Heb 2:17; 4:15), do you think He like so many of us do when we're tempted argue with ourselves or our flesh to do what we think is right or not?
Have you never had such struggles with your temptations? Of course you have! Christ did too or He wasn't tempted as we are tempted. Do you think His flesh wanted to die? Would not the Most High God have to power to give Himself a new people so that He wouldn't have to die? Wouldn't that be a true temptation and not worshipping a fallen angel who has no power?
Which scenario do you think would be a true temptation to Christ? Your belief He was tempted on a dare from a "fallen angel" to jump off a building or my understanding that He was debating with His flesh to remove Himself from having to die for His people?
I think the identity of the "tempter" is revealed when He is said to be tempted to eat after not eating for forty days. In Luke the "tempter" is said to be "the devil Luke 4:3)." Strong defines the Greek word "diabolos" translated "the devil" here as a "false accuser" and is so translated In 2 Tim 3:2 and Titus 2:3. Jesus, Himself said the false accuser/witness is in the flesh of men (Mat 15:18-19).
After His temptation Christ said, as per the kJV "get thee hence, Satan" (Mat 4:10). The definition of the translated Hebrew word "satan" is "adversary":
YLT Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus to him, 'Go -- Adversary, for it hath been written, The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve.'
Do you not think your flesh has ever been an "adversary" to you?
It is my belief you are simply applying an extra-Biblical belief to words in the Bible that you can't show are defined in the same way via the Bible. In other words, had you never been told about a fallen angel called "Satan" and "the devil" you couldn't find this belief in the pages of Scripture. This is why "scholars" have to improvise with passages e.g., from Ezekiel 28 that say nothing of a "fallen angel" or use words like "devil" or "satan" and say they mean something they can't prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brndnms
I am not arguing the meaning of Revelation. So called "scholars" disagree with each other over just what The Revelation is and when it takes place. When you suppose Eze 28 is speaking of a fallen angel being cast to earth, even though no such thing is said in that chapter anywhere is it speaking of the event in Revelation? Does this mean a "fallen angel" had no power prior to the future of John in the first century A.D. and since you apparently don't think The Great Tribulation has happened does this mean a "fallen angel" known as "Satan" is still in heaven with God today?
I must disagree with you. If Christ is revealing things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 1:1) and there's no indication that John is speaking of a historical event then we must understand that John is speaking of things to come. Not things that have happened:
Revelation 4:1-2 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
4 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice which I had heard addressing me like [the calling of] a [a]war trumpet said, Come up here, and I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT MUST TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
The "future" would include anything about "satan." When Jesus said. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven Luke 10:18)" when His disciples told them about their trip to do the "harvest" of His people was He talking about the event you say happened in Revelation or was He talking about something that happened in the distant past?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Satan is also identified here with the serpent of old which can only be a reference to Genesis.
Why does this have to be a reference to the "serpent" in Genesis? What attributes of that being relates to anything of the "serpent" in Revelation? I contend that you think it has to be this way in order to hold onto the "fallen angel" belief. I see no reason to equate them. Why isn't the Revelation "serpent" equated to the tribe of Dan, which is also called a "serpent (Gen 49:17)?"
Where in Genesis do we find the "serpent" defined as "a dragon", "satan", "devil", "having ten horns", "a tail" and "having seven heads with seven crowns on them?"
I don't think there's an angel fallen or not that fits that description in the Bible. I would say symbolism like "mountains", "kings" and "crowns" would indicate governments of men.
I agree that a literal being can be a "satan" just as Christ called Peter "satan (Mat 16:23)", but I don't think you can show one place where an angel fell from heaven and was named "satan" or "The Devil." Ezek 28 does not do that regardless of what "scholars" say. That is addressed to the King of Tyre and no one else. Superimposing another creature into that scenario is just wishful thinking IMHO.
Where does this creature get his power if ALL power is given to Christ (Mat 28:18)?
My hope here is to simply identify who the "satan" in Revelation is not. We can discuss the meaning of Revelation another time. BTW I don't think the NT would be very clear without understanding the OT.
Lets start with the word "satan" in Revelation 12. That word first appears in v. 9 where we find that this "satan" is AKA "the devil" and is identified as "the great red dragon." This "dragon" is described having seven heads and ten horns with crowns upon them (v. 3). Water comes out of his mouth (v. 15). This doesn't say these are governments a fallen angel gives power to. It is a description of this "satan." Later in Revelation we're told these seven heads are kings (17:10) and the ten horns are also kings (17:12). These are not separate from this "satan", they are part of it.
I don't think so. There is no reason to do this. Any connection would have to be subjective to the viewer. You have to take for granted there was an angel that fell from God's graces even though there is no place in the Bible such a thing occurs. You have to have faith there is a fallen angel even though the Bible says ALL angels are ministering spirits (Heb 1:14). The Greek word translated "all" in that verse is "pas" and is defined by Strong as "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything." Where is there any room for even one angel to not be included much less a third of them?
and:
If "Satan" is spirit, how can he devoured by fire and become ashes (Eze 28:18)? I can find no place in the Bible that equates "cherubim" with being spirit.
Firstly, you either think the king of Tyrus, to whom the description, in this verse applies (Eze 28:12) is synonymous with a fallen-angel or you're simply ignoring the salutation of this "lamentation" of God.
Secondly, you seem think the word "cherub" applies to such an angel when the verse mentions nothing of an angel. God put "cherubim" outside the garden (Gen 3:24). Why? To keep or preserve the way of the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24). This was done via of a flaming (Heb 1:7; Psa 104:4) sword (Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17) or the Word of God through ministers in all directions (every way) in order to preserve or keep the law of God.
We have an example of cherubim and what they do in the design of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.:
(Exo 25:20-21 KJV) "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee."
So a cherub is one that protects the seat of the Law. They uphold God's Law! We see that the human king of Tyrus did this in the beginning of his reign, but he eventually sinned causing God to destroy him. The king of Tyre was a protector of the Law of God until.... Until what? Until he sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). Until then he was a Law-keeper because we know sin is the breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4). And the term "wings" as used to described the "cherubim" over the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, that is simply symbolic of protection. Notice that the Bible says God has wings also:
(Psa 91:2-4 KJV) "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. {3} Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. {4} >>>He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings<<< shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."
This would make God, Himself a cherub. So a cherub simply protects and upholds God's Law. That's why the King of Tyrus was one when he was first made king. But he fell when he sinned. As for being anointed. That's what happens to a flesh and blood person when they become king of a nation (1 Sam 15:1). And that was a necessity for the king of Tyrus in order for him to be king. And remember that this king in Ezekiel 28 is not only referred to as a "man" (Ezek 28:2). He is to be in a grave (Ezek 28:8).
Unless you can show where this creature came into being you have nothing but supposition. The Bible requires us to prove all things (1 Thes 5:21). Unless you can show in the context of the Bible the existence of a fallen angel you must create him. I see nowhere such a creature can even slightly be spoken of.
I don't think it's possible for a creature to be both perfect and a murdering liar from his beginning or origin. I believe that's called "cognitive dissonance."
Who was more subtle than any beast of the field ...MAN!
And the Hebrew word arom means - naked, to be shrewd, cunning or crafty.
Genesis 2:25
Now the man and his wife were both naked (arom), but they felt no shame.
I am not arguing the meaning of Revelation. So called "scholars" disagree with each other over just what The Revelation is and when it takes place. When you suppose Eze 28 is speaking of a fallen angel being cast to earth, even though no such thing is said in that chapter anywhere is it speaking of the event in Revelation? Does this mean a "fallen angel" had no power prior to the future of John in the first century A.D. and since you apparently don't think The Great Tribulation has happened does this mean a "fallen angel" known as "Satan" is still in heaven with God today?
Information in the Bible is not given all in one place. You must pay attention to all that is said in various places in the Bible. In Ezekiel 28:11 and following, once again, the person to whom the king of Tyre is being compared cannot be a human being because the language doesn't fit. No man was ever a Cherub. The scene is set in the Garden of Eden. Adam was not internally filled with violence. Nor was Adam cast to the ground before kings. Fire was not brought out from the midst of Adam. The being to whom the king of Tyre is being compared to Adam but to someone else. And that someone else was a Cherub being. I've already pointed you to Ezekiel chapters one and ten where Cherubim are described.
Though Satan was cast out of heaven, he still has access to it. He won't be permanently cast out until the middle of the Tribulation as per Revelation chapter 12.
Quote:
I must disagree with you. If Christ is revealing things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 1:1) and there's no indication that John is speaking of a historical event then we must understand that John is speaking of things to come. Not things that have happened:
Revelation 4:1-2 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
4 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice which I had heard addressing me like [the calling of] a [a]war trumpet said, Come up here, and I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT MUST TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
The "future" would include anything about "satan." When Jesus said. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven Luke 10:18)" when His disciples told them about their trip to do the "harvest" of His people was He talking about the event you say happened in Revelation or was He talking about something that happened in the distant past?
The issue at hand is whether or not Satan is a fallen angel. Not about the timing of events in Revelation. It's time consuming enough addressing that issue without bringing in other issues.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Satan is also identified here with the serpent of old which can only be a reference to Genesis.
Why does this have to be a reference to the "serpent" in Genesis? What attributes of that being relates to anything of the "serpent" in Revelation? I contend that you think it has to be this way in order to hold onto the "fallen angel" belief. I see no reason to equate them. Why isn't the Revelation "serpent" equated to the tribe of Dan, which is also called a "serpent (Gen 49:17)?"
Where in Genesis do we find the "serpent" defined as "a dragon", "satan", "devil", "having ten horns", "a tail" and "having seven heads with seven crowns on them?"
Because the tribe of Dan was not in heaven warring with Michael and his angels. The reference is to the serpent in Genesis who caused the fall of man according to the text.
Quote:
I don't think there's an angel fallen or not that fits that description in the Bible. I would say symbolism like "mountains", "kings" and "crowns" would indicate governments of men.
You're taking symbolic language as if it's literal. Satan doesn't literally have a tail or ten horns or seven heads.
Quote:
I agree that a literal being can be a "satan" just as Christ called Peter "satan (Mat 16:23)", but I don't think you can show one place where an angel fell from heaven and was named "satan" or "The Devil." Ezek 28 does not do that regardless of what "scholars" say. That is addressed to the King of Tyre and no one else. Superimposing another creature into that scenario is just wishful thinking IMHO.
'Satan' and 'devil' are titles, not the name or names of this Cherub being.
And quite frankly, you simply are not qualified to dismiss out of hand what scholars say about the matter.
Quote:
Where does this creature get his power if ALL power is given to Christ (Mat 28:18)?
You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of context. The fact that Jesus is said to have bee given all authority has nothing to do with whatever abilities angelic beings have.
Quote:
My hope here is to simply identify who the "satan" in Revelation is not. We can discuss the meaning of Revelation another time. BTW I don't think the NT would be very clear without understanding the OT.
Lets start with the word "satan" in Revelation 12. That word first appears in v. 9 where we find that this "satan" is AKA "the devil" and is identified as "the great red dragon." This "dragon" is described having seven heads and ten horns with crowns upon them (v. 3). Water comes out of his mouth (v. 15). This doesn't say these are governments a fallen angel gives power to. It is a description of this "satan." Later in Revelation we're told these seven heads are kings (17:10) and the ten horns are also kings (17:12). These are not separate from this "satan", they are part of it.
Satan is the one who gives power to the antichrist, who Paul refers to as the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians chapter two. The antichrist is also referred to as the beast. The beast will be given authority to act for 42 months according to Revelation 13:5. The beast receives this authority from the dragon (Rev. 13:1-4). Here the beast as distinguished from the dragon is said to have ten horns and seven heads. I've already referred you to Daniel chapter 7 which identifies the ten horns as ten kings. It is Satan (the dragon) who gives authority to the beast (the antichrist or man of lawlessness) who will have authority to act during the Tribulation.
Quote:
I don't think so. There is no reason to do this. Any connection would have to be subjective to the viewer. You have to take for granted there was an angel that fell from God's graces even though there is no place in the Bible such a thing occurs. You have to have faith there is a fallen angel even though the Bible says ALL angels are ministering spirits (Heb 1:14). The Greek word translated "all" in that verse is "pas" and is defined by Strong as "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything." Where is there any room for even one angel to not be included much less a third of them?
No, you do not have to take for granted that there was an angel that fell from God's grace because as already stated and shown, the greater context of the Bible shows Satan to be a fallen angel.
Hebrews 1:14 refers to the obedient angels. It does not refer to the fallen angels who rebelled against God, some of whom are according to Peter and Jude cast into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). This is a reference to the event in Genesis 6:4 when the sons of God (angelic beings) disobeyed God and took human wives for themselves. The book of 1 Enoch which while not canonical, is second period Jewish literature which interprets Genesis 6:4 and states that two hundred angels were involved in this affair. The descended from heaven to the summit of Mount Hermon and made a pact to take human wives. It was 1 Enoch which informed both Peter and Jude who again stated that these angels were confined to Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 1:6).
Quote:
and:
If "Satan" is spirit, how can he devoured by fire and become ashes (Eze 28:18)? I can find no place in the Bible that equates "cherubim" with being spirit.
You're ignoring the fact here that the Bible uses descriptive and symbolic language.
Again, Cherubim are described in Ezekiel chapters one and ten. They are heavenly beings and therefore 'spirit beings.'
Quote:
Firstly, you either think the king of Tyrus, to whom the description, in this verse applies (Eze 28:12) is synonymous with a fallen-angel or you're simply ignoring the salutation of this "lamentation" of God.
Good grief. It gets tiresome having to keep going over the same thing again and again. The king of Tyre is not synonymous with a fallen angel. He is being compared with a fallen angel. That is a big, big difference.
Quote:
Secondly, you seem think the word "cherub" applies to such an angel when the verse mentions nothing of an angel. God put "cherubim" outside the garden (Gen 3:24). Why? To keep or preserve the way of the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24). This was done via of a flaming (Heb 1:7; Psa 104:4) sword (Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17) or the Word of God through ministers in all directions (every way) in order to preserve or keep the law of God.
We have an example of cherubim and what they do in the design of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.:
(Exo 25:20-21 KJV) "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee."
So a cherub is one that protects the seat of the Law. They uphold God's Law! We see that the human king of Tyrus did this in the beginning of his reign, but he eventually sinned causing God to destroy him. The king of Tyre was a protector of the Law of God until.... Until what? Until he sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). Until then he was a Law-keeper because we know sin is the breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4). And the term "wings" as used to described the "cherubim" over the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, that is simply symbolic of protection. Notice that the Bible says God has wings also:
I'm the one who pointed out that Cherubim were represented on the ark of the covenant. They are angellic beings of higher rank than bottom rung angels.
And again, the king of Tyre was not a Cherub. Nor was the king of Tyre ever in the Garden of Eden.
Quote:
(Psa 91:2-4 KJV) "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. {3} Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. {4} >>>He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings<<< shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."
This would make God, Himself a cherub. So a cherub simply protects and upholds God's Law. That's why the King of Tyrus was one when he was first made king. But he fell when he sinned. As for being anointed. That's what happens to a flesh and blood person when they become king of a nation (1 Sam 15:1). And that was a necessity for the king of Tyrus in order for him to be king. And remember that this king in Ezekiel 28 is not only referred to as a "man" (Ezek 28:2). He is to be in a grave (Ezek 28:8).
You don't have very good reasoning skills and seem unable to distinguish between when something is to be understood literally and when something is to be understood symbolically. Once again, go to Ezekiel and read the descriptions of Cherubim in chapters one and ten.
God is not a Cherub. Nor is He a Seraph which is yet another class of angelic being.
Quote:
Unless you can show where this creature came into being you have nothing but supposition. The Bible requires us to prove all things (1 Thes 5:21). Unless you can show in the context of the Bible the existence of a fallen angel you must create him. I see nowhere such a creature can even slightly be spoken of.
The Cherub who rebelled against God and became known as Satan and the devil came was created along with all the other angelic beings sometime before the creation of the world. He was not created evil. He rebelled at some point.
Quote:
I don't think it's possible for a creature to be both perfect and a murdering liar from his beginning or origin. I believe that's called "cognitive dissonance."
I already addressed this. The reference to Satan being a murderer from the beginning doesn't refer to the beginning of his existence, but to the fact that he caused the fall of man.
This is very time consuming and I don't intend to spend more time on it. I've already sufficiently shown that the Biblical text presents an angelic being who rebelled against God, and thus fell, and is known by his titles 'Satan' and 'the devil' among other descriptive titles. You don't believe that an angelic being known as Satan exists. You have a lot of company. But the Bible says that he does exist and that is the belief of mainstream Biblical Christianity based on the Biblical text. But believe what you will.
Last edited by Michael Way; 12-16-2018 at 08:12 PM..
Saw-tawn (Satan) cannot be used as a proper name to refer to a certain individual, but it was generally used as a title for any person who opposes or acts as an adversary; good or bad.
[quote=brndnms;53902906]I am not arguing the meaning of Revelation. So called "scholars" disagree with each other over just what The Revelation is and when it takes place. When you suppose Eze 28 is speaking of a fallen angel being cast to earth, even though no such thing is said in that chapter anywhere is it speaking of the event in Revelation? Does this mean a "fallen angel" had no power prior to the future of John in the first century A.D. and since you apparently don't think The Great Tribulation has happened does this mean a "fallen angel" known as "Satan" is still in heaven with God today?
I must disagree with you. If Christ is revealing things which must shortly come to pass (Rev 1:1) and there's no indication that John is speaking of a historical event then we must understand that John is speaking of things to come. Not things that have happened:
Revelation 4:1-2 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
4 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice which I had heard addressing me like [the calling of] a [a]war trumpet said, Come up here, and I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT MUST TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
The "future" would include anything about "satan." When Jesus said. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven Luke 10:18)" when His disciples told them about their trip to do the "harvest" of His people was He talking about the event you say happened in Revelation or was He talking about something that happened in the distant past?
[quote=Mike555;53888548]
Satan is also identified here with the serpent of old which can only be a reference to Genesis.
Quote:
Why does this have to be a reference to the "serpent" in Genesis? What attributes of that being relates to anything of the "serpent" in Revelation? I contend that you think it has to be this way in order to hold onto the "fallen angel" belief. I see no reason to equate them. Why isn't the Revelation "serpent" equated to the tribe of Dan, which is also called a "serpent (Gen 49:17)?"
Where in Genesis do we find the "serpent" defined as "a dragon", "satan", "devil", "having ten horns", "a tail" and "having seven heads with seven crowns on them?"
I don't think there's an angel fallen or not that fits that description in the Bible. I would say symbolism like "mountains", "kings" and "crowns" would indicate governments of men.
I agree that a literal being can be a "satan" just as Christ called Peter "satan (Mat 16:23)", but I don't think you can show one place where an angel fell from heaven and was named "satan" or "The Devil." Ezek 28 does not do that regardless of what "scholars" say. That is addressed to the King of Tyre and no one else. Superimposing another creature into that scenario is just wishful thinking IMHO.
Where does this creature get his power if ALL power is given to Christ (Mat 28:18)?
My hope here is to simply identify who the "satan" in Revelation is not. We can discuss the meaning of Revelation another time. BTW I don't think the NT would be very clear without understanding the OT.
Lets start with the word "satan" in Revelation 12. That word first appears in v. 9 where we find that this "satan" is AKA "the devil" and is identified as "the great red dragon." This "dragon" is described having seven heads and ten horns with crowns upon them (v. 3). Water comes out of his mouth (v. 15). This doesn't say these are governments a fallen angel gives power to. It is a description of this "satan." Later in Revelation we're told these seven heads are kings (17:10) and the ten horns are also kings (17:12). These are not separate from this "satan", they are part of it.
I don't think so. There is no reason to do this. Any connection would have to be subjective to the viewer. You have to take for granted there was an angel that fell from God's graces even though there is no place in the Bible such a thing occurs. You have to have faith there is a fallen angel even though the Bible says ALL angels are ministering spirits (Heb 1:14). The Greek word translated "all" in that verse is "pas" and is defined by Strong as "each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything." Where is there any room for even one angel to not be included much less a third of them?
and:
If "Satan" is spirit, how can he devoured by fire and become ashes (Eze 28:18)? I can find no place in the Bible that equates "cherubim" with being spirit.
Firstly, you either think the king of Tyrus, to whom the description, in this verse applies (Eze 28:12) is synonymous with a fallen-angel or you're simply ignoring the salutation of this "lamentation" of God.
Secondly, you seem think the word "cherub" applies to such an angel when the verse mentions nothing of an angel. God put "cherubim" outside the garden (Gen 3:24). Why? To keep or preserve the way of the Tree of Life (Gen 3:24). This was done via of a flaming (Heb 1:7; Psa 104:4) sword (Heb 4:12; Eph 6:17) or the Word of God through ministers in all directions (every way) in order to preserve or keep the law of God.
We have an example of cherubim and what they do in the design of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.:
(Exo 25:20-21 KJV) "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee."
So a cherub is one that protects the seat of the Law. They uphold God's Law! We see that the human king of Tyrus did this in the beginning of his reign, but he eventually sinned causing God to destroy him. The king of Tyre was a protector of the Law of God until.... Until what? Until he sinned (Ezek 28:15-16). Until then he was a Law-keeper because we know sin is the breaking of the Law (1 John 3:4). And the term "wings" as used to described the "cherubim" over the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, that is simply symbolic of protection. Notice that the Bible says God has wings also:
(Psa 91:2-4 KJV) "I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. {3} Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. {4} >>>He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings<<< shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."
This would make God, Himself a cherub. So a cherub simply protects and upholds God's Law. That's why the King of Tyrus was one when he was first made king. But he fell when he sinned. As for being anointed. That's what happens to a flesh and blood person when they become king of a nation (1 Sam 15:1). And that was a necessity for the king of Tyrus in order for him to be king. And remember that this king in Ezekiel 28 is not only referred to as a "man" (Ezek 28:2). He is to be in a grave (Ezek 28:8).
Unless you can show where this creature came into being you have nothing but supposition. The Bible requires us to prove all things (1 Thes 5:21). Unless you can show in the context of the Bible the existence of a fallen angel you must create him. I see nowhere such a creature can even slightly be spoken of.
I don't think it's possible for a creature to be both perfect and a murdering liar from his beginning or origin. I believe that's called "cognitive dissonance."
Rev 4:1 After these things I saw, and lo, a door opened in the heaven, and the first voice that I heard is as of a trumpet speaking with me, saying, 'Come up hither, and I will shew thee what it behoveth to come to pass after these things;'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who was more subtle than any beast of the field ...MAN!
