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 know Jesus, and believe on Him, keep His commandments. If we willfully sin, we are not keeping His commandments.
Hebrews 8:7-13
7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more." 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
So either you believe that only the house of Israel , and Judah is saved or all are saved. This is not in anyway directed to Gentiles. Is the New covenant in effect now or not?
Jesus' grace is conditional; it's based on obedience.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24)
Because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1Cor.12:13; Gal 3:26-28; Eph.4:5) we as Church Age believers are placed into union with Christ and therefore we are positionally in Christ and as a result we are positionally higher than angels because Christ is higher than angels.
Quote:
Ahh, the most famous of all the battles. Let us look at this verse CLOSELY.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood." In other words, it is not against mankind.
"But against rulers, against thier power, against the world forces of THIS darkness" Really? Why would we, as Christians, be against world forces? Because of:
"Against the SPIRITUAL wickedness in the heavenly places". These are people who claim the title of Christian, yet by their actions they are wicked as wicked can be.
So, as Christians, who stand for the Truth, put on the FULL Armor of God, to withstand this evil.
The first and second heavens are a reference to the earths atmosphere and the stellar universe. These are the abodes of the angels.
Eph. 6:12 tells us, 'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, (in other words, not against man) but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. ( These are references to Satan and to the various ranks of his angelic followers.) The people who claim to be Christians but are
leading people astray are on the side of Satan. He is the one they are following and so they are a part of the spiritual forces of wickedness. But it is Satan who is behind it all. And so our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the one (Satan) who is behind it all.
It is the world forces that are against believers in Christ because Satan's intention is to neutralize the testimony of the believer and to confuse the issue regarding the Christian way of life.
Quote:
Fairy tales.
You have Genesis 6:1-4; you have 2 Peter 2:4-5; and you have 1 Peter 3:19-20. You have to decide whether you believe what the Bible has recorded or not. If the Bible is the word of God, and it is, then how is it that you refer to what it has recorded for us as fairy tales?
Quote:
God did not SPARE the prophets of old, who sinned, but who delivered messages to the people. Remember, an angel is but a messenger or prophet.
2 Peter 2:4-5 refers to the angels that were involved in the incident in Genesis 6. These angels are now imprisoned not in Torments, but in Tartarus. Tartarus is reserved only for the demons who step outside the established boundaries of the angelic conflict. Those members of the human race who die without believing in Christ are sent to the compartment in Hades known as 'Torments' (Luke 16:23). Humans are never sent to Tartarus.
Quote:
And? All this shows is that no one was able to be brought out of the prison, until Christ came. Christ is the redemption of the people.
Again, 1 Peter 3:19-20 is referring to the angels that were imprisoned in Tartarus because of their actions in Gen. 6. It has nothing to do with people.
Quote:
Lucifer is a man made name given to the king of Babylon. Satan does indeed mean adversary, to which ANY man can become, including Peter, when doing something outside of the will of God.
Lucifer who more accurately is called 'Helel Ben Shachar', is the name given to the churub angel who we know by his title of Satan.
Jesus was addressing Satan who was influencing Peter.
.
Quote:
Huh? Where is this written?
Where is this written?
Where is this written?
Where is this angelic conflict you keep referring to? Are you reading things other than the Bible? It makes for some grand fantasy, but if it is not scripturally sound, then it is conjection.
The angelic conflict is the conflict which is going on between Satan and his angels and God and the elect angels. Ephesians 6:12 and following explain our part in it.
The angelic conflict is the result of the fall of one third of all angelic creatures resulting in their being in opposition to God. It all began with the fall of Satan.( Ezek. 28:15; Isa. 14:15.) Both of these chapters are about Satan who is the power behind the respective thrones. You can research it on your own or you can just deny it. Your choice.
Now you either understand it or you don't. You either want to understand it or you don't. If you don't want to even consider something because you haven't heard it before, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. In which case, simply carry on. If you are interested, then you can do more research on it by starting on the web. You can read these books by two great theologians.
'Satan His Motive and Methods,' by Lewis Sperry Chafer
'The Invisible War,' by Donald Grey Barnhouse
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-21-2009 at 04:03 PM..
You are WRONG...this is about the King of Babylon...it is a taunt and has nothing to do with your version of satan.
Madam, I assure you, I am quite correct. See also Ezekiel 28 which is also addressing Satan as the power behind the king of Tyre. Ezk. 28:13 refers to Lucifer as having been at one time in Eden, the garden of God; this is not refering to the Garden of Eden, it is refering to the Heavenly Eden. But even if it were refering to the Garden of Eden which it is not, I assure you that the king of Tyre was never in the Garden of Eden.
And in v16) we see that Satan is refered to as a cherub. Cherub is a high ranking angel. No man is a cherub. Nor was the king of Tyre ever on the holy mountain of God as in v14.)
In verse 11) The king of Tyre never had the seal of perfection, this is being addressed to Satan.
How is it that so simple and so obvious a thing as this goes right over your head.
Research this. There is plenty of information available on the subject. Or are you afraid of the truth? If you are wrong in your beliefs wouldn't you rather find out what the truth really is? It's your choice.
The angelic conflict is the conflict which is going on between Satan and his angels and God and the elect angels. Ephesians 6:12 and following explain our part in it.
The angelic conflict is the result of the fall of one third of all angelic creatures resulting in their being in opposition to God. It all began with the fall of Satan.( Ezek. 28:15; Isa. 14:15.) Both of these chapters are about Satan who is the power behind the respective thrones. You can research it on your own or you can just deny it. Your choice.
Now you either understand it or you don't. You either want to understand it or you don't. If you don't want to even consider something because you haven't heard it before, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. In which case, simply carry on. If you are interested, then you can do more research on it by starting on the web. You can read these books by two great theologians.
'Satan His Motive and Methods,' by Lewis Sperry Chafer
'The Invisible War,' by Donald Grey Barnhouse
The only problem with your angelic conflict is that there is one condition to all you say being true about this... did the angels that fell ever have a serious hope of defeating God in their challenge of Him?
If the angels did have a chance of defeating God then what kind of God are we worshiping? obviously not all powerful.
and if the angels did not have a chance of defeating God then it is foolish to think they challenged Him.
either way it is not sensible to believe in an angelic conflict or satan for that matter. When you rebel against someone or something you intend to overcome it. Can satan overcome God? He must be a god then. You can't have it both ways.
Isaiah 14: 12-14: “How art thou fallen from heaven , O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High”.
POPULAR INTERPRETATION
It is assumed that Lucifer was once a powerful angel who sinned at Adam’s time and was therefore cast down to earth, where he is making trouble for God’s people.
COMMENTS
1. The words “devil” , “satan” and “angel” never occur in this chapter. This is the only place in Scripture where the word “Lucifer” occurs.
2. There is no evidence that Isaiah 14 is describing anything that happened in the garden of Eden; if it is, then why are we left 3,000 years from the time of Genesis before being told what really happened there?
3. Lucifer is described as being covered in worms (v. 11) and mocked by men (v. 16) because he no longer has any power after his casting out of heaven (vs. 5-8); so there is no justification for thinking that Lucifer is now on earth leading believers astray.
4. Why is Lucifer punished for saying, “I will ascend into heaven” (v. 13), if he was already there?
5. Lucifer is to rot in the grave: “Thy pomp is brought down to the grave...and the worms cover thee” (v. 11). Seeing angels cannot die (Lk. 20:35-36), Lucifer therefore cannot be an angel; the language is more suited to a man.
6. Verses 13 and 14 have connections with 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4, which is about the “man of sin” - thus Lucifer points forward to another man, perhaps another king of latter day Babylon- but not to an angel.
7. It should be noted that the idea of 'morning star' is translated 'Lucifer' in the Vulgate [Latin] translation of the Bible made by Jerome. Significantly, he uses 'Lucifer' as a description of Christ, as the 'morning star' mentioned in Revelation. Indeed, some early Christians took the name 'Lucifer' as a 'Christian name' in order to identify themselves with Jesus (1). It wasn't until Origen that the term 'Lucifer' took on any connotation of 'Satan' or a force of evil; and even then it was only popularized much later in Milton's Paradise Lost . 'Lucifer' in its strict meaning of 'bearer of the light' actually was applied in a positive sense to Christian communities, e.g. the followers of Lucifer of Cagliari were called 'Luciferians'. As an aside, it's worth pointing out that they were one of the groups who insisted that the devil was not a personal being and held to the original Biblical picture of sin and the devil (2).
EXPLANATIONS
1. The N.I.V. and other modern versions have set out the text of Isaiah chapters 13-23 as a series of “burdens” on various nations, e.g. Babylon, Tyre, Egypt. Isaiah 14: 4, sets the context of the verses we are considering: “Thou shalt take up this proverb (parable) against the king of Babylon...”. The prophecy is therefore about the human king of Babylon, who is described as “Lucifer”. On his fall: “they that see thee shall...consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble...?” (v. 16). Thus Lucifer is clearly defined as a man.
2. Because Lucifer was a human king , “All kings of the nations...shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?” (vs. 9-10). Lucifer was therefore a king like any other king.
3. Verse 20 says that Lucifer’s seed will be destroyed. Verse 22 says that Babylon’s seed will be destroyed, thus equating them.
4. Remember that this is a “proverb (parable) against the king of Babylon” (v. 4). “Lucifer” means “the morning star”, which is the brightest of the stars. In the parable, this star proudly decides to “ascend (higher) into heaven...exalt my throne above the (other) stars of God” (v. 13). Because of this, the star is cast down to the earth. The star represents the king of Babylon. Daniel chapter 4 explains how Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, proudly surveyed the great kingdom he had built up, thinking that he had conquered other nations in his own strength, rather than recognizing that God had given him success. “Thy greatness (pride) is grown, and reacheth unto heaven” (v.22). Because of this “he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws” (v. 33). This sudden humbling of one of the world’s most powerful men to a deranged lunatic was such a dramatic event as to call for the parable about the falling of the morning star from heaven to earth. Stars are symbolic of powerful people, e.g. Genesis 37: 9; Isaiah 13:10 (concerning the leaders of Babylon); Ezekiel 32: 7 (concerning the leaders of Egypt); Daniel 8:10, cp. v. 24. Ascending to heaven and falling from heaven are Biblical idioms often used for increasing in pride and being humbled respectively - see Job 20: 6; Jeremiah 51:53 ( about Babylon); Lamentations 2 :1; Matthew 11:23 (about Capernaum): “Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (the grave). Adam Clarke's commentary rightly notes: "The truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall... but of the pride, arrogance and fall of Nebuchadnezzar".
5. Verse 17 accuses Lucifer of making the “world as a wilderness, (destroying) the cities thereof; that let not loose his prisoners to their home...(that did) fill the face of the world with cities...the exactress of gold” (vs 17 & 21 R.V.; v. 4 A.V. margin). These are all descriptions of Babylonian military policy - razing whole areas to the ground (as they did to Jerusalem), transporting captives to other areas and not letting them return to their homeland (as they did to the Jews), building new cities and taking tribute of gold from nations they oppressed. Thus there is emphasis on the fact that Lucifer was not even going to get the burial these other kings had (vs. 18-19), implying that he was only a human king like them, seeing his body needed burying. Is. 14:8 records the relief that now the "Lucifer" figure would no longer cut down cedars in Lebanon and hew mountains. This is exactly the language used by Nebuchadnezzar: "What no former king had done, I achieved: I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, I opened passages and constructed a straight road for the transport of Cedars... to Marduk, my king, mighty cedars... the abundant yield of the Lebanon" (3). Clearly the figure spoken of in Is. 14 was Nebuchadnezzar.
6. Verse 12 says that Lucifer was to be “cut down to the ground” - implying he was a tree. This provides a further link with Daniel 4: 8-16, where Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon are likened to a tree being cut down.
7. Babylon and Assyria are often interchangeable phrases in the prophets, thus, having spoken of the demise of the king of Babylon, v. 25 says, “I will break the Assyrian...”. The prophecies about Babylon in Isaiah 47, are repeated concerning Assyria in Nahum 3: 4, 5, & 18, and Zephaniah 2 :13 & 15; and 2 Chronicles 33:11, says that the king of Assyria took Manasseh captive to Babylon - showing the interchangeability of the terms. Amos 5:27 says that Israel were to go into captivity “beyond Damascus”, i.e. in Assyria, but Stephen quotes this as “beyond Babylon” (Acts 7:43). Ezra 6:1 describes Darius the king of Babylon making a decree concerning the rebuilding of the temple. The Jews praised God for turning “the heart of the king of Assyria” (Ezra 6: 22), again showing that they are interchangeable terms. The prophecy of Isaiah 14, along with many others in Isaiah, fits in well to the context of the Assyrian invasion by Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s time, hence v. 25 describes the breaking of the Assyrian. Verse 13 is easier to understand if it is talking about the blasphemous Assyrians besieging Jerusalem, wanting to enter Jerusalem and capture the temple for their gods. Earlier the Assyrian king, Tilgath-Pilneser, had probably wanted to do the same (2 Chron. 28: 20-21). Isaiah 14:13: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven...(symbolic of the temple and ark - 1 Kings 8: 30; 2 Chron. 30: 27; Ps. 20: 2 & 6; 11: 4; Heb. 7:26) I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation (mount Zion where the temple was) in the sides of the north” (Jerusalem - Ps. 48:1-2).
8. There's a good reason why the King of Babylon is described as "the morning star", or Venus. The Babylonians believed that their king was the child of their gods Bel and Ishtar, both of whom were associated with the planets- they thought that their King was the planet Venus.
9. The Lucifer-king was to "lie down" (Is. 14:8) in his destruction- and that Hebrew term occurs later in Isaiah with reference to the 'laying down' of Babylon's King and army in the grave (Is. 43:17)
10. Note that "the stars of God" can refer to the leaders of Israel (Gen. 37:9; Joel 3:15; Dan. 8:10), above whom the King of Babylon wished to arise.
11. The passage about "Lucifer" is alluding to and deconstructing a contemporary myth, in a manner which is common to much Biblical literature. "An ancient myth told how Heylel, the morning star (Venus), tried to climb the walls of the northern city of the gods to make himself king of heaven, only to be driven from the sky by the rising sun. In Isaiah 14:12-20 this mythis given a historical application" (4). Isaiah is mocking the myth, and saying that the King of Babylon was acting like Heylel in the myth- but would be thrown down not by another planet, but by God Himself.
H.A. Kelly- one of the leading historians of religious ideas of recent times- observed from much research that "It was not until post-Biblical times that Lucifer was associated with Satan, or that Satan was thought to have been cast out of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve, or that Satan had some connection with Adam and Eve" (5). The New Testament references to Jesus as the morning star, Venus, have been read by H.A. Kelly as a conscious allusion to the growing idea that Lucifer ['light-bringer', heosphoros in Greek, the dawn-bringer] / Venus, the morning star, was in fact something or someone evil (6). All the N.T. references to the morning star are positive, and all refer to Jesus (2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28; 22:16). It's possible to read Jn. 1:8 in this context, too. Here John the Baptist is described as "bearing witness to the light", which was language understandable with reference to Venus, the Morning Star which is seen in the Eeast just before the Sun rises in the West. Notes
(1) Nick Lunn, Alpha And Omega (Sutton, UK: Willow, 1992) p. 254.
(2) W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement Of Protest In Roman North Africa (Oxford: O.U.P., 1952).
(3) J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd ed., 1969) p. 307.
(4) G.B. Caird, The Revelation Of St. John The Divine (London: Black, 1966) pp. 114,115.
(5) H.A. Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: CUP, 2006) p. 1.
(6) H.A. Kelly, ibid pp. 164,165.
Madam, I will once again list the verses that reveal:
Satan as the ruler of this world; John 12:31; 14:31; 16:11.
Satan as the prince of the power of the air; Eph2:2.
The world as Satan's domain; Job 1:7; 1 Peter 5:8.
Satans influence in human affairs; 1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan described as being the father of those who are not of God; John 8:44.
I have pointed out in both Ezekiel 28 and in Isaiah 14 that many of the things being said can apply only to Satan (Lucifer) and do not and can not apply to any human being.
Madam, I assure you, I am quite correct. See also Ezekiel 28 which is also addressing Satan as the power behind the king of Tyre. Ezk. 28:13 refers to Lucifer as having been at one time in Eden, the garden of God; this is not refering to the Garden of Eden, it is refering to the Heavenly Eden. But even if it were refering to the Garden of Eden which it is not, I assure you that the king of Tyre was never in the Garden of Eden.
And in v16) we see that Satan is refered to as a cherub. Cherub is a high ranking angel. No man is a cherub. Nor was the king of Tyre ever on the holy mountain of God as in v14.)
In verse 11) The king of Tyre never had the seal of perfection, this is being addressed to Satan.
How is it that so simple and so obvious a thing as this goes right over your head.
Research this. There is plenty of information available on the subject. Or are you afraid of the truth? If you are wrong in your beliefs wouldn't you rather find out what the truth really is? It's your choice.
Trust me...I do not have to study this nonsense. Your version of satan is totally different from mine...yours is based on conjecture...mine is based on scripture. There is not one thing satan has done that hadn't been planned out by God long ago. God created satan and used him for his purposes exactly the way He wanted to. There is no struggle between God and satan...satan did exactly as he was told to do and if you doubt that then you know nothing of the Sovereignty of God.
The only problem with your angelic conflict is that there is one condition to all you say being true about this... did the angels that fell ever have a serious hope of defeating God in their challenge of Him?
If the angels did have a chance of defeating God then what kind of God are we worshiping? obviously not all powerful.
and if the angels did not have a chance of defeating God then it is foolish to think they challenged Him.
either way it is not sensible to believe in an angelic conflict or satan for that matter. When you rebel against someone or something you intend to overcome it. Can satan overcome God? He must be a god then. You can't have it both ways.
Arrogance can cause both angels and man to think and act in illogical ways. Pride can make both angels and man think more highly of themselves than they should.
God is in complete control and the fallen angels have no chance of successfully opposing God. But God is giving them the opportunity to try. God is doing this for His glory.
It is not my angelic conflict. Why don't you go do some serious research on the subject and find out what it is all about. But that's right. You don't even believe in Satan and not much of anything that the Bible teaches. So why bother?
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.
