The mother of all conspiracies, (satan) Great website link inside....

The plain and simple question is, if Satan works for God, why will he be punished by God for it? Why did God rebuke the serpent in the Garden of Eden if the serpent was working for God in the first place?

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I don't think that those scripture are discussing Satan, but are instead speaking of the devil.

The idea that Angels have free will, can sin, and fall, is not alien to Judaism. Just as you said, to sin or transgress the law of God takes free will. Speaking of the Cherub (angel) Satan, the Jewish prophet Ezekiel wrote... EZEKIEL 28:13

I find it convenient for your interpretation that the verse immediately prior to Ezekiel 28:13 was omitted since it actually shows who is being spoken to, which is the king of Tyre.

If Satan was perfect in his ways till iniquity (lawlessness) was found in him, because he had sinned, this proves angels have free will, and they they can and indeed have sinned. Satan sinned against God, which is why he ceased to be Lucifer (the light bearer) and became Satan, the adversary. He tried to raise himself up above God....

Ever wonder why a latin word would be used in a Hebrew (O.T.) document? The word LUCIFER is a latin word and the Hebrews would not have used a latin word, but would have instead used words that describes what lucifer means, which can be found in a dictionary. Read the origin of the word and it's meaning. Not just what it has come to be defined as in the last 1000 years.

Satan and Lucifer are not the same entities nor did Lucifer become Satan.

Satan, Lucifer and the devil are not interchangeable, but each are distinct from one another.

You might find it interesting that Jesus in Revelation 22:16 describes himself as what the meaning of Lucifer is?

Note that these two esteemed prophets were also Jewish.

Yes they were and it would be helpful to know what the Jewish were speaking about. Such as where it was assumed that Satan was being described when in fact the scripture shows that it was the king of Tyre that was being spoken to. As well as knowing that the different entities are distinct from one another.


[edit on 1-10-2008 by L.I.B.]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by L.I.B.]

Originally posted by asmeone2
You people come out every time the world "ends," stephenweffywhatepher!

The world hasnt' ended any of the other billion times it was suposed to be over, and neither has Satan arrived.

This might be the end of the world as we know it, but I'm betting the world goes on.

Hahaha your attempt at my name made me laugh, if you would have read any of my posts i actually did say, i don't agree with this website, however i feel many people will find interest in it, as people have.

The antichrist you speak of will be reigned as the New Messiah of the New Age of Aquarius. This new Messiah is nothing more than a son a fallen angel just as Christ was. The christians will be slaughtered in order to make way for the new messiah and the New Religion just as the Jews were.

Here is something you must understand. There is no messiah. The antichrist is an idea that will assist the Holy Roman Empire in creating this new Religion of the age of Aquarius. The person who you think of as "Jesus" was actually the only born son of Julius Caesar who his mother Cleopatra had exiled from Egypt to cover up his true identity, the son of Julius Caesar of The Roman Empire.

After Jesus was departed from Egypt he was adopted by his parent Mary and Joseph, he went to Asia and was taken in by Monks and learned and read ancient texts of the Buddhist Monks. When he returned to Egypt as a young man he healed people through his teachings. He was the founder of the Holy Roman Empire and his crucifiction was a false miracle.

Yes it is true that the Queen of England and even Bush are related to Jesus. But Jesus is not who you think he is. Jesus is a counterfeit.

The Queen wears a crown with twelve rocks, she is parralel to the lady adorned with twelve stars in the Bible. She is the so called Goddess of the Earth. But truth is she has power over all men on earth. She has a rod with an Iron cross which is the same that Isis had in Egypt, thats because they are all related and they are keeping it all in the family.

Most importantly, this is not prophecy. It is a plan for war. The ancients knew that the earth ahd been destroyed four times before by the way of warfare. They also knew about the grand cycle of the earth, which would create a pole shift and dramatic effects on our environment.

Their mission is to insure that their bloodline survive and that the son of man and believers of Christianity will die off. Because they have kept the son of man ignorant and have lead them to war with one another.

There is no christ, there is no antichrist.

However the title Antichrist still holds some truth. The one called the Antichrist will be the Queens successor who will rule with a rod of Iron. Then they will most likely make way for the new, counterfeit Messiah.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by stephenwephentephen


My apologies, then. I was about to go to bed when I read that so I didn't catch on to that.

I stand by my opinion, though.

Originally posted by L.I.B.

The plain and simple question is, if Satan works for God, why will he be punished by God for it? Why did God rebuke the serpent in the Garden of Eden if the serpent was working for God in the first place?

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I don't think that those scripture are discussing Satan, but are instead speaking of the devil.

Satan and the devil are the same being...

MATTHEW 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The idea that Angels have free will, can sin, and fall, is not alien to Judaism. Just as you said, to sin or transgress the law of God takes free will. Speaking of the Cherub (angel) Satan, the Jewish prophet Ezekiel wrote... EZEKIEL 28:13

I find it convenient for your interpretation that the verse immediately prior to Ezekiel 28:13 was omitted since it actually shows who is being spoken to, which is the king of Tyre.

If you read the passage you will see the King of Tyre was a type of exactly what Satan did. Was the King of Tyre a Cherub? Was the King of Tyre in the Garden of Eden? Was the King of Tyre even cast out of the Holy Mountain of God, heavenly Zion? Quite frankly no, and I find it convenient that you failed to address that.

Ever wonder why a latin word would be used in a Hebrew (O.T.) document? The word LUCIFER is a latin word and the Hebrews would not have used a latin word, but would have instead used words that describes what lucifer means, which can be found in a dictionary. Read the origin of the word and it's meaning. Not just what it has come to be defined as in the last 1000 years.

It was not a latin word that was used in the Old Testament when referring to Lucifer, it was Hebrew words that do mean exactly the same as what Lucifer means in Latin or Greek. The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer.

Satan and Lucifer are not the same entities nor did Lucifer become Satan.

Satan, Lucifer and the devil are not interchangeable, but each are distinct from one another.

not according to Jesus as I have already quoted, and also the book of Revelation....

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

You might find it interesting that Jesus in Revelation 22:16 describes himself as what the meaning of Lucifer is?

Yes, because that's exactly what Satan once was, the Light bearer, but he ceased to be that after he sinned.

Note that these two esteemed prophets were also Jewish.

Yes they were and it would be helpful to know what the Jewish were speaking about. Such as where it was assumed that Satan was being described when in fact the scripture shows that it was the king of Tyre that was being spoken to. As well as knowing that the different entities are distinct from one another.

As I have already pointed out, scripture shows that it was talking more than simply about the King of Tyre (Cherub, Garden of Eden etc), and it does not say anywhere that the different titles are separate beings, it says quite the opposite. The title devil is not used in the Old Testament, but the new testament shows thoroughly that the Devil, Satan, and the serpent are one and the same, and that he will be punished. If you want to talk about the Evil one based on what it says in scripture, then you have to address everything that is written, not just pick the verses that can be twisted to fit your own ideas, and then cast aside the others saying they are are not the same entity, when other scriptures plainly say that they are, and if we were both to do that, this is would be a never ending debate. God bless.

Satan and the devil are the same being...

So you say; so you say, which is okay. We are all free to believe (without foundation) whatever we wish to.

If you read the passage you will see the King of Tyre was a type of exactly what Satan did.

The reference is now to a "type" is it? Previously you had provided those verses as support to your opinion that angels/cherubs have free will and hence that Satan was an angel/cherub with freewill... meaning that he could have fallen.

Anyway, now that it is known that the verses are actually discussing the king of Tyre, does that mean that the king of Tyre became/will become Satan too in the same way that it is supposed that Lucifer became Satan?

Was the King of Tyre a Cherub? Was the King of Tyre in the Garden of Eden? Was the King of Tyre even cast out of the Holy Mountain of God, heavenly Zion? Quite frankly no, and I find it convenient that you failed to address that.

Actually, I had thought about addressing it, but felt that it would throw even more of screwdriver into this conversation.

I had wanted to discuss the scripture's mention of the "covering" cherub, since that indicates something. Rather than give you my own interpretation (that could get quite wordy in attempting to explain it) I found a reference that I felt quite fortunate in coming across right after I read your reply to me since it concerns these very scripture that you had quoted.

""The cherub of measure, that covers" refers to "You are a bird of measure, i.e., the huge bird that covers a large area with his wings; i.e., you rule over a large dominion. The Hebrew word used is a word for largeness, like Num. 13:32 - men of stature.

"and I gave that to you; you were on the mount of the sanctuary of God" - and I gave you a place to acquire a name for yourself in the edifice of the mountain of My sanctuary, for you assisted Solomon with the cedar wood.

"you walked among stones of fire" - You acquired for yourself a memorial with the kings of Israel, who are like the ministering angels.

16. Because of the multitude of your commerce, they filled you with violence and you sinned, and I shall cast you as profane from the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you, O covering cherub, from among the stones of fire.

That's the right way to translate the passage; sin typically appears as the commerce causes you to become more "worldly" and sometimes following less in G-d's way; the result is not very nice, according to this verse."

en.allexperts.com...

It was not a latin word that was used in the Old Testament when referring to Lucifer, it was Hebrew words that do mean exactly the same as what Lucifer means in Latin or Greek. The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer.

Then, why do you insist on saying that Lucifer became Satan when the title of Satan had already been used by the Hebrews long before this king of Babylon, known to be a morning star/Lucifer, had his failing? They, the Hebrews, would have used the title Satan if they had in fact been meaning Satan.



(running out of room... continued below)

Continuing on...

Satan and Lucifer are not the same entities nor did Lucifer become Satan.

Satan, Lucifer and the devil are not interchangeable, but each are distinct from one another.

not according to Jesus as I have already quoted, and also the book of Revelation....

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Just because they are "called" that doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same.

You might find it interesting that Jesus in Revelation 22:16 describes himself as what the meaning of Lucifer is?

Yes, because that's exactly what Satan once was, the Light bearer, but he ceased to be that after he sinned.

So you believe.

The bible actually gives instruction on what happens to God's most elevated servants who fall. Matter of fact, they more than any others, are the most severely punished.

Anyway, with the number of morning stars that there have been, more than just a few have probably fallen. There must truly be an abundance of Satans! Makes me laugh to think about that... all those morning stars turning into Satan!

As I have already pointed out, scripture shows that it was talking more than simply about the King of Tyre (Cherub, Garden of Eden etc), and it does not say anywhere that the different titles are separate beings, it says quite the opposite.

According to your interpretation, which is wildly divergent from the interpretation of the culture who authored the book. (And, from mine, which came about through a different way, but is in agreement.)

The title devil is not used in the Old Testament, but the new testament shows thoroughly that the Devil, Satan, and the serpent are one and the same, and that he will be punished.

As you read it. You are in abundant company, I must say. The majority of Christianity reads it as you do.

If you want to talk about the Evil one based on what it says in scripture, then you have to address everything that is written,...

Except that the written scripture is/can be a curse without the oral tradition.

...then you have to address everything that is written, not just pick the verses that can be twisted to fit your own ideas, ...

These are not just my own ideas. As for twisting, Christianity much to it's detriment, totally ignores the teachings of Judaism, which Jesus followed. And, it is Christianity that has twisted the meanings.

...and then cast aside the others saying they are are not the same entity, when other scriptures plainly say that they are,

When some basic and agreed upon understandings are had, the scriptures that seem to be in conflict can actually be understood as actually meant.

...and if we were both to do that, this is would be a never ending debate.

And so it is!

God bless

And may God bless and keep you too.


[edit on 1-10-2008 by L.I.B.]

Originally posted by L.I.B.

Satan and the devil are the same being...

So you say; so you say, which is okay. We are all free to believe (without foundation) whatever we wish to.

Without foundation? Jesus called the Devil Satan, and so did John in the book of revelation.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the deviltaketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

If you read the passage you will see the King of Tyre was a type of exactly what Satan did.

The reference is now to a "type" is it? Previously you had provided those verses as support to your opinion that angels/cherubs have free will and hence that Satan was an angel/cherub with freewill... meaning that he could have fallen.

Are you not aware that many scriptures and prophecies talk of one event to describe both the present, past and future? That is what I meant by type. The passage in Ezekiel is referring to both the king of Tyre, and Satan. Was the king of Tyre ever in the garden of Eden? Are Cherubs angels? . There are other passages in scripture also to show that Angels do sin...

2Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Was the King of Tyre a Cherub? Was the King of Tyre in the Garden of Eden? Was the King of Tyre even cast out of the Holy Mountain of God, heavenly Zion? Quite frankly no, and I find it convenient that you failed to address that.

Actually, I had thought about addressing it, but felt that it would throw even more of screwdriver into this conversation.

I had wanted to discuss the scripture's mention of the "covering" cherub, since that indicates something. Rather than give you my own interpretation (that could get quite wordy in attempting to explain it) I found a reference that I felt quite fortunate in coming across right after I read your reply to me since it concerns these very scripture that you had quoted.

""The cherub of measure, that covers" refers to "You are a bird of measure, i.e., the huge bird that covers a large area with his wings; i.e., you rule over a large dominion. The Hebrew word used is a word for largeness, like Num. 13:32 - men of stature.

"and I gave that to you; you were on the mount of the sanctuary of God" - and I gave you a place to acquire a name for yourself in the edifice of the mountain of My sanctuary, for you assisted Solomon with the cedar wood.

"you walked among stones of fire" - You acquired for yourself a memorial with the kings of Israel, who are like the ministering angels.

16. Because of the multitude of your commerce, they filled you with violence and you sinned, and I shall cast you as profane from the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you, O covering cherub, from among the stones of fire.

That's the right way to translate the passage; sin typically appears as the commerce causes you to become more "worldly" and sometimes following less in G-d's way; the result is not very nice, according to this verse."

The very Author of the passage in question uses the word Cherub to describe the angels in his vision of Chapter 10, you can't turn a blind eye to what a Cherub generaly is, and you still have answered if the king of tyre was ever in the Garden of Eden. You still haven't addressed the verses that say Satan was the devil, the serpent. Satan was the covering cherub of the whole earth he had dominion over it all, and he still is, he has dominion over it until the restitution of all things. The very passage I quoted showing that Satan and the Devil were one and the same also shows he currently has dominion over the world, simply because man yeilds to Satan instead of God...

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

see also...

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.

2CORINTHIANS 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

It was not a latin word that was used in the Old Testament when referring to Lucifer, it was Hebrew words that do mean exactly the same as what Lucifer means in Latin or Greek. The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer.

Then, why do you insist on saying that Lucifer became Satan when the title of Satan had already been used by the Hebrews long before this king of Babylon, known to be a morning star/Lucifer, had his failing? They, the Hebrews, would have used the title Satan if they had in fact been meaning Satan.

Because as I already explained, the verse was referring to the past as well as the present. It is a lamentation, saying how beautiful and perfect Lucifer was, it is describing him before the fall, that is why it uses the title of Lucifer

Well it's good to see that the REAL important answers go unnoticed.

Thats why human nature is what it is.

Bleed yourself from ignorance, I don't care.

Originally posted by L.I.B.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Just because they are "called" that doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same.

? Then what about this verse?

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Are you now going to tell me that just because something "is" something, doesn't mean that it "is"?

The bible actually gives instruction on what happens to God's most elevated servants who fall. Matter of fact, they more than any others, are the most severely punished.

Anyway, with the number of morning stars that there have been, more than just a few have probably fallen. There must truly be an abundance of Satans! Makes me laugh to think about that... all those morning stars turning into Satan!

Men die, the real Satan still is.

These are not just my own ideas. As for twisting, Christianity much to it's detriment, totally ignores the teachings of Judaism, which Jesus followed. And, it is Christianity that has twisted the meanings.

Christ condemned and rebuked the Jews/Judaism of his time for turning away from the scriptures of the Israelites to the traditions of men. It is Judaism that ignores the teachings of their patriarchs and prophets. That said I do agree that modern Christianity also ignores these scriptures also, such as the 7th day Sabbath, the Holy days etc given to the Israelites, and has replaced them with Christianized pagan days and rituals, but thats another can of worms.

[edit on 2/10/08 by doctorex]

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Well it's good to see that the REAL important answers go unnoticed.

Thats why human nature is what it is.

Bleed yourself from ignorance, I don't care.

Perhaps if you show some sources for your information, it might be worth addressing, as for now, it's just another theory.

Hi, Doctorex,

I didn't address all of your reply yet, since space is limited. Due to this and because our conversation began as a disagreement over the issue of who Satan, etal is, I thought that I'd pull out one thing that you said that really jumped out at me.

Even though we may disagree on these particular topics, may we always love God with all our heart, strength, mind and soul and our neighbor as our self.

I'll probably respond to the remaining parts of your reply in chunks too as time allows to discuss those thoughts individually. I hope you find this acceptable.
reply to post by doctorex

It was not a latin word that was used in the Old Testament when referring to Lucifer, it was Hebrew words that do mean exactly the same as what Lucifer means in Latin or Greek. The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer.

Then, why do you insist on saying that Lucifer became Satan when the title of Satan had already been used by the Hebrews long before this king of Babylon, known to be a morning star/Lucifer, had his failing? They, the Hebrews, would have used the title Satan if they had in fact been meaning Satan.

Because as I already explained, the verse was referring to the past as well as the present. It is a lamentation, saying how beautiful and perfect Lucifer was, it is describing him before the fall, that is why it uses the title of Lucifer

Now I see why it is considered that Lucifer is Satan. The phrase "THE fall" explains to it me. Sheds some light on why you said he was an archangel that became Satan and somewhat the statement that God did not create Satan.

We have already agreed that "morning star" is what Lucifer means.

I think too that we agree that the passages wherein Lucifer is mentioned are written about the King of Babylon.

In the original scripts, the word Lucifer was never used as it is a latin word, and as you pointed out in the above quoted area: "The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer."

So, we agree on that also. We just continue to disagree that Lucifer is Satan.

In my bible there are only 5 mentions of the morning star:

Job 36:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
(This is the verse that in the KJV that replaces "morning star" with Lucifer: 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!)

2 Peter 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.

Revelation 2:28 and I will give him the morning star.

Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

There is no logical reason to think that this "morning star" is Satan. The morning stars are people. Kings, men of stature as previously mentioned, and priests.

Revelation 5:10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.”

These morning stars, being people, can err and they can fall, but that doesn't make them Satan. The king of Babylon didn't become Satan. He failed in his mission. Let us thank God that Jesus didn't fail his.

No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. John 3:13

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by stephenwephentephen

 

My apologies, then. I was about to go to bed when I read that so I didn't catch on to that.

I stand by my opinion, though.

yeah, good man i love people that are opinionated, it makes life so much more interesting, thanks for all the replies everyone!

Hi, Doctorex,

I hope you saw my previous posting, since I've taken the liberty to break up your reply into more manageable parts to discuss.

Without foundation?

My apologies for how that came across. I was trying to say, in not so many words, that "beliefs" can be either correct or incorrect and therefore have the potential to be without foundation. I have many beliefs, but there are some things that I do know, but the more I know the more I know that I don't know, ya know? My apologies for any offense I may have caused.

Jesus called the Devil Satan, and so did John in the book of revelation.

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

As I am sure you know the bible tells us that Jesus was tempted in all things. Imagine...whew... ALL things.

Just so that you don't lose patience with me, I do know that you are telling me that these verses are proof that the devil and Satan are one in the same and after a couple of your quotes down, I will get to that.

Anyway, in one of my previous postings I had said what I thought the devil was: The devil is the less than virtuous impulses within ourselves that we will either indulge in or don't. If those impulses are continually denied, we gain power over the devil within us and become of a more of refined nature with less in common with the natural, brutish, carnal person.

So, I read that verse as saying that Jesus was compelled to go and consider what he would do with the power that had descended upon him (evidenced by the dove) after his baptism.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

As an aside, Jesus also called Peter, his disciple, Satan. Was Peter Satan, or was Peter making something appealing to Jesus that was contrary to his mission? In this case with Peter, that would have been Jesus staying alive. As I have previously mentioned, Satan sets up situations to test who will be followed, but as we know Jesus was obedient to God unto death.

Regarding the quoted scripture, Jesus lived his life in such a manner that it would be a template for the rest of us to follow. Since Jesus, in his great wisdom, knew that he was now being given the ultimate test as all of us will be... will God's will be followed, or will it be decided to follow what might be wanted at the time that is presented by Satan?

If Jesus had succumbed to any of those temptations, I doubt that we would have ever heard about him.

Maybe it seems to you that I am not getting what you are saying? Perhaps what is said after the next quote will clarify.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

I know that you are showing me: Devil AND Satan together, as if they are joined.

So, I am glad that you posted both of these scripture together, since earlier I had wanted to make mention of how the word "which" is used. Since these two slightly different scripture are together, it makes it so much easier to now bring up.

Satan, WHICH deceiveth the whole world.

Serpent, WHICH is the devil.

The use of the joining word "and" means that both of them operate together in the fashion that the devil, the evil impulses, can be excited by Satan for the purpose of testing whom the worm/soul will follow.

You can replace worm with serpent, if desired. The soul that sins shall die, though, that isn't quite as bad as it sounds.



[edit on 2-10-2008 by L.I.B.]

Hi, Doctorex,

In the event that you hadn't noticed, I'd like to mention that this is the third posting, which completes my response to your reply. I had taken them and broke them up into chunks to discuss.

If you read the passage you will see the King of Tyre was a type of exactly what Satan did.

The reference is now to a "type" is it? Previously you had provided those verses as support to your opinion that angels/cherubs have free will and hence that Satan was an angel/cherub with freewill... meaning that he could have fallen.

Are you not aware that many scriptures and prophecies talk of one event to describe both the present, past and future? That is what I meant by type.

I understand what you are stating, but it doesn't change the fact that you were using those verses about the king of Tyre to prove that Lucifer was an angel. That, to me, is adding more to the text than is intended. True that Satan is an angel. And, angels serve God as well as minister to us.

But more to the point, no I don't agree that the king of Tyre did exactly what Satan did/does. I do, however, think that the King of Tyre did something very similar to what the King of Babylon, a morning star, did.

He took his divine, heavenly, God-given authority (cherub covering) and misused it.

The very Author of the passage in question uses the word Cherub to describe the angels in his vision of Chapter 10, ...

Yes he does, and in those passages there is a MAN who is given some of the stones of fire mentioned in Eze 28:14.

It appears to me that it was (maybe, I'd have to read the 18 chapters inbetween) the king of Tyre who was the man that was given the stones of fire. In that Judaic interpretation of those verses I gave you, it was stated: "you walked among stones of fire" defined as - You acquired for yourself a memorial with the kings of Israel, who are like the ministering angels.

Who are LIKE ministering angels! i.e. the annointed cherub who covers...

In this respect, yes, there are angels that have sinned and are awaiting judgement. Yet, these were and are men.

...you can't turn a blind eye to what a Cherub generaly is...

You are right. There are different orders of angels...Archangels, Seraphim, cherubs, guardian, thrones and etc.

...and you still have answered if the king of tyre was ever in the Garden of Eden.

Do you doubt God? God said that he had been.

Do you believe in pre-existence?

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Truly, do you doubt what God said? I don't, and that is my answer.

? Then what about this verse?

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Are you now going to tell me that just because something "is" something, doesn't mean that it "is"?

LOL, no. I won't be doing that, but the "which" does make a major impact.

Anyway, with the number of morning stars that there have been, more than just a few have probably fallen. There must truly be an abundance of Satans! Makes me laugh to think about that... all those morning stars turning into Satan!

Men die, the real Satan still is.

Well then, Lucifer has died, since the scripture is speaking about a man... the King of Tyre. You can't have it both ways. Can't have morning stars dying as you are now saying and then say: except for one that had turned into Satan.

God isn't a respecter of persons.

Christ condemned and rebuked the Jews/Judaism of his time for turning away from the scriptures of the Israelites to the traditions of men.

No doubt that Christ would do the same now with some of the traditions of Christianity, but like you said, that is another can of worms.

I so appreciate our conversation.

Originally posted by L.I.B.
Now I see why it is considered that Lucifer is Satan. The phrase "THE fall" explains to it me. Sheds some light on why you said he was an archangel that became Satan and somewhat the statement that God did not create Satan.

We have already agreed that "morning star" is what Lucifer means.

I think too that we agree that the passages wherein Lucifer is mentioned are written about the King of Babylon.

In the original scripts, the word Lucifer was never used as it is a latin word, and as you pointed out in the above quoted area: "The hebrews used heylel, meaning light bearer, morning star, and Ben Shachar, meaning son of the morning, which also means the morning star, that rose just before the sun, being the light bearer."

So, we agree on that also. We just continue to disagree that Lucifer is Satan.

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree.

In my bible there are only 5 mentions of the morning star:

Job 36:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse itself is speaking of angels.....

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Men were not around when God laid the foundations of the Earth. The term sons of God also refers to Angels. It even talks of the sons of God presenting themselves before God and Satan coming among them in the book of Job. The verse above is talking of a time when all angels and morning stars were in unity with God, before the creation of man. The verse in Ezekiel talks of one of the morning stars being around in the time of Garden of eden, but falling. It my view it's pretty black and white who this was.

There is no logical reason to think that this "morning star" is Satan. The morning stars are people. Kings, men of stature as previously mentioned, and priests.

The verse you quoted from Job proves this isn't always the case.

Originally posted by L.I.B.

As an aside, Jesus also called Peter, his disciple, Satan. Was Peter Satan, or was Peter making something appealing to Jesus that was contrary to his mission?

Jesus wasn't calling Peter Satan, he knew where the things peter was saying were coming from.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

I know that you are showing me: Devil AND Satan together, as if they are joined.

So, I am glad that you posted both of these scripture together, since earlier I had wanted to make mention of how the word "which" is used. Since these two slightly different scripture are together, it makes it so much easier to now bring up.

Satan, WHICH deceiveth the whole world.

Serpent, WHICH is the devil.

The use of the joining word "and" means that both of them operate together in the fashion that the devil, the evil impulses, can be excited by Satan for the purpose of testing whom the worm/soul will follow.

You can replace worm with serpent, if desired. The soul that sins shall die, though, that isn't quite as bad as it sounds.

It seems you are interpreting it to fit a preconceived view. If John meant they were not the same thing, but where working in tandom, he could have used other words, but didn't.

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

The word translated in 20:2 as "which" (hos) means simply who is, whom. that which is, that one etc. If I say "Goerge bush, who is the President, and commander in chief, and son of Gorge Bush senior", I am not talking about four separate entities, simply because I used a word that means "and". He is stating in that the old ancient serpent, meaning the very same serpent who was rebuked by God for his actions in the Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis, is Satan, and that he will be punished. If Satan works for God, God would not be punishing him for what he has done.



[edit on 5/10/08 by doctorex]

Actually I just finished watching a film about the devil, and then researching both satan and lucifer, and satan aside the idea of him being an angel doing the dirty work of testing, as in Job, has evolved over the years and is not truly bibilical. Ie. doesn't exist. And hell came out of a tradition of burning the garbage from time to time in a certain area, including bodies of those executed, so it took on a supernatural connotation. Then I researched Lucifer and again the only true meaning seems to be light, or Venus. And the one passage of offered up in Isaiah for this, referring to him as the morning star and how great he has fallen refers to a corrupt king of Babylon and has been deliberately mistranslated in the KJV. So my biggest question is what exactly are occultists and satanists doing with these made up figures?

Originally posted by L.I.B.

I understand what you are stating, but it doesn't change the fact that you were using those verses about the king of Tyre to prove that Lucifer was an angel. That, to me, is adding more to the text than is intended. True that Satan is an angel. And, angels serve God as well as minister to us.

Though the verses do mention the The King of Tyrus, and that King, being under Satan would have similar attributes, this doesn't necessarily mean that the verses are all about the human King. Certain parts are about both, but others clearly are not. The book of Daniel mentions Princes of regions that stopped Gabriel from delivering messages to Daniel, and that the Angel Michael having to step in help Gabriel get through. These princes of regions are Satan's angels that have been given power by him over certain regions.

Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Daniel 10:20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come.

A human prince could not stop an Angel, just as the human king of tyre could not have been around in the Garden of Eden.

the king of tyre was ever in the Garden of Eden.

Do you doubt God? God said that he had been.

No, I don't doubt God, that is why I know the verse saying that the entity (king of tyrus) was in the garden of eden is not referring to a human, since....

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Do you believe in pre-existence?

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Truly, do you doubt what God said? I don't, and that is my answer.

No, I do not believe in pre-existence, since Jesus is the first born from the dead, and it is appointed men to live physically only once and then judgement, I believe in predestination but not in the sense that most do. God is beyond time/space, he knows all of us before we are born, that doesn't mean I existed in the physical sense before I was born, any more than Jeremiah existed in the physical sense, he simply existed in the mind of God, that is why God knew him, just as God knew what the universe would be before he created it. He knew you before he created you, but you still make the decisions whether you will get to know him, and how you live your life. That said, the word translated as "knew" has many meanings, such as percieve, to appoint, be aware of, to designate. What Gid is saying to Jeremiah is that before he formed him in the Belly, and before he came forth from the womb, God knew that He had a special job for Jeremiah, to be a prophet.

Anyway, with the number of morning stars that there have been, more than just a few have probably fallen. There must truly be an abundance of Satans! Makes me laugh to think about that... all those morning stars turning into Satan!

Men die, the real Satan still is.

Well then, Lucifer has died, since the scripture is speaking about a man... the King of Tyre. You can't have it both ways. Can't have morning stars dying as you are now saying and then say: except for one that had turned into Satan.

As I have shown, not all those refereed to as morning stars a human, and not all kings, princes etc are human either. The only physical human definitely referred to as a morning star was Jesus.

I so appreciate our conversation.

I also, though I think you would agree we are probably just going to have to agree to disagree. Take care and God bless.

[edit on 6/10/08 by doctorex]

reply to post by doctorex


Gladly.

Please watch this video here.

www.youtube.com...