Revelation; Satan fell from Heaven

reply to post by DISRAELI


Actually the traditional Jewish understanding of Satan is quite quite different from in Christianity.

Satan is ones helper and cause of growth.

Look at it like this,.

When one wants to build physical muscle, he needs a restraint. A heavy wait, long acitivity. Something has to wear on his muscles so he can resist and so maximize his growth.

The same exact situation applies in a spiritual sense. Ones spiritual inclination to do evil is Satan (ones adversary). One must constantly resist and stand against this inclination so his Neshama - his soul can grow stronger and greater. This is the program that is Judaism which chrisitanity apparently found 'unsatisfactory', for one reason or another.

And when you have HaShem - G-d, on your side, you have every reason and ability to grow. You will fall again and again. We are not angels. Satan is a companion that man can never live without. But G-d created him to motivate us to seek G-d. To seek his goodness and to help us overcome and eventually conquer the aspect of evil.

I guess Judaism is rational in that they dont adopt a zoroastrian dualistic G-d vs satan paradigm. There is absolutely no evidence for that construct in the Hebrew scriptures. That just appears especially strong in later christianity.

Satan is the power of concealment. He is an archetype and not a literal entity that contradicts G-ds will. If one turns to G-d, he nullifies the power of evil. It is that simple. That power and influence only exists for the purpose of AROUSING one to begin with.

reply to post by Alethea

The question that matters is not whether we can approve of this teaching, but whether it is true.
If the Atonement really was the method chosen by God, then then it's not our place to pass judgement on it. What do we know?

Originally posted by Alethea
It is this scapegoat sacrifice that is referred to in Revelation 18 as the deception that is misleading all the nations.

That is not likely to be true, because there is a clear reference to the death of Christ as a "ransom" in Revelation ch5. See The Lamb and the scroll
John would not be using the word "deception" to describe something which he was teaching himself in another part of the book.

reply to post by Alethea


The whole idea of a scapegoat - since it is originally a Jewish idea, is this:

On Yom Kippur - the day of atonement, the priests get two goats. . One for G-d and the other for Azazel (a pet name for the evil inclination - aka satan, samael etc). The one for azazel is sent off into the wilderness - the domain associated with evil, until the goat walks straight off a cliff into a wide abyss.

Spiritually this symbolizes the descent of the evil inclination into the 'abyss' of consciousness - to have no place at all in influencing human beings.. So, in essence, the power of evil is satisfied with this 'offerring' to it and thus remains outside the purview of human consciousness.

The fact that it occurs on Yom Kippur also is quite deep and meaningful. This day is a day of fasting and intense introspection. The entire nation (in ancient times) would turn inwards in meditation and prayer and so the power of this ritual would be quite palpable in reducing the psycho-spiritual influence of the Satan in influencing human behavior.

Give it up already with all this religious baloney, anyone who has atleast a bit of an open mind knows that Satan was a reptilian that "crashed" fell to earth , all this bible BS is just a means to control the masses with twisted truths and outright lies.....

Reptilians are extremely technologically advanced and viewed as an evil or negative race of beings as they view humans as an inferior race, similar to that of sheep or cattle.

They are said to have originally inhabited our Earth roughly 800,000 years ago from their star system known as Draco. They lived on our Earth for thousands of years but were eventually met by the human race of beings from the star system Lyra.

Reptilians have always clashed with the human species as they have different views of God and order. They believe themselves to be the most purest form of life as they are androgynous and can reproduce without a counterpart. They also believe they resemble God as their DNA doesn't change or evolve like human DNA, thus making them neutral like God.

Is is believed that Reptilians currently live in Inner Earth and have been there for quite some time to keep a low profile.

www.truthcontrol.com...

reply to post by Reevster

It doesn't occur to you that "reptilians" are a myth invented by people who have got their own agenda?
Why don't you give up this "reptilian" baloney?

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Alethea

 

The question that matters is not whether we can approve of this teaching, but whether it is true.

You can remove your sins by rubbing them onto head of a goat. True or false?
Animals are innocent because (man suspects) that beasts have no conscience. True or false?
By touching the goats head, you transfer all your evil sins onto the animal. (Like when you played "cooties" as a child.) True or false?
Now, the goat must be punished instead of you. True or false?
The punishment for sin is death. True or false?
(Actually, it's a spiritual death, but man has made it literal instead by his lack of understanding.)
So now the goat must be killed instead of you. True or false?
To make slaughter more palatable and sanctioned in culture, it is accompanied by high ritual and mysterious mumbo jumbo. True or false?

If you answered "true" to all of these questions, then yes, I suppose you can approve these teachings.
Personally, I find it all untruthful and unfounded on logic or reason and morally corrupt.

Jesus, "the lamb" was used the same way. Jesus was the whipping boy. Jesus did not "give up his life as a sacrificial offering". He was arrested, incarcerated, and murdered. His followers were hunted down and killed. The victors re-wrote the story to make it fit with their ideas of animal sacrifice. To equate Jesus with a beast of the field is to degrade him. If a goat or lamb would have sufficed, then a human is no more than either of those.

Even after the crucifixion, Paul continued to condone animal sacrifices at the temple,even purchasing the animals for sacrifice for his special visitors, and thus showing that he did not consider the murder of Jesus to be an sort of final nor ultimate sacrifice.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
If the Atonement really was the method chosen by God, then then it's not our place to pass judgement on it. What do we know?

Whatever this "god" is, it is not your Creator. To be so destructive and blood thirsty would be a conflict of personality to one who creates such beauty and wonderment as the earth holds. "God" is either a Creator or Destroyer. To be both would be double-minded. The old testament god is a compilation of many gods which has been rolled into into one named YHWH. As you read from chapter to chapter if you really study it, Disraeli, you would see that the characteristics and personalities of these god-forces are inconsistent.

To accept that this god required atonement in the way of animal sacrifice is to believe the voice of man. "It's not our place to pass judgment on it" you say? Your Creator admonishes you to be discerning and to use reason: to be as wise as a serpent. This does not mean blind obedience to someone who claims to be "closer to god than you are" and wears the fancy ceremonial robes of a wizard.

The God of Genesis gave MAN dominion over the earth. God gave it all to man. He did not set up any rituals or temples for man to worship him. Religion is based on oracles which are used to manipulate and control people through fear and superstition.

But back to the subject.
To accept Jesus as a blood sacrifice, to demean his life to be equal with that of a beast like a lamb, is erroneous. The importance of Jesus was how he lived and what he tried to teach people when he was alive. His life was of more importance than his death. Blood sacrifice is a twisted evil thing.

reply to post by Reevster


Disreali won that one , reevster...it takes spiritual discernment to understand this...and one has to read it all...
try that, reading all the new covenant...matt mark luke and mainly john

reply to post by DISRAELI


My explanation for reptilians is this.

Reptilians arent 'aliens' but at the very most projections of a extradimensional force into this reality. In essence, they are demons and thus intelligences which have no visual form. Their existence is archetypal, and so take on whatever symbolic image that suits the reality it interacts with(borrowing familiar cultural images that the host will recognize and so understand).

In ancient times they took on the appearance of elves or gnomes or some other groteqsue malformed creature. Nowadays with our cultural reality having become so secularized, and 'materialized' these demons take on the appearances of 'grays' or 'reptilians' or some other form (sometimes tall white aryan looking men) advanced 'alien' creature (which they are - just not alien in the sense that theyre from another planet) as a way to convince the person its interacting with of whatever fantasy or unreality (since their very existence depends on illusion and falsehood - Cheth, sin in Hebrew, means 'to miss the mark') its tailor made for them.

In the case of the ultra elites, these "reptilians" or demonic forces they are spiritually identified with (which is necessary for this type of high magick; where the demonic energy merges with ones very being - both spiritual AND physical - hence the ability for the 'spiritual' to project and alter the appearance of the physical to match the reality of the 'demonic') have them convinced that they are not 'demons' or perhaps they are completely aware of that and simply do not give a crap. Im guessing it is probably the latter. Even despite this, there begs an explanation from those new age gnostic crowd who insist that there exists an 'planetary government' ruled over by 'ascended masters' 'christ michael, 'st germain' 'djwal Khul" etc... Honestly that nonsense makes my brain freeze. Im guessing these very forms also take on 'brighter images' to pass off some nonsensical philosophy or body of knowledge that will deepen the connection between the spiritual force and the person it seeks to suckle from.

Originally posted by Alethea
Personally, I find it all untruthful and unfounded on logic or reason and morally corrupt.

It's not meant to be founded on logic or reason.
It's meant to be founded on what God says he was doing.
This is what Paul meant when he said that the cross was "folly to the Greeks".
There are clear New Testament teachings, as in Revelation ch5 v9, that men have been "redeemed" from sin, and that this is in some way connected with the death of Christ.
Christians understand the sacrificial teachings of the Old Testament as hints which point people's minds in that direction.
I don't pretend to understand the exact nature of the connection between the death and the "redemption", and it is probably a mistake for people to try to analyse the "mechanism". The essential point is that the connection is there.
I don't feel myself to be on a level with God, and therefore I don't try to second-guess him, and try to tell him that he should have done things a different way.

Paul continued to condone animal sacrifices at the temple,even purchasing the animals for sacrifice for his special visitors, and thus showing that he did not consider the murder of Jesus to be an sort of final nor ultimate sacrifice.

I suspect he was actually trying to convince the more Orthodox that becoming a follower of Jesus was compatible with being a good Jew. It was a political move.

The God of Genesis gave MAN dominion over the earth. God gave it all to man. He did not set up any rituals or temples for man to worship him. Religion is based on oracles which are used to manipulate and control people through fear and superstition.

If you don't accept the oracles of Religion, what are you doing quoting from Genesis, which is one of the aforesaid oracles of Religion?

reply to post by Alethea


To just touch on the subject of ritual animal slaughter.

I agree with todays lens it comes off as cruel but i dont think thats the right way to look at it,

In Kabbalistic thought this world and everyone of its creatures has a spiritual source or root from which it derives its features and existence from. This explains why certain animals are kosher, while others are not. The kosher animals have certain features - cloven hooves and chews the cud. Interestingly enough, animals which both chew the cud and have cloven hooves - like Sheeps, Goats and Cows, the main vein which carries blood through the neck is the jugular; meaning, the ritual slaughter for thrse animals mandates by Torah requires one swift swipe of the blood at the animals throat. Conversely, a pig has an anterior vein which also carries blood to the neck (in addition to the internal vein) so a cut at this vein wouldnt result in instance death or cessation of consciousness; but in great pain and suffering. Humans also have a similar vascular anatomy (which is also interesting, because pigs and humans have similar central organs). This very Kosher and humane form of slaughter of slashing the throat of a Kosher animals results in an instantaneous cessation of consciousness which occurs within a 2 second span. So, in terms of causing the animal suffering - there is none. Also, a ritual slaughterer has to make sure he kills the animal without other animals watching (another testiment to Jewish ethics) so the animal doesnt have to witness death before its killed.

Now, back to the original idea. The animals and creatures of this world are projections of a higher abstract reality. Those which are chosen as suitable for slaughter are creatures which symbolically contain all the qualities the creator feels are necessary in raising mans own animal soul. There are 4 worlds or kingdoms of nature. Man, Animal, Vegetable and Inanimate. All these levels seek to be brought closer to their source, and so each level requires to be raised. Plants feed of the innanimate, Animals eat plants (and some other lower level of animals) and Humans eat Animals and plants. In truth, man was not commanded to eat animals until Noah. In Genesis 2 G-d explicitly only allows therm to eat the 'plants of the field' and 'fruits of the tree' but not animals. When mankind feel after the generation of noah (this is all symbolic, mind you) we required an additional level to be raised - our animal had become so reduced and enmeshed in the desires of this world that man actively needed to start doing something about it.

So with ritual sacrafice, the spiritual quality in the animal - whatever it may be, is 'elevated' and given to G-d as a symbolic statement that just as i sacrafice this animal to you, so to will i sacrifice my own inner animal to you. All the normal Zodiacal traits and animal drives have a converse. Lower fear is to fear others - true fear is to fear G-d. external hate is hating others for petty selfish reasons. True hate is to hate those who act evily and harm others. Good love is to love those who try and make an effort to be better. Bad love is to show mercy or kindess to the wicked and insolant. The true lust for sex is in the context of marriage between one and his/her other half, as an expression of ones divine right to be 'fruitful and multiply'. So sex in love is the holy and modesty is true sex. The false is what we have today.

This is why animals are sacrificed. not to hurt them, or wantonly indulge in its meat, but to raise their spiritual source - its soul and integrate it within our beings (after eating it). The soul of this creature wants this very deeply. Its a great affront to G-d when food is wasted or when people mistreat animals.

The only 'killing' acceptable of animals is in this context. And even than, only certain Kosher species. Why people eat crocodile or octopus is beyond me.

Originally posted by Reevster
Give it up already with all this religious baloney, anyone who has atleast a bit of an open mind knows that Satan was a reptilian that "crashed" fell to earth , all this bible BS is just a means to control the masses with twisted truths and outright lies.....

What really crashed and fell to earth was a meteorite! It is the Black Stone of Mecca. Jesus was actually being sarcastic when he said "I saw Satan fall like lightening" because he was referring to this piece of meteorite that had caused such superstition and a religion rose up around this object. This primitive notion of sky gods hurling stones at wicked people was one of the things that jesus was trying to battle in teaching people how to behave toward one another and not be sucked in by these charlatans promoting the stone god.

Originally posted by Alethea
What really crashed and fell to earth was a meteorite! It is the Black Stone of Mecca. Jesus was actually being sarcastic when he said "I saw Satan fall like lightening" because he was referring to this piece of meteorite that had caused such superstition and a religion rose up around this object.

Not a good explanation, because it doesn't fit into the context of the remark (he was responding to what the disciples were telling him about their work in the mission field). In the OP, I give an explanation which does fit into the context of the discussion, and therefore makes more sense.
The people of Palestine in his day were not worshipping the Black Stone of Mecca, so a comment on the stone would have been thoroughly irrelevant to the circumstances.
Statements usually have a context, and are best understood in relation to that context.

The way I see it is that Satan and some of his fellow crewmate sharing same belief got banished from the mothership by captain of the ship.

reply to post by the_0bserver85

Again, this theory takes no account of what happens in the rest of Revelation.
You can't just take an isolated detail and pick an explanation at random. We need to look at the whole picture, and understand it as a whole.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Alethea
What really crashed and fell to earth was a meteorite! It is the Black Stone of Mecca. Jesus was actually being sarcastic when he said "I saw Satan fall like lightening" because he was referring to this piece of meteorite that had caused such superstition and a religion rose up around this object.

Not a good explanation, because it doesn't fit into the context of the remark (he was responding to what the disciples were telling him about their work in the mission field). In the OP, I give an explanation which does fit into the context of the discussion, and therefore makes more sense.
The people of Palestine in his day were not worshipping the Black Stone of Mecca, so a comment on the stone would have been thoroughly irrelevant to the circumstances.
Statements usually have a context, and are best understood in relation to that context.

You don't seem to be very open minded about exploring anything. It appears that most of your threads are only intended to put forth your own dogmas. That is not conducive to actually learning anything.

For others that might be willing to explore the possibility of the meteorite being the butt of the joke about Satan falling from the sky...here are a couple of links that further discuss this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Alethea

Not a good explanation, because it doesn't fit into the context of the remark (he was responding to what the disciples were telling him about their work in the mission field)..

You don't seem to be very open minded about exploring anything.

If a remark takes place in the middle of a conversation, understanding it as part of the conversation makes more sense than isolating it and giving it a random isolated explanation.

My version of that conversation is;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, it seems to me that your opponent is losing power."

Your version of the conversation is;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, and the people worshipping the Black Stone of Mecca, about a thousand miles away from here, which will become famous in about six hundred years time, are very stupid."

I think my interpretation makes a lot more sense as a conversation than yours does.
That's because I'm looking at the passage as a whole, trying to understand the meaning of it from the words themselves. You're taking a sentence in isolation and forcibly fitting it into your own theories. And you call yourself the "open-minded" one?

As a Torah following person i do obviously believe in a concept of 'resurrection' but i have no idea what that idea in itself entails. If it means the ressurection of matter - okay, fine. Thats a Jewish idea. In the far off messianic times there is a belief that matter and spirit will become so merged that there will simply not be a point of definitive separation between them.

What i dont get though is thr idea of a 'new testament'

I can understand the purpose in christianity for non Jews...but what possible purpose can christianity give to a Jew - whose ancestors experienced the greatest revelation mankind has ever recieved - the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the torah to millions of Jews at mt. sinai.

Why would G-d perform such a wonderous miracle only to follow it 1400 years later with some guy preaching a zoroastrianesque theology. The success of the christian church is due to nothing else but the Roman empire. Thus, one must logically deduce, if he understands the nature of politics that the Romans probably established christianity as a way to

• overcome the social influence of Judaism
  
• imbed their theological beliefs within its scripture (new testament)
  
• control the masses
  
  And they accomplished all 3.

Originally posted by dontreally
. Thus, one must logically deduce, if he understands the nature of politics that the Romans probably established christianity

This theory falls down on the fact that the Roman Empire spent three hundred years persecuting the Christian Church and trying to drive it out of existence.

reply to post by DISRAELI


While I don't believe the tyrade by Isaiah against the King of Babylon (Lucifer or Heleyl) is about Satan, I do believe that the King of Tyre speach is about an angel, most likely Satan, because it makes no sense otherwise. How could the King/prince of Tyre be in Eden or be described as a Cherub unless the Ezekiel quote refers to the Prince over Tyre.

You make the assumption that Ya'hshuah will always make perfect sense to his disciples. Ya'hshuah often times said things that the Disciples could only understand in retrospect and broke out into parables frequently. Thomas didn't know Ya'hshuah was of/is YHWH until he saw him ressurrected at the end of the Gospel of John "my lord and my God". This is when the Disciples discovered his true nature and could understand most of his teachings. That's the difference between John and the synoptics, John is written in a much more retrospective way.

Now on to Revelations. Throughout much of the Bible, there are references to fallen angels such as the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6, "His angels he charged with folly" Job chapter 4, the "King/Prince of Tyre" speach in Ezekiel, and obviously the War in Heaven in Revelations. Revelation isn't all prophecy it speaks of what was, is, and shall be. The earlier chapters have already happened. Mary had already given birth to the Messiah by the time John began writing on Patmos, so chronologically speaking, the dragon had been cast down by then. Bear in mind that the Messiah was pre-existant in Heaven, so he could have seen Satan fall at any time in the past. He may not have even fallen along with the Watchers and could have been a celestial prosecuter until right before Christ, but we do know he fell before. I believe that he fell a long time ago. The description of the Dragon attempting to destroy the lineage of the Messiah brings to mind all of the times the Israelites were nearly destroyed or seduced into idolatry. All of that could have been the works of the "adversary" especially since his principality is over the world.