Satan

[sean]

Hi dawid and everyone. I was trying to say that in Isaiah, lamsa could be correct in saying that in those scriptures, the word of IGod is not talking about lucifer. In other scriptures, the bible does talk about satan and the fallen angels. I gave some examples where Jesus did talk about satan, and one instance where he cast a demon out of a woman.

[sean]

The book of ezekiel, chapter 28, verses 11-19, talk about lucifer, the fallen angel_
verse 13- ..you were in eden , the garden of God
verse 14-you were the anointed cherub who covers
werse 15-you were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created till iniquity was found in you

[Dawid]

The book of ezekiel, chapter 28, verses 11-19, talk about lucifer, the fallen angel_
verse 13- ..you were in eden , the garden of God
verse 14-you were the anointed cherub who covers
werse 15-you were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created till iniquity was found in you

Actually, this is referring to the king of Tyre (cf verses 2 and 11)
Now, I agree that the New Testament talks about demons, etc. What I think we were saying is that these concepts were not fully developed in the Hebrew Bible. There was certainly some concept of "the adversary" in Job, but this is not clearly the same as the concept of the "tempter" which had developed in the intertestamental period.
Secondly, I don't think that the New Testament ever says that they're fallen angels. That's a later postbiblical idea.

[sean]

Hi, ..you were the anointed cherub who covers' is not talking about a man but a fallen angel. Cherubs are angels.

..you were in Eden, the garden of Eden' the garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were and satan was.

[sean]

lets have a look in the book of jude verse 6-and the angels which kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, he has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgement of the great day'.
verse 9-Yet micheal the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, did not bring against him a railing accusation but said' The Lord rebuke thee'.
Again in luke 10-17-'So the seventy whom he had sent returned with great joy and they said to him, Our Lord, even the demons have submitted to us in your name. He said to them, I saw satan falling like lightning from heaven. Behold I give you power to tread on scorpions and overcome the power of the enemy and nothing shall harm you. But do not rejoice in this that the demons submit to you, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven.

[Burning one]

Shlama,

hasatan is not a lesser deity, not ruling in hell, and obviously doesn't have a pointed tail or carry a pitchfork. these are definitely a more paganistic interpretation / tainted portrait of him than Scripture ever even hints at giving. a believer who does his homework finds that hasatan is not much like the way he is portrayed in modern culture or religion.

he is a keruv - a high angelic-like entity created by the Father for a specific purpose. from what i can tell from Scripture (Gen. 3:1), he is the highest of the created beings that are not mankind - for man alone bears the image of the Holy One.

as best i can surmise, Ezekiel 28 (the reader need understand the import of the Hebrew text's use to two different spellings for "Tyre" in this passage) and Isaiah 14 are both more detailed explanations of what happened to him in Genesis 3 -- the fall of man being consonant with the fall of hasatan. i just don't buy the Scripturally-unmerited "fell before the creation of the world" scenario. sticking to Scripture puts his fall being the scenario we read about all the time of the fall of man.

he's now serving a different function than before; the Accuser. as the Aramaic likes to call him, he is the "Eater of Slander." or as the Greek likes to call him, he is the "Categorizer." he does his job as he has been assigned, in hatred towards the things of Alaha, and in hatred towards man. he is on a leash, a very firm leash, and cannot go beyond his boundaries.

my brief take on the matter...

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Dawid]

Hi, ..you were the anointed cherub who covers' is not talking about a man but a fallen angel. Cherubs are angels.

..you were in Eden, the garden of Eden' the garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were and satan was.

The text is clearly speaking metaphorically of the high esteem with which God formerly held the king of Tyre. Verses 11 and 12 clearly state that Ezekiel is talking to the king of Tyre, so the rest of the passage must be understood in that context.

[Dawid]

Shlama,

hasatan is not a lesser deity, not ruling in hell, and obviously doesn't have a pointed tail or carry a pitchfork. these are definitely a more paganistic interpretation / tainted portrait of him than Scripture ever even hints at giving. a believer who does his homework finds that hasatan is not much like the way he is portrayed in modern culture or religion.

he is a keruv - a high angelic-like entity created by the Father for a specific purpose. from what i can tell from Scripture (Gen. 3:1), he is the highest of the created beings that are not mankind - for man alone bears the image of the Holy One.

as best i can surmise, Ezekiel 28 (the reader need understand the import of the Hebrew text's use to two different spellings for "Tyre" in this passage) and Isaiah 14 are both more detailed explanations of what happened to him in Genesis 3 -- the fall of man being consonant with the fall of hasatan. i just don't buy the Scripturally-unmerited "fell before the creation of the world" scenario. sticking to Scripture puts his fall being the scenario we read about all the time of the fall of man.

he's now serving a different function than before; the Accuser. as the Aramaic likes to call him, he is the "Eater of Slander." or as the Greek likes to call him, he is the "Categorizer." he does his job as he has been assigned, in hatred towards the things of Alaha, and in hatred towards man. he is on a leash, a very firm leash, and cannot go beyond his boundaries.

my brief take on the matter...

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

The difference in spelling is not significant. It is simply that the second time matres lexionis is inserted, so let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now, none of this excludes a secondary layer of meaning, and none of it excludes a later, valid homiletic interpretation of these as Satan by way of comparison. However, on the simplest level, these passages are both clearly talking about human monarchs.

[Burning one]

Shlama,

hasatan is not a lesser deity, not ruling in hell, and obviously doesn't have a pointed tail or carry a pitchfork. these are definitely a more paganistic interpretation / tainted portrait of him than Scripture ever even hints at giving. a believer who does his homework finds that hasatan is not much like the way he is portrayed in modern culture or religion.

he is a keruv - a high angelic-like entity created by the Father for a specific purpose. from what i can tell from Scripture (Gen. 3:1), he is the highest of the created beings that are not mankind - for man alone bears the image of the Holy One.

as best i can surmise, Ezekiel 28 (the reader need understand the import of the Hebrew text's use to two different spellings for "Tyre" in this passage) and Isaiah 14 are both more detailed explanations of what happened to him in Genesis 3 -- the fall of man being consonant with the fall of hasatan. i just don't buy the Scripturally-unmerited "fell before the creation of the world" scenario. sticking to Scripture puts his fall being the scenario we read about all the time of the fall of man.

he's now serving a different function than before; the Accuser. as the Aramaic likes to call him, he is the "Eater of Slander." or as the Greek likes to call him, he is the "Categorizer." he does his job as he has been assigned, in hatred towards the things of Alaha, and in hatred towards man. he is on a leash, a very firm leash, and cannot go beyond his boundaries.

my brief take on the matter...

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

The difference in spelling is not significant. It is simply that the second time matres lexionis is inserted, so let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.
Now, none of this excludes a secondary layer of meaning, and none of it excludes a later, valid homiletic interpretation of these as Satan by way of comparison. However, on the simplest level, these passages are both clearly talking about human monarchs.

Shlama akhi,

concerning the spelling, i'm all for paying attention to what is written, and why (if it can be ascertained). if you don't agree in this instance, by all means you are entitled to your perspective.

i simply differ in interpretation, due to prior information. this aligns too well with what comes before for me to dismiss it as only talking about a human monarch. could it be applied both ways? surely, but i don't think homiletic interpretation is the best route to go, as it seems the prophet is speaking to the power behind the monarch, and not merely the monarch himself. the language is so grandiose, i have great difficulty ascribing it to a mere human. that's where i'm at.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Dawid]

I agree with you about what is written being important, and that we should try and find out why, but we shouldn't go overboard, reading spiritual meaning into simple orthographic variances like this.

While there is danger in taking things at face value, in this case there is no reason to take the text at its word, that this refers to the king of Tyre, and that the hyperbolic description of his position is simply meant to convey the idea that he was in good stead with God before, and is no longer. This is more understandable if we read this not as referring to a specific king of Tyre, but to the position in general. Then it makes more sense to say that he was a seraph, and in the Garden, since the king of Tyre helped Solomon build the Temple and was in a very close relationship with David and Solomon, and much later at the time of Ezekiel was in opposition to Israel.

[Burning one]

I agree with you about what is written being important, and that we should try and find out why, but we shouldn't go overboard, reading spiritual meaning into simple orthographic variances like this.

While there is danger in taking things at face value, in this case there is no reason to take the text at its word, that this refers to the king of Tyre, and that the hyperbolic description of his position is simply meant to convey the idea that he was in good stead with God before, and is no longer. This is more understandable if we read this not as referring to a specific king of Tyre, but to the position in general. Then it makes more sense to say that he was a seraph, and in the Garden, since the king of Tyre helped Solomon build the Temple and was in a very close relationship with David and Solomon, and much later at the time of Ezekiel was in opposition to Israel.

Shlama akhi,

my note of the orthographic variance is a minor part of the whole reason why i see this as referecening haSatan. there are too many parallels to Genesis 3 here for me to ignore the connection. were there other instances in Scripture where the language was this grandiose regarding a human man, then i could see your point entirely. however, these explicit connections back to the Garden leave me comfortably in the position i came here with. we'll just have to agree to see it differently, akhi. thanks for sharing your understanding. Blessings to you! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Burning one]

(somebody correct me if it was Persia).

<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> you stand corrected! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> -- that's what you wanted, right????

this is an interesting theory...though didn't the Egyptians worship Set, who was basically Satan? i'm throwing a stone in the dark here, as i know almost nothing about Egyptian mythology.... but i seem to remember that certain members from the "church of satan" in America split away and formed the "temple of set," because the former did not worship the entity in actuality, and they wanted to really do so, so they broke off and named it after the Egyptian name... <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

whatever the case, he's under the same authority as all other spiritual entities: the Father of all spirits can hold back anyone and anything, and it is HIM we serve! praise Yah!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Dawid]

I agree with you about what is written being important, and that we should try and find out why, but we shouldn't go overboard, reading spiritual meaning into simple orthographic variances like this.

While there is danger in taking things at face value, in this case there is no reason to take the text at its word, that this refers to the king of Tyre, and that the hyperbolic description of his position is simply meant to convey the idea that he was in good stead with God before, and is no longer. This is more understandable if we read this not as referring to a specific king of Tyre, but to the position in general. Then it makes more sense to say that he was a seraph, and in the Garden, since the king of Tyre helped Solomon build the Temple and was in a very close relationship with David and Solomon, and much later at the time of Ezekiel was in opposition to Israel.

Shlama akhi,

my note of the orthographic variance is a minor part of the whole reason why i see this as referecening haSatan. there are too many parallels to Genesis 3 here for me to ignore the connection. were there other instances in Scripture where the language was this grandiose regarding a human man, then i could see your point entirely. however, these explicit connections back to the Garden leave me comfortably in the position i came here with. we'll just have to agree to see it differently, akhi. thanks for sharing your understanding. Blessings to you! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

First of all, it is not impossible for Ezekiel to be referring back to Genesis 3 by way of comparison without ever intending to suggest that the same person is being talked about in both cases.
But there are. Remember, Isaiah 14. Both of these use extremely grandiose language and explicitly state that they are referring to a human king.
Finally, you presuppose that the serpent is the same as Satan. I could not disagree more. The text is rather clear about this being a serpent. Just a serpent. There is no indication whatsoever that this serpent ought to be compared to the adversary.

[Burning one]

I agree with you about what is written being important, and that we should try and find out why, but we shouldn't go overboard, reading spiritual meaning into simple orthographic variances like this.

While there is danger in taking things at face value, in this case there is no reason to take the text at its word, that this refers to the king of Tyre, and that the hyperbolic description of his position is simply meant to convey the idea that he was in good stead with God before, and is no longer. This is more understandable if we read this not as referring to a specific king of Tyre, but to the position in general. Then it makes more sense to say that he was a seraph, and in the Garden, since the king of Tyre helped Solomon build the Temple and was in a very close relationship with David and Solomon, and much later at the time of Ezekiel was in opposition to Israel.

Shlama akhi,

my note of the orthographic variance is a minor part of the whole reason why i see this as referecening haSatan. there are too many parallels to Genesis 3 here for me to ignore the connection. were there other instances in Scripture where the language was this grandiose regarding a human man, then i could see your point entirely. however, these explicit connections back to the Garden leave me comfortably in the position i came here with. we'll just have to agree to see it differently, akhi. thanks for sharing your understanding. Blessings to you! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

First of all, it is not impossible for Ezekiel to be referring back to Genesis 3 by way of comparison without ever intending to suggest that the same person is being talked about in both cases.
But there are. Remember, Isaiah 14. Both of these use extremely grandiose language and explicitly state that they are referring to a human king.
Finally, you presuppose that the serpent is the same as Satan. I could not disagree more. The text is rather clear about this being a serpent. Just a serpent. There is no indication whatsoever that this serpent ought to be compared to the adversary.

Shlama,

ah, i don't see Isaiah referring to just a man in that passage...

one question, tho: twice in Revelation it equates Satan with the "ancient serpent" -- do you hold Revelation as part of the canon? if not, i understand completely your position, but if so, i'm not exactly getting why you would not see the connection of Satan to the serpent. along that vein, ANE language scholar Michael Heiser has some interesting things to say about the definition of "nachash" in that particular instance. Blessings!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Dawid]

You see, and here's the problem I have with your position: you say that there are no instances in the TN"K where this terminology is used to refer to human beings, but your only defense for that position is that you reinterpret every instance of it to mean Satan. This is a logical fallacy called assuming the consequent. Your conclusion is the same as one of your premises.
Paraphrasing, you say "this is not about a man, because no man is referred to this way. No man is referred to this way, because this is not a man." We might as well say "this is about Satan because it is about Satan." Your argument is essentially tautological.

I do hold Revelation to be canonical, but (1)the ancient serpent does not necessarily mean the one in the garden. (2)the fact that John uses the imagery of the serpent does not necessarily mean that he intends to say that the two are the same. (3) Genesis makes it clear that it is talking about a serpent. Because I am not an inerrantist, I do not feel it is necessary to say that, even if John means what you say he means, that reflects on what Genesis 3 or Ezekiel mean.