Lucifer in Isaiah 14 can't be anyone else but Satan...

[Sammy-San]

I said man not human man. Satan is sbolically a dragon which means a large serpent. That is not what he looks like.





Nope. He was a former Cherub so he would not be presented as a Cherub.





This is false. One can sin without a tempter because you only have to have a temptation. In Lucifer's case it was pride that caused him to sin.

does fallen and former mean the same? or does fallen describe the current state as a former angel?

 

[ewq1938]

does fallen and former mean the same?

No they don't "mean the same" as they are two different English words.

or does fallen describe the current state as a former angel?

He is still an angel because that's what he was created as. His position as a Cherub was taken from him when he sinned which is referred to as a fallen state in a moral sense. He is a former Cherub.

 

[Sammy-San]

No they don't "mean the same" as they are two different English words.




He is still an angel because that's what he was created as. His position as a Cherub was taken from him when he sinned which is referred to as a fallen state in a moral sense. He is a former Cherub.

isnt an angel a position?

i thought a cherub is an appearence of a four faced and four winged being.

 

[ewq1938]

isnt an angel a position?

It has a dual meaning. One can simply be a messenger and humans can be angels in that sense. The other is what's called an angelic being which means a created being who is not intended to be born as a human. These are heavenly angels and are not a position but their original nature. Lucifer was not a messenger angel but a covering angel which is known as a Cherub.

i thought a cherub is an appearence of a four faced and four winged being.

1Ki 6:23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.
1Ki 6:24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.
1Ki 6:25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.
1Ki 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.
1Ki 6:27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.



2Ch 3:11 And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub.
2Ch 3:12 And one wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub.
2Ch 3:13 The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.

Here we see two Cherubs have two wings each, 5 cubits each wing totaling 20 cubits. They only have two wings each here. In Ezekiel it's a bit more confusing with Cherubs and these odd wheels so it's hard to say if they Cherubs there have 4 faces each or if that's in conjunction with these wheels but at least in these passages we see Cherubs that match traditional descriptions of angels.

 

[Sammy-San]

It has a dual meaning. One can simply be a messenger and humans can be angels in that sense. The other is what's called an angelic being which means a created being who is not intended to be born as a human. These are heavenly angels and are not a position but their original nature. Lucifer was not a messenger angel but a covering angel which is known as a Cherub.



1Ki 6:23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.
1Ki 6:24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.
1Ki 6:25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.
1Ki 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.
1Ki 6:27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.



2Ch 3:11 And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub.
2Ch 3:12 And one wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub.
2Ch 3:13 The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.

Here we see two Cherubs have two wings each, 5 cubits each wing totaling 20 cubits. They only have two wings each here. In Ezekiel it's a bit more confusing with Cherubs and these odd wheels so it's hard to say if they Cherubs there have 4 faces each or if that's in conjunction with these wheels but at least in these passages we see Cherubs that match traditional descriptions of angels.

What about those who say cherubs and seraphs arent angels?

what does in conjuction with wheels mean?

 

[Sammy-San]

I said man not human man. Satan is sbolically a dragon which means a large serpent. That is not what he looks like.





Nope. He was a former Cherub so he would not be presented as a Cherub.





This is false. One can sin without a tempter because you only have to have a temptation. In Lucifer's case it was pride that caused him to sin.

Do you think humanity would be safe today if Lucifer didnt tempt himself? Do you think the fruit might have been taken anyway and still wouldve been there as a test?

 

[Alawishis]

Never mind.
Changed my mind on posting this.

 

[PastorFreud]

Do you agree with what this article says?

Why Does Satan Hates Humanity So Much?

I don't.

As regards the serpent in the garden, what is the support that this serpent is the one and the same Satan? And why does God curse the serpent to lose its legs and crawl on its belly? Seems like an odd punishment for Satan. Any support from scripture (not church doctrine) that addresses the oddness of this story in Gen 3? And if God knew all this was going to happen, it really makes even less sense. I think the point of Gen 3 might be something else besides teaching a theology of Satan, but I'm open to evidence.

 

[toLiJC]

I said man not human man. Satan is sbolically a dragon which means a large serpent. That is not what he looks like.

satan is not presented as a (be)souled man anywhere in (biblical) scripture, and i didn't say the devil is a dragon in (quite) the literal sense of the word, however, dragon is not just a large serpent, but something greater than that

Nope. He was a former Cherub so he would not be presented as a Cherub.

there is no biblical verse that says satan itself was a cherub and that contains any of the words: "satan", "devil", "dragon", "serpent", or any of the other names of satan used in (biblical) scripture, in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 there is speech of kings, the king of babylon and the king of tyre, respectively, and none of the biblical names of satan is used anywhere there

This is false. One can sin without a tempter because you only have to have a temptation. In Lucifer's case it was pride that caused him to sin.

how?!, from where?!, if God created/caused there to be a temptation, then everyone would be able to accuse Him quite rightly of that (Matthew 13:41, Revelation 21:27), and if God cerated a cherub/angel and caused there to be a pride in him which turned out to be a cause of his fall afterward, then that cherub/angel would be able to accuse God quite rightly of having created him so or of having caused there to be a pride in him (which in fact turned out to be the cause of his fall), if there is a temptation, where does it comes from?!, there must be some cause/source of the temptation, if God created cherubim/angels with a nature that makes them fall out, then He Himself would be guilty of that, and in such a case He would be sinful for making very serous mistakes, the same applies to the human(s), there's (just) no way God created any temptation or any creature with a nature that makes them sin

Blessings

 

[marawuti]

In Zechariah 5 is a case for "lady angels" -- the winged women in the vision carrying the wicked woman in a basket to Shinar/Babylon

What Zechariah saw does not sound like human females to me...

Not at all clear to me that the woman in the basket is an angel. In 5:8 it says “This woman represents wickedness,”. The angel he is speaking with is pretty clear this is symbolic.

If the Sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels -- they do indeed have gender, sex organs, whole nine yards -- they impregnate the "daughters of men" and Nephilim/giants are the result

I note you start of with "If". As I stated before I've heard this argued before and was convinced this does not refer to angels, but YMMV.

The Bible says that angels DO NOT MARRY in heaven -- the fallen ones violated this while on earth -- Bible never said angels don't have SEX/GENDER

Usually I look for affirmative statements not loopholes.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not at all clear to me that the woman in the basket is an angel. In 5:8 it says “This woman represents wickedness,”. The angel he is speaking with is pretty clear this is symbolic.

I note you start of with "If". As I stated before I've heard this argued before and was convinced this does not refer to angels, but YMMV.

Usually I look for affirmative statements not loopholes.

Do you agree this issue doesn't really matter?

 

[Anto9us]

YMMV

what be THAT?

YMMV ? Excuse my ignorance of that acronym, enlighten me, please.

the woman in the basket is WICKEDNESS (obviously NOT an angel),
I originally said the 2 women with wings seen CARRYING the basket could be lady angels

in a later post, I stated that these 2 winged women were SEEN IN A VISION by Zechariah, I didn't know if they PHYSICALLY EXISTED or not. I compared this use of 'vision' to the Mount of Transfiguration, after which Jesus told disciples "tell no man of the vision" -- which did not mean that Elijah and Moses weren't really there - just "don't tell what you saw"

I don't mean to post "loopholes"

I think the Sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels
I think they impregnated human women and Nephilim were the result
If they were just "other human men" -- why would it lead to GIANTS?

I think the two 'lady angels' were doing God's work in transporting the WICKEDNESS woman in the basket to be set up where God wanted it in Shinar

The affirmative statement Jesus made about humans in heaven not marrying, but being like angels in that regard, did not address CAPABILITIES of fallen angels, who broke the rules anyway

none of these things are ESSENTIAL DOGMA, but no one has proven to me that the way I have always interpreted these things is wrong

 

[marawuti]

Do you agree this issue doesn't really matter?

Most definitely, but it's entertaining.

 

[DamianWarS]

Yet after all this time and you still haven't disputed that Satan ultimately fulfills everything written about Lucifer which proves what's written about him is fulfilled by satan.

Let's pretend the Latin text had no influence on english translations. If true the infamous verse 12 would read something like "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn!"

Lucifer as an English word is a proper noun for Satan. I have mentioned before that it is a misnomer as a "tin can" is but by using the word Lucifer then the word is not being translated it is being interpreted.

Lucifer was the word used in the Latin text and in that example it was a translation because "lucifer" happens to be proper latin and it was used to translate the word "heylel" into the best represented word in Latin. Lucifer is a good translation when reading the latin text. (BTW Jesus is also called "lucifer" in the latin text)

When we use it in English it does not assume the Latin meaning instead takes on it's own meaning as a synonym for Satan. So what happens when it is used in English is we really mean Satan and nothing else.

Why even use the word "lucifer" and just flat out say Satan. We don't do this because it is irresponsible. The KJV had it's reasons for putting the word "lucifer" in their translation forever etching it into English however what they have done is over interpreted the text and have pushed a popular interpretation, one that can't help but influence how people approach the text today.

Now you start a discussion about the overall interpretation of the text and you continue to use the word "Lucifer". This can tell me a few things about what your are claiming.

1. it is supported by a irresponsible translation of the word "heylel"
2. it has a strong bias
3. it is insufficiently researched
4. it preys upon the ignorant

A more responsible translation is "morning star". So let's repose your question and substitute "lucifer" with "the morning star"

Yet after all this time and you still haven't disputed that Satan ultimately fulfills everything written about [the morning star] which proves what's written about him is fulfilled by satan.

It doesn't quite have the same implications to it does it? The first statement basically is a question of "Does Lucifer = Satan?" The answer of course is "yes" because that's what the english word means but it is irresponsibly worded. The altered question is "Does the morning star = Satan?" and this is a question more worthy of discussion as it is responsibly worded and does not assume the interpretation but allows discussion of the interpretation. Perhaps an even more specific question would be "Does the morning star in Isaiah 14 refer to Satan?" It's not my concern that the term "morning star" creates some ambiguity with references to Jesus. This is how the text presents itself naturally and is how we should represent it and is how we should discuss it.

I have defended my position but you are only reading what you see and responding to what you want. I don't wish to repeat myself or further engage this conversion until the bias is removed and we can approach this from a responsible base.

 

[marawuti]

what be THAT?

YMMV ? Excuse my ignorance of that acronym, enlighten me, please.

your mileage may vary

I originally said the 2 women with wings seen CARRYING the basket could be lady angels

"could be" is speculative at best. If one doesn't have definitive information it's wise to let it ly and not be the basis of further speculation to wit angels having gender.

in a later post, I stated that these 2 winged women were SEEN IN A VISION by Zechariah, I didn't know if they PHYSICALLY EXISTED or not. I compared this use of 'vision' to the Mount of Transfiguration, after which Jesus told disciples "tell no man of the vision" -- which did not mean that Elijah and Moses weren't really there - just "don't tell what you saw"

Didn't scan the thread to see what other observations you had on the topic.

I think the Sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels
I think they impregnated human women and Nephilim were the result
If they were just "other human men" -- why would it lead to GIANTS?

Others have that opinion as well. I made reference to prior teaching that has convinced me otherwise. Can't remember the scholar's name but that was 40+ years ago. We just differ, and I consider your interpretation as speculative.

I think the two 'lady angels' were doing God's work in transporting the WICKEDNESS woman in the basket to be set up where God wanted it in Shinar

Here's the rub - you've transitioned from what the scripture says to two women angels. Doesn't say that, and there is no need to go there. It just invites creeping error and odd philosophies.
But, I must say it won't affect your salvation nor, hopefully, our fellowship.

 

[Anto9us]

won't affect either, marawuti

who wrestled at Jabbok with Jacob/Israel and pulled his hamstring?

Man? Angel? God Himself? The pre-existent Christ?
cases have been put forth for all

As far as the OP -- there is something called "near/far" fulfillment; "double fulfillment" - whatever --

Isaiah talks of King of Babylon, Ezekiel talks of Prince of Tyre -- both could also refer to Satan as well as historical human rulers -- it's metaphorical, we know good and well that human monarchs didn't literally "fall from heaven" or were present in Garden of Eden

 

[Sammy-San]

That's not correct. All angels are men. Satan is a man as he is a former archangel. There are no females except in humanity and animals.

Angels don't reproduce. Is it just a part of who they are?

 

[Sammy-San]

The disguise is to hide the evil nature not a scary external look.

How does a different costume had the nature?

 

[Sammy-San]

Isaiah was written in Hebrew. Lucifer is just the English rendition of the Hebrew name hêylêl after the Hebrew was translated into Latin and then later into English.

Do you believe latin is the language of heaven? It isnt.

 

[Sammy-San]

The first sentence isn't good enough as evidence. The second is a reference to Satan's way governing not his personal appearance. Scripture says Satan is disguised as an angel of light which is the opposite of appearing monstrous.

How is a reference to a governing?