why did satan get kicked out of heaven

[danielost]

Jesus and the 72 had to deal with demons. If they hadn't been kicked out yet thee wouldn't have been any demons to deal with. In a single case jesus had to deal with leagon.

[ellapenella]

Jesus and the 72 had to deal with demons. If they hadn't been kicked out yet thee wouldn't have been any demons to deal with. In a single case jesus had to deal with leagon.

Jesus and the 72 had to deal with demons. If they hadn't been kicked out yet thee wouldn't have been any demons to deal with. In a single case jesus had to deal with leagon.

What 72 ? This sounds more like an Islamic myth than the life of Yeshua.

[J. K.]

What 72 ? This sounds more like an Islamic myth than the life of Yeshua.

A minor miscalculation:

1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, "The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 5 But whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. (Luke 10)

[ellapenella]

A minor miscalculation:

1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, "The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 5 But whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. (Luke 10)

Yes , I'm familiar with the verse. He was sending out 35 teams of 2 .They were to heal the sick , and because of the healing' , people would be willing to hear the teachings of Yeshua. In saying that , I am reminded that Edgar Casey had questioned and reflected on this as well. He questioned ;"Where have all the prophets of old gone?" A true prophet was equipped to heal the sick in the name of Christ .

Verse 23 of that chapter is very dear , very loving.

[danielost]

Yes , I'm familiar with the verse. He was sending out 35 teams of 2 .They were to heal the sick , and because of the healing' , people would be willing to hear the teachings of Yeshua. In saying that , I am reminded that Edgar Casey had questioned and reflected on this as well. He questioned ;"Where have all the prophets of old gone?" A true prophet was equipped to heal the sick in the name of Christ .

Verse 23 of that chapter is very dear , very loving.

In any case christ exercised demons. If there were no fallen angels what did he exercise.

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

How I understand it was that it was a lot of things which got Satan kicked out, for one he kept challenging gods rule, he hated the fact that god made man to be immortal ( because angels arent ) he constantly kept going back and forth from earth to heaven and making trouble, the date he got kicked out of heaven was in 1914. That was also the time that archduke ferdinand got assassinated also.

[spiritualghosthaunting]

Yes , I'm familiar with the verse. He was sending out 35 teams of 2 .They were to heal the sick , and because of the healing' , people would be willing to hear the teachings of Yeshua. In saying that , I am reminded that Edgar Casey had questioned and reflected on this as well. He questioned ;"Where have all the prophets of old gone?" A true prophet was equipped to heal the sick in the name of Christ .

Verse 23 of that chapter is very dear , very loving.

I wouldn't take Edgar Casey's word on anything if I were you. He was no Christian. Do your research on Casey.

[SpiritWriter]

Satan is the Lord's dookie.

[Etu Malku]

Satan is the Lord's dookie.

Brilliant rebuttal!

[jake1967]

Man has yet to understand or discover all that there is on the very Earth that we live upon much less the universe! So how is it that man tries to comprehend the mind of God or the intentions of his creation? Since God is Love..then anything that is not Love does Not represent HIM. Without a choice..love has no meaning...free will. Satan chooses himself over the one who created him..therefore he can no longer be a part of God because he wants to be greater than He who gave him life and knowledge and beauty....thus the seperation and condemnation. It is not possible for man nor angel nor demon to possess more knowledge or power or love than that of the One who created them. It is possible to be deceived by the lies of those not representing the Truth..but to what end? God is the beginning and the end..the will was Love and still is..the adversary would like you to believe otherwise. That, to me, is a truth. You must choose your own.

[SpiritWriter]

Brilliant rebuttal!

Well thank you Etu Malku...

[ellapenella]

In any case christ exercised demons. If there were no fallen angels what did he exercise.

I think that he was a man who was very , very , very advanced . He was the perfect pattern of what we all can be as well. I don't know exactly who or what, the word or term demon was exactly in reference to .

For example , I think that because Christ was more than a clairvoyant sensitive to the realms of physics .Maybe the demons he sensed were in existence there, but maybe not as in the form and existence of an entity such as what you may think it to have been.

Maybe the individuals Christ healed had an oppression of sorts within their own psyche . Maybe the cause could have been situations and circumstances of their environment . Maybe they may have been a victim of their society , their environment , or maybe they suffered with mental illness, I don't really know , but I do believe that Christ healed them all...

I'm not certain about just how everyone understands the bible. I do think that it's main purpose was to promote the message of Christ as opposed to the message of what was going on in that time of history. Christ actions had taken effect and lead those under oppression to hope for a better environment , the environment of that time certainly needed a change .

It's more than obvious to me as to why the elite of then had infiltrated on what Christ had set out to do , he left us with the tools we need to create a loving world. He never said it would be easy , because he ,like we, know that the elite will always make it impossible;e, but Christ taught that in God all things are possible. So I always ask myself , who is God to me?

Edited May 31, 2013 by Reann

[ellapenella]

I wouldn't take Edgar Casey's word on anything if I were you. He was no Christian. Do your research on Casey.

I've read his biography .I know that people have wrote and put out books after his death , utilizing his name for their own profit .A lot of what is in those books out there have nothing to do with him.

As a youngster he was afraid of his gift , it bothered him ,because it didn't coexist everything in the bible. He said to his mother or grandmother that he thought he may be evil because of his gift.

She said to him to not say that , that nothing good can come from anything evil , and that he was not evil , and , for him to stop thinking that way about himself , because he had a good and loving heart , all he wanted was to do good for others, he was a loving , kind , caring , generous man from what i have read of him .

I like the guy from what i read of his life story., besides, didn't people back in Christ time accuse him of being in accordance with Beelzebub too ? That his miracles were done through Beelzebub?

Can you imagine this little youngster only wanting to read the bible more than the adults in his small town ? His heart was always seeking God .

Edited May 31, 2013 by Reann

[Insaniac]

How I understand it was that it was a lot of things which got Satan kicked out, for one he kept challenging gods rule, he hated the fact that god made man to be immortal ( because angels arent ) he constantly kept going back and forth from earth to heaven and making trouble, the date he got kicked out of heaven was in 1914. That was also the time that archduke ferdinand got assassinated also.

Indeed.

Ezekiel 28:17 says, "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor."

Ezekiel 28:6 then goes on say: "you have set your heart as the heart of a god."

He, along with a third of the angels were thrown out of Heaven. Read Isaiah 14:12-14. In these passages of scripture, you'll find Satan's name in Heaven was Lucifer.

These passages also tell you more about Satan's pride, and how he wanted to exalt himself above God. Nobody is fit to be God, except God Himself.

And as you say, Satan was a trouble-maker, and a "manslayer from the beginning. And when he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is the father of lies." - John 8:44

Same logic applies to true Satanist's. A "True" Satanist follows the Devil and does as he demands.

The Devil drives his goats impatiently, whereas the Lord leads His flock peaceably.

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

Indeed.

Ezekiel 28:17 says, "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor."

Ezekiel 28:6 then goes on say: "you have set your heart as the heart of a god."

He, along with a third of the angels were thrown out of Heaven. Read Isaiah 14:12-14. In these passages of scripture, you'll find Satan's name in Heaven was Lucifer.

These passages also tell you more about Satan's pride, and how he wanted to exalt himself above God. Nobody is fit to be God, except God Himself.

And as you say, Satan was a trouble-maker, and a "manslayer from the beginning. And when he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is the father of lies." - John 8:44

Same logic applies to true Satanist's. A "True" Satanist follows the Devil and does as he demands.

The Devil drives his goats impatiently, whereas the Lord leads His flock peaceably.

Not to mention that satan was cocky as hell

[Etu Malku]

Read Isaiah 14:12-14. In these passages of scripture, you'll find Satan's name in Heaven was Lucifer.

These passages also tell you more about Satan's pride, and how he wanted to exalt himself above God. Nobody is fit to be God, except God Himself.

Where do you see that?

Typically misinterpreted . . . The fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king (Nebuchadnezzar), who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.

Isaiah 14:12-14

12 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!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

If you are to believe this then you should have no trouble believing that Jesus is also Lucifer?

Revelation 22:16

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Edited May 31, 2013 by Etu Malku

[danielost]

Where do you see that?

Typically misinterpreted . . . The fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king (Nebuchadnezzar), who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel.

If you are to believe this then you should have no trouble believing that Jesus is also Lucifer?

Where in your scipture of christ does he say he is higher than god.

And the old testimony scripture, could be talking about lucifer and nebuchadnezzar or ceaser for that matter, because everyone who has taken the title of emperior has declared himself god.

[Etu Malku]

Where in your scipture of christ does he say he is higher than god.

I'm sorry, what are you asking?

And the old testimony scripture, could be talking about lucifer and nebuchadnezzar or ceaser for that matter, because everyone who has taken the title of emperior has declared himself god.

Isaiah 14, which speaks of "Lucifer," is referring to the king of Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar). In fact, the name "Lucifer" does not even appear in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew behind this translation consists of three words meaning "Helel son of Shachar", which is a title (like Christ is) and a name for the morning star (Venus), and thus is translated as "son of the morning star" by most translations. The translation of "Lucifer" was carried over from the reading in Jerome's Latin Vulgate, not the Hebrew text.

King Nebuchadnezzar is referenced in verse 4:

Isaiah 14:4

"that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, “How the oppressor has ceased, And how fury has ceased!"

[spiritualghosthaunting]

Can you imagine this little youngster only wanting to read the bible more than the adults in his small town ? His heart was always seeking God .

There are many gods. Which one? Do an internet search on Cayce and freemason. Add ancient Egyptian mysticism and reincarnation. He was channeler but you know that.

[hellig heilige]

I'm sorry, what are you asking?

Isaiah 14, which speaks of "Lucifer," is referring to the king of Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar). In fact, the name "Lucifer" does not even appear in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew behind this translation consists of three words meaning "Helel son of Shachar", which is a title (like Christ is) and a name for the morning star (Venus), and thus is translated as "son of the morning star" by most translations. The translation of "Lucifer" was carried over from the reading in Jerome's Latin Vulgate, not the Hebrew text.

King Nebuchadnezzar is referenced in verse 4:

Isaiah 14:4

"that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, “How the oppressor has ceased, And how fury has ceased!"

Being a Luciferian, you're waiting for Nimrod to come back?

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

There are many gods. Which one? Do an internet search on Cayce and freemason. Add ancient Egyptian mysticism and reincarnation. He was channeler but you know that.

Yeah there are a ton of false gods

[Jor-el]

I'm sorry, what are you asking?

Isaiah 14, which speaks of "Lucifer," is referring to the king of Babylon (King Nebuchadnezzar). In fact, the name "Lucifer" does not even appear in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew behind this translation consists of three words meaning "Helel son of Shachar", which is a title (like Christ is) and a name for the morning star (Venus), and thus is translated as "son of the morning star" by most translations. The translation of "Lucifer" was carried over from the reading in Jerome's Latin Vulgate, not the Hebrew text.

King Nebuchadnezzar is referenced in verse 4:

Isaiah 14:4

"that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, “How the oppressor has ceased, And how fury has ceased!"

No we cannot call him Lucifer, but he does have other names... Satan, Samael and the one you gave: Helel ben Sachar which as you say means "Helel son of the Dawn", but Helel also has a meaning, It is "Helel(bright one) son of Shachar (dawn)" or Bright one, Son of the Dawn.

In other words it is synonymous with "Shining one" which is a reference to the Serpent of Eden.

To recap, "Nachash then has three possible applications according to the Hebrew language...

1. As a noun it can mean serpent or snake

2. As an adjective that means "the shinning one" or "Luminescent one" which is synonymous of other applications in the Old Testament referring to Satan

3. As a noun it can also mean "One who deals in or practices divination".

If this passage were referring exclusively to the ruler of Tyre, then you would certainly have to say that it is a case of imagery and even overstatement.

• Could Ezekiel actually have had the "ruler" in mind when he described him as being "perfect and blameless" in all his ways? The "king of Tyre" is said to have been "blameless from the day he was created." In contrast to that statement, King David wrote "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5) Satan was sinless when he was created, but that could not be said of any earthly ruler, not even King David.
  
• It is said that the King of Tyre was 'created' instead of 'born.' If the word 'born' had been used it would certainly have ruled out Satan, but that is not the case.
  
• The ruler of Tyre could not have been in the Garden of Eden. Satan was.
  
• It seems strange that the king is described as being adorned with 'every precious stone.' Did he really have such wealth? If this were referring to a king, it would seem to be exaggeration.
  
• The king was called a "guardian cherub." This would make it the only instance in the Old Testament where that word was used in reference to a human. That seems unlikely when you study how the word 'cherub' is used in other contexts.
  
• At one time, the "king of Tyre" would have been in close fellowship with God, for it is said that he walked on the 'holy mount of God.' Obviously this could not have been the case; it would have to be imagery. The 'holy mount of God' is a direct reference to God's throne. On the other hand 'cherubs' are associated with closeness to God, as demonstrated in the construction of the 'Ark of the Covenant.' "The cherubim (pl. of cherub) were the "inner circle" of angels who had the closest access to God and guarded his holiness. "
  

There can be no reasonable doubt that the ruler of Tyre is not the only person being referred to here. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to believe that the passage is referring to the ruling power behind the ruler of Tyre's actions.

Isaiah 14

To some extent, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 stand together. The first phrase in verse 12 is the key to this passage. Isaiah seems to switch gears and speak of someone more than the king of Babylon. Unless you also take the passage in Isaiah figuratively you are forced to consider the application of the principle of double reference.

• It seems hard to envision the king of Babylon 'falling out of heaven.' The verse implies that the one who has fallen originally started out in heaven-that heaven was his original home. The fact that the fall from heaven is literal is enforced with the phrase 'You have been cast down to the earth.' This certainly could not apply to an earthly ruler. It is also metaphorical language for utter humiliation. "To bring someone down" is still applied today.
  
• The sin that the 'king' proposes in his five "I will's" seems to go far beyond any human's most outlandish and egotistical aspirations. On the other hand it is completely consistent with what one would expect of Satan.
  
• How did the king propose to 'ascend into heaven'?
  
• Did the king really think he could usurp God's throne?
  
• Did he think he could sit on the sacred mountain? This indeed seems a most unlikely human ambition, even for a very evil king.
  
• The reference to 'the stars of God' is usually interpreted as referring to angelic beings (Job 38:7). Did the king really think he could rule over them?
  
• Did the king really think he could be like the Creator God-the Most High?
  

But the question remains, was Satan really kicked out of Heaven?

The answer is no.

What these texts all have in common is a judgment rendered by God, the actual enforcement of that judgment has not yet happened.

[Mikko-kun]

How I understand it was that it was a lot of things which got Satan kicked out, for one he kept challenging gods rule, he hated the fact that god made man to be immortal ( because angels arent ) he constantly kept going back and forth from earth to heaven and making trouble, the date he got kicked out of heaven was in 1914. That was also the time that archduke ferdinand got assassinated also.

Where did you get this date from? Sounds very mysterious.

[Etu Malku]

Being a Luciferian, you're waiting for Nimrod to come back?

I don't get the association . . . but nonetheless, no Luciferians are not waiting for Nimrod or anyone to "come back".

[Etu Malku]

No we cannot call him Lucifer, but he does have other names... Satan, Samael and the one you gave: Helel ben Sachar which as you say means "Helel son of the Dawn", but Helel also has a meaning, It is "Helel(bright one) son of Shachar (dawn)" or Bright one, Son of the Dawn.

In other words it is synonymous with "Shining one" which is a reference to the Serpent of Eden.

To recap, "Nachash then has three possible applications according to the Hebrew language...

1. As a noun it can mean serpent or snake

2. As an adjective that means "the shinning one" or "Luminescent one" which is synonymous of other applications in the Old Testament referring to Satan

3. As a noun it can also mean "One who deals in or practices divination".

If this passage were referring exclusively to the ruler of Tyre, then you would certainly have to say that it is a case of imagery and even overstatement.

• Could Ezekiel actually have had the "ruler" in mind when he described him as being "perfect and blameless" in all his ways? The "king of Tyre" is said to have been "blameless from the day he was created." In contrast to that statement, King David wrote "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5) Satan was sinless when he was created, but that could not be said of any earthly ruler, not even King David.
  
• It is said that the King of Tyre was 'created' instead of 'born.' If the word 'born' had been used it would certainly have ruled out Satan, but that is not the case.
  
• The ruler of Tyre could not have been in the Garden of Eden. Satan was.
  
• It seems strange that the king is described as being adorned with 'every precious stone.' Did he really have such wealth? If this were referring to a king, it would seem to be exaggeration.
  
• The king was called a "guardian cherub." This would make it the only instance in the Old Testament where that word was used in reference to a human. That seems unlikely when you study how the word 'cherub' is used in other contexts.
  
• At one time, the "king of Tyre" would have been in close fellowship with God, for it is said that he walked on the 'holy mount of God.' Obviously this could not have been the case; it would have to be imagery. The 'holy mount of God' is a direct reference to God's throne. On the other hand 'cherubs' are associated with closeness to God, as demonstrated in the construction of the 'Ark of the Covenant.' "The cherubim (pl. of cherub) were the "inner circle" of angels who had the closest access to God and guarded his holiness. "
  

There can be no reasonable doubt that the ruler of Tyre is not the only person being referred to here. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to believe that the passage is referring to the ruling power behind the ruler of Tyre's actions.

Isaiah 14

To some extent, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 stand together. The first phrase in verse 12 is the key to this passage. Isaiah seems to switch gears and speak of someone more than the king of Babylon. Unless you also take the passage in Isaiah figuratively you are forced to consider the application of the principle of double reference.

• It seems hard to envision the king of Babylon 'falling out of heaven.' The verse implies that the one who has fallen originally started out in heaven-that heaven was his original home. The fact that the fall from heaven is literal is enforced with the phrase 'You have been cast down to the earth.' This certainly could not apply to an earthly ruler. It is also metaphorical language for utter humiliation. "To bring someone down" is still applied today.
  
• The sin that the 'king' proposes in his five "I will's" seems to go far beyond any human's most outlandish and egotistical aspirations. On the other hand it is completely consistent with what one would expect of Satan.
  
• How did the king propose to 'ascend into heaven'?
  
• Did the king really think he could usurp God's throne?
  
• Did he think he could sit on the sacred mountain? This indeed seems a most unlikely human ambition, even for a very evil king.
  
• The reference to 'the stars of God' is usually interpreted as referring to angelic beings (Job 38:7). Did the king really think he could rule over them?
  
• Did the king really think he could be like the Creator God-the Most High?
  

But the question remains, was Satan really kicked out of Heaven?

The answer is no.

What these texts all have in common is a judgment rendered by God, the actual enforcement of that judgment has not yet happened.

Don't mistake Satan as only the anti-Christian boogeyman created by the Judeo-Christian world. He is much more than that Abrahamic name, Satan has always existed, only under other names and guises, Satan is a powerful and primordial archetype of man's psyche.

This archetype is the reflection of how we perceive ourselves in relation to what we call the "others". Satan is the negative definition of what we believe is human. He is a social and cultural phenomenon and as old as humanity itself. There has always and will always, be essentially two worldviews consisting of oppositions and they are "Us & Them".

Sumerian and Akkadian tablets concur this worldview from the earliest known writings, the ancient Egyptian word for an Egyptian meant "human", the Greek word for non-Greeks was "barbaroi". The Jewish Essenes called non-Essenes "ha satan" (adversary), Zoroastrianism set forth the dualistic "good" (what we believe in) and "evil" (what they believe in).

"A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by selecting, isolating, and emphasizing as aspect of another people's life, and making it symbolize their difference" - William Scott Green (Professor of the history of religion - ancient Judaism, biblical studies, and the theory of religion).

So, who is this Satan? He is who you are not!