Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkninja

Where did Lucifer fall?

140 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

draconic chronicler
Take your word for it? Seriously? You have the intellect of a truncated maledroid and are 100% WRONG on your "Saraph" notions. Like I said before I will get your book from the comic store and send a copy to TAU so they can have a laugh at your ignorance of the Hebrew language.

Yes Moondoggy, everyone really believes you know more about this than the highly eteemed Jewish encyclopedia, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, both of which substantiate what I have stated on this subject, not to mention millions of fluently Hebrew speaking Israelis who support the same conclusion that the Seraphim are fiery flying serpents. As I stated before, the total sum of all of your Biblical Knowledge is contained in the diaglogue of a Sunday School coloring book. It does matter if the nonsense you believe can be found in some books, because these books are written by amateurs with a christian agenda, leaving out everything that doesn't jive with their absurd interpretations of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz
It is also why God sent him to swallow moses, and he almost did, but God changed his mind. But wait, you probably didn't know that bible story, becasue they took it out of your Bible.

You're right. I didn't know this story. I'm not opposed to reading Any material outside the bible, or even other bibles. Where can I find it please? Google hits keep taking me to revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
You're right. I didn't know this story. I'm not opposed to reading Any material outside the bible, or even other bibles. Where can I find it please? Google hits keep taking me to revelation.

You will find it in the classic work Legends of the Jews by Ginsberg. It is free to read on many sites. Ginsberg compiled the ancient Jewish scriptures that often supplemented the Bible with more information. For example, this takes place where the Bible says, Yahweh was going to kill moses (becasue he forgot to circumcise his son). The serpent dragon Satan swallows Moses up to his groin, when Zipporah circumcises the baby in the nick of time. God orders Satan to spew him up. These stories also reveal that Satan helped destroy the Egyptian first born, probably by devouring them as well, not magic Jewish Germs like all the movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twigzilla

So I am deployed in Iraq right now. I was flying a blackhawk mission in the northern part when a passenger says "break right, I want to show you something." So we turn right and below us he says is a shrine of where, Satan, Lucifer, what ever you want to call him, supposedly impacted Earth. About 400 yards beyond the shrine was a huge crater. We did a target store on the gps and what numbers came up? 666 coincicedance? maybe... who knows. Just a thought to add to the quarels going on here. This spot is approximately 500+ miles north of Baghdad, aka, Babylon. I can see if I can get some pictures if any one is interested. I have been trying to read on any information on this to credit it, but of course there isn't any. But the locals sure do have a problem with going near it. So it may be something, and it may not be. I am not the one to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

looking for satan,s crater, atlantis, the gate to the underworld, and eden all interest me but what bums me is that [if they exist] weve probally found them then named em something else

so we dont realize that

besides the fallen angel is from the dante's inferno or paradise lost [both being fiction or concept]

and the mark of the beast 666

refers to [pers opinion] claws, those would be like beasts and reject the holy word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
looking for satan,s crater, atlantis, the gate to the underworld, and eden all interest me but what bums me is that [if they exist] weve probally found them then named em something else

so we dont realize that

besides the fallen angel is from the dante's inferno or paradise lost [both being fiction or concept]

and the mark of the beast 666

refers to [pers opinion] claws, those would be like beasts and reject the holy word

You are correct that there is no mention of a fallen angel in the Old Testament, but the Christians did get this idea from the Apocryphal book of Enoch written after the Jews were exposed to Persian Zoroastrianism during thier Babylonian captivity. The zoroastrians believe there will be a great battle between an evil dragon and his fallen angels versus the good God and angels. The evil dragon loses and is cast into an aybss, and later he rebells again so is cast into the lake of fire. John of Patmos stole this persian fairytale almost verbatim to concoct his "book of Revelation", which many Christians (but not all) believe is divinely inspired. Jews and some Christians now understand that there is no "fallen angel", that Lucifer is a mistranslation and does not exist, and that a "satan" is simply some one or something sent by God to oppose or test someone, even Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph
So I am deployed in Iraq right now. I was flying a blackhawk mission in the northern part when a passenger says "break right, I want to show you something."

Stay safe over there twig!

So we turn right and below us he says is a shrine of where, Satan, Lucifer, what ever you want to call him, supposedly impacted Earth. About 400 yards beyond the shrine was a huge crater.

Probably an ancient meteor impact. The Black Stone of Mecca may be a fragment of a meteorite. It is known that in pre-Islamic Arabia, stone worship--especially meteorite worship--was common.

We did a target store on the gps and what numbers came up? 666 coincicedance? maybe... who knows. Just a thought to add to the quarels going on here.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature at its highest. It was written to reflect the tumultuous events occurring at the time--1st century. The pseudonymous author seems to have believed that "the beast"--the infamous 666 (there was an early fragment of Revelation found that has a completely different number for "the beast"--616)--was to return with an army and destroy the Church/Christendom. He used apostolic code, or "number symbolism," to disguise the name of the individual who was to return--Nero Caesar. It was a highly held belief that NC was, in fact, very much alive and gathering an army so forth and so on. Of course, the other camp believe this is in reference to Domitian et al. Take your pick of Roman brigands and date of authorship. The beast had nothing to do with an antichrist, satan, or Lucifer--a name, by the way, that is used only once in the OT ... and that was in reference to a Babylonian king.

This spot is approximately 500+ miles north of Baghdad, aka, Babylon. I can see if I can get some pictures if any one is interested. I have been trying to read on any information on this to credit it, but of course there isn't any.

That would be interesting to see.

Best,

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

the nero bit seems they may actually mean a man much like him.

but dont take revalation serious it is still being debated whether John wrote it or some pegan just used his name in an attempt to undermine the churches credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joeycastaneda56
I seem to recall that "the spot where Lucifer fell" was featured in the last Exorcist movie.

But in truth, Lucifer never "fell" becasue Lucifer never existed. There is no fallen angel named Lucifer in either the Old or New Testament. This character wasn't invented until long after the New Testament books were formulated. This has been discussed at length here on UM several times. The Lucifer passage in the Bible refers to the human King of Babylon. There are no fallen angels in the Bible at all, and Satan of the Old Testament is an obedient servant of God.

All of this evil Satan and Lucifier stuff was invented by the Christian Church to have a new religion filled with pagan dualistic ideas to make it popular to their pagan recruits. It is not in the OT scriptures recognized by Jesus.

I don't think you study your Bible very much, He is in the O/T and N/T. (ISAIAH, 14: 12-17) 12-How you are fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations! 13-For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14- I will ascend above the highest of the clouds, I will be like the Most High!. 15-Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the pits. 16-Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: Is this the man who made the earth tremble, 17- Who made the world as a wilderness And destroyed it's cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners? He is also in the book of (JOB). Satan Attacks Job's Character. (JOB, 1: 6) Now there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. (the Sons of God are Angles that fell with Satan.(Note: Satan has access to enter into (GODS) presence. N/T. (MARK, 1: 12-13) Satan Tempts Jesus, 12-Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. 13 -And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan,(Lucifer), and was with the wild beasts; and the Angles ministered to him. (REVELATION, 12: 7-9) Satan (Lucifer) Thrown Out of Heaven. 7-And a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angles fought with the dragon (Lucifer); and the dragon (Lucifer) and his angles fought, 8- But they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9- So the great dragon (Lucifer) was cast out, that serpent (Lucifer) of old, called the Devil and Satan (Lucifer), who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angles were cast out with him. (New King James Version HOLY BIBLE).................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carcharoth

He fell down the stairs.

I don't think you study your Bible very much, He is in the O/T and N/T. (ISAIAH, 14: 12-17) 12-How you are fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations!

That text is referring to a Babylonian king, not the Devil. Lucifer is just a sort of title, it's not the name of any single entity. As an example, Jesus refers to himself as Lucifer at one occasion. The idea of Lucifer = Satan didn't originate until far after the Biblical texts were written AFAIK.

Edited by Carcharoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darklight
I seem to recall that "the spot where Lucifer fell" was featured in the last Exorcist movie.

But in truth, Lucifer never "fell" becasue Lucifer never existed. There is no fallen angel named Lucifer in either the Old or New Testament. This character wasn't invented until long after the New Testament books were formulated. This has been discussed at length here on UM several times. The Lucifer passage in the Bible refers to the human King of Babylon. There are no fallen angels in the Bible at all, and Satan of the Old Testament is an obedient servant of God.

All of this evil Satan and Lucifier stuff was invented by the Christian Church to have a new religion filled with pagan dualistic ideas to make it popular to their pagan recruits. It is not in the OT scriptures recognized by Jesus.

Salaam (Peace)

The word used in the Quran (2:36) to describe the descent of Iblees is habt meaning "to descend from a high place to a low place", but the word habt also signifies a "falling into evil", "suffering a loss", and "becoming abject and degraded". Study indicates that it is a descent to a lower level of existence, and that the jinn race, (Iblees was not an angel) exist throughout creaton. Many seem to believe that the descent of Adam (AS) and Iblees/Shaytan (Satan) was actually a change in condition instead of a change in location, and Allah (SWT) knows best. See the Lucifer & Iblees page on this website

Edited by Darklight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joeycastaneda56
He fell down the stairs.

That text is referring to a Babylonian king, not the Devil. Lucifer is just a sort of title, it's not the name of any single entity. As an example, Jesus refers to himself as Lucifer at one occasion. The idea of Lucifer = Satan didn't originate until far after the Biblical texts were written AFAIK.

Please post the Scriptures and show me were this is at in the Bible. Also in the (Temptation and the Fall of man) in (GENESIS, 3: Was that the Babylonian King to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carcharoth
Please post the Scriptures and show me were this is at in the Bible. Also in the (Temptation and the Fall of man) in (GENESIS, 3: Was that the Babylonian King to.

Read these. The Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 refers to a Babylonian king, not the Devil.

http://mexc.blogspot.com/2006/01/does-word...r-to-satan.html

http://pelajus.com/lucifer.html

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Origins_in_Isaiah

http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html

EDIT: If you were wondering about where Jesus uses the title Lucifer, it's in Revelation 22:16:

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

Edited by Carcharoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joeycastaneda56
Read these. The Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 refers to a Babylonian king, not the Devil.

<a href="http://mexc.blogspot.com/2006/01/does-word...r-to-satan.html" target="_blank">http://mexc.blogspot.com/2006/01/does-word...r-to-satan.html</a>

<a href="http://pelajus.com/lucifer.html" target="_blank">http://pelajus.com/lucifer.html</a>

<a href="http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml</a>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Origins_in_Isaiah" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer#Origins_in_Isaiah</a>

<a href="http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html" target="_blank">http://www.crivoice.org/lucifer.html</a>

EDIT: If you were wondering about where Jesus uses the title Lucifer, it's in Revelation 22:16:

"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

<a href="http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml</a>

Where do you go to Church. And what Bible do you use to get your (Doctrine) from. You must be a Mormon. Because you twist and pervert the True Gospel of my Lord and Savior (JESUS CHRIST) I am a (Pentecostal born again Christian birth out of the book of ACTS. Just like the apostle of Jesus Christ.

Edited by joeycastaneda56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carcharoth
Where do you go to Church. And what Bible do you use to get your (Doctrine) from. You must be a Mormon. Because you twist and pervert the True Gospel of my Lord and Savior (JESUS CHRIST) I am a (Pentecostal born again Christian birth out of the book ACTS. Just like the apostle of Jesus Christ.

I don't go to Church and I don't use any particular Bible (the only Bible I've ever read is the regular Bible used by protestants). And I am most definitely not a mormon :lol: Lucifer is, as far as I know, just a latin translation meaning "lightbearer", so Jesus referring to himself as Lucifer doesn't imply that Jesus = the Devil, just that Jesus calls himself a lightbearer. It's nothing more than that. Lucifer is nothing more than a title, it's not a name.

Edited by Carcharoth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sickpuppy

hi. i didnt come for the sh**fight..

draconic

The Lucifer passage in the Bible refers to the human King of Babylon

"Send up a lamentation to the Prince of Tyr" << that one? (just checking if memory serves)

*fires the warning shots* i didn't come in here to argue.. if i am wrong just say so ;)

umm.. i'm no friend of the bible.. but there is reference to fallen angels in the OT. gen 6:4 mentions the nephilim, and even genesis 1~2 mentions the serpent and the prophecy (he will crush your head, you will bruise his heel) ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph
umm.. i'm no friend of the bible.. but there is reference to fallen angels in the OT. gen 6:4 mentions the nephilim, and even genesis 1~2 mentions the serpent and the prophecy (he will crush your head, you will bruise his heel) ??

Good morning U. Genesis 6 makes reference to Nephilim, yes, but does not indicate that they have fallen.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 3 talks of a serpent. This is not Satan. It is simply a snake--which were seen as slithery, evil and deceptive. God makes this clear in Genesis 3:14 where he condems the snake to be the lowliest of all animals. Nowhere does God identify the serpent as Satan.

Genesis 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock

and all the wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly

and you will eat dust

all the days of your life.

Judaic and Christian mythology

In the Hebrew Bible (the Tanach) of Judaism, the speaking serpent (Hebrew nahash) in the Garden of Eden brought forbidden knowledge, but was not identified with Satan in the Book of Genesis. "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made," Genesis 3:1 reminded its readers. Nor is there any indication in Genesis that the Serpent was a deity in its own right, aside from the fact that there are only two cases of animals that talk in the Pentateuch. (Balaams` ass being the other) Although the identity of the Serpent as Satan is made explicit in the later writings of the Hebrew prophets and the New Testament of the Bible, in Genesis the Serpent is merely portrayed as a deceptive creature promoting as good what God had directly forbidden, and particularly cunning in manipulating truth toward its deceptive ends. (cf. Gen. 3:4-5 and 3:22) ...

SOURCE SOURCE: Wiki

The Epic of Gilgamesh--a story far older than the Bible--has a similar tale of a serpent and garden.

As for "he will crush your head, you will bruise his heel" ... Christians believe--using the highly subjective discipline of hermeneutics--that this is a shadow concerning Jesus. IMHO it is not.

IV. The Jewish Perspective of Genesis 3:15

Using strictly the Simple Reading (peshat in Hebrew) of Genesis 3:15, the following conclusions may be drawn:

Y The woman (Eve) is the female progenitor of mankind. [The Jewish Sages accept the notion that homo-sapiens existed before Adam & Eve, but that these were not endowed with the soul that G-d breathed into Adam’s nostrils which, in a sense, renders them as being sub-humans, or of the animal kingdom].

Y The enmity between snake and man, from mankind’s perspective, stems from the fact that in general, snakes are pests, even dangerous pests. From a snake’s perspective, it is an animal without the ability to reason and, thus, it acts on natural instincts – it must eat to survive, and its main job is to look for sustenance while protecting itself from predators.

Y The respective references to seed, i.e., offspring, point to mankind relative to Eve, and the family of snakes relative to the serpent.

This is not a messianic prophecy by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah other than in the generic sense, that the Messiah will be a human being who descended from Adam and Eve, i.e., someone of mankind. Other than that, this verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet.

SOURCE: http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html

As for Lucifer referring to a fallen Babylon king ... This is true. The term Lucifer is used only once in the Scriptures ...

John J. Robinson A Pilgrim's Path, (p. 47-48) concerning Lucifer:

"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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!"

The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."

Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and--ironically--the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."

Most kindly,

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanph
I don't think you study your Bible very much, He is in the O/T and N/T. (ISAIAH, 14: 12-17) 12-How you are fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground. You who weakened the nations! 13-For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14- I will ascend above the highest of the clouds, I will be like the Most High!. 15-Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the pits. 16-Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: Is this the man who made the earth tremble, 17- Who made the world as a wilderness And destroyed it's cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners?

Lucifer ("Morning Star" in the NIV) is mentioned only once in the OT--Isaiah 14:12-17. Read it very closely J56. It is clear that this is in reference to a haughty Babylonian king--a king who thinks himself above Yahweh. It has nothing to do with fallen angels or Satan.

Isaiah 14:12-15 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For 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:

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

15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

He is also in the book of (JOB). Satan Attacks Job's Character. (JOB, 1: 6) Now there was a day when the Sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. (the Sons of God are Angles that fell with Satan.(Note: Satan has access to enter into (GODS) presence. N/T.

Nowhere does it state that "sons of God" are fallen angels--at all. This is interpreted incorrectly. Most likely this term is identified with angels in Job 38:7. Of course, "sons of God" is used to describe "humans" in various passages in both the OT and NT: Deut. 14:1 R.S.V.; Psa. 82:6, R.S.V.; Hosea 1:10, Luke 3:38; John 1:12; 1 John 3:1.

Satan Attacks Job's Character ... That was his role--advesary. We see this with the Balaam story as well--Yahweh sends Satan to be an obstacle when God wishes to do evil against someone etc. And please note that Yahweh is in complete control over Satan--he puts limits on him.

]Job 6:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

(REVELATION, 12: 7-9) Satan (Lucifer) Thrown Out of Heaven. 7-And a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angles fought with the dragon (Lucifer); and the dragon (Lucifer) and his angles fought, 8- But they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9- So the great dragon (Lucifer) was cast out, that serpent (Lucifer) of old, called the Devil and Satan (Lucifer), who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angles were cast out with him. (New King James Version HOLY BIBLE).................

Revelation was/is a pseudonymous book written to reflect the tumultuous times of its authorship--late 90's CE. It was very unpopular--nearly excluded from the NT.

Solution:

Rev. 12 is the chief text on which J.W.'s and S.D.A.'s build their doctrine that the devil is a fallen angel. Since the devil is associated with the serpent (vs. 9) it is argued that the devil used the serpent to obtain the fall of man (Gen. 3). It is further argued that the devil must be a fallen angel since his cohorts are called angels (vs. 9). At the outset the weakness of the total argument should be indicated: Why would the disclosure of the devil's identity be reserved for the last book of scripture, and in a symbolic setting? (Even the most ardent fallen-angel devil expounder must concede the symbolic character of the dragon. A seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon isn't the kind of description one would ordinarily associate with an angel - fallen or otherwise.) Many passages describe in detail, warnings to Israel about apostacy (e.g. Exod. 32; Lev. 26; Num. 16; Deut. 28), but none of these narratives contain a warning about what would, according to J.W. and S.D.A. teaching, be the real instigator - Satan the Devil. Similarly, in the New Testament comprehensive attention is given to sin and the nature of man (e.g. Rom. 7) and just where one would expect the devil of J.W. and S.D.A. teaching to place prominently, the narratives contain no hint of such a creature. It can be expected, therefore, with such poverty of evidence in contexts where evidence is most to be expected, the recourse must be taken by S.D.A.'s and J.W.'s to the symbolic language of Revelation.

The devil of Rev. 12 is nowhere stated to be a fallen angel. Satan in the narrative is a red dragon, not a fallen angel, and if the red-dragon is symbolic of a fallen angel, then proof that the symbol should be interpreted this way is required. The argument that Satan is a fallen angel is therefore inferred, since it is not stated that such is the case in the passage.

For those who teach that Satan was cast out of heaven before the creation of man, it only needs to be pointed out that this is an anachronism since the Revelation was written about A.D. 96, and its contents are expressly stated to be about "things which were shortly {to} come to pass" (i.e., future to about A.D. 96). (Rev. 1:1).

A discussion on Rev. 12 requires that a clear distinction be made between the literal and the figurative and that a criterion or reason by which to make the choice be established before the discussion. By a fast-and-loose treatment of the figurative and literal in a predominantly symbolic book, one can make a passage support nearly any presupposition.

Failure to distinguish the literal and the figurative is at the root of all arguments which press Rev. 12 into service to prove that the devil is a rebel angel. This is indicated in the following approach in which the aim is to establish step by step that the dragon, heavens and war are all symbolic and are not to be taken literally: Since the devil of this passage is a "great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth" (vs. 3, 4), is or is not this a literal description of the fallen-angel devil?3

Assuming that it is conceded that the dragon is figurative, is the heaven of vs. 7 also figurative? (the answer is inevitable, "no"). The use of the word "heaven" in the preceding verses must then be examined to show whether or not there is consistency in this reply (remembering the distinction between the literal and figurative set out at the commencement of the discussion). Is the heaven of vs. 1 figurative? (the reply must be "yes" since the woman is clothed with the sun and the moon is under her feet, which would be a literal impossibility). Is the heaven of verse 3 the same heaven, or a different heaven from the heaven of verse 1? (Consistency demands that the answer again be "yes", but if the answer is "no", then it must be shown by the non-Christadelphian on what basis he decides between the literal and the figurative. Is this the same criterion as set out before the discussion began? Assuming that it is conceded that the heaven of verse 3 is also figurative, it only remains by the same reasoning to establish that the heaven of verse 7 is the same heaven, and therefore, is also figurative.

Since the dragon and heaven are figurative, then the war (vs. 7) must also be figurative, since one cannot have a literal war when the locale and one of the combatants are figurative.

Jesus did not believe the heavens to be the seat of angelic rebellion and subsequent war, since he taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." (Matt. 6:10).

If Satan had access to heaven until 1914 as J.W.'s teach, how did the devil manage to last so long since God is of "purer eyes than to behold evil"? (Hab. 1:13; Psa 5:4).

If the devil were a rebel angel4 against the will of God, what guarantee is there that believers be glorified with Christ, "made equal unto the angels" (Luke 20:35, 36) will not similarly rise against the authority of the Almighty once they have tasted the blessings of immortality?

The issue is - Does or does not this passage teach the existence of a fallen-angel devil? Although an exposition of the chapter might be attempted, it frequently allows too many red-herrings to be dragged into the discussion without settling the main issue.

Footnotes:

The Truth that leads to Eternal Life, (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of N.Y., Inc., Int. Bible Students As., 1968), p. 57.

Ibid., p. 83. Return

If any should argue that it is, the impossibility of casting one of the literal stars to the earth can be shown.

It should be noted that the Greek word "aggelos" translated "angels" (vs. 7, 9), can refer to either human or divine angels. The word means "messenger, agent". Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965). Aggelos refers to human messengers or agents in the following passages: Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52; and James 2:25.

SOURCE: WRESTED SCRIPTURES DICTIONARY

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b07satan/...tion12v7-9.html

Respectfully,

Sean

Edited by seanph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
honestman28

in regards to "'draconic " lucifer did exist and you should study further before making such claims. his mention is brought before the new testament and predicted. even modern events, possessed people, i've personally seen these things with my own eyes. So please don't' make such claims until you research further

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
honestman28

"Draconic" the more you speak the more idiotic you look. Lucifer is mentioned in old testament. Like i said even modern events prove Lucifer exists. i've personally seen people who have been possessed. I've seen what satan can do. things your eyes and little mind would never forget if you ever saw it. Trust me, satan exists. So As a Catholic, an experienced man, and a historian i beg you to research better, and open your mind before making such claims. You keep your mind closed you'll only look like an idiot. and nothing you say will change this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
As 67th has stated as well, you have made the false assumption that the "modern Christian popular mythology" believed in by most of mainstream Christianity about a beautiful fallen angel named Lucifer who would become a disobedient Satan in in the Bible. Well, it is not in the Bible. Christianity didn't even invent Lucifer until the 5th century AD. ALL the facts are on my side.

Yes, the Christian church did invent "Lucifer" in 5 A.D. Some say to bring the pagans into the Christian fold and others say to scare people into following the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norwood1026
and are you a professional historian? I don't think so. the Bible must be right somehow because there's alot of powerful Christians out there (I mean spiritually) All that's important is that you would do was Jesus would, Christian means Christ like and that's mostly important.

if satan didn't exist, who was the leader of the music in heaven? and the most good looking angel? it's all in the Bible, did you ever even read the Bible? because, compared to my knowledge you can't be right, no offense. :tu:

The bible can't be right just because it was man who wrote it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
"Draconic" the more you speak the more idiotic you look. Lucifer is mentioned in old testament. Like i said even modern events prove Lucifer exists. i've personally seen people who have been possessed. I've seen what satan can do. things your eyes and little mind would never forget if you ever saw it. Trust me, satan exists. So As a Catholic, an experienced man, and a historian i beg you to research better, and open your mind before making such claims. You keep your mind closed you'll only look like an idiot. and nothing you say will change this.

I thought "Draconic" made the distinguishment between "Lucifer" and "Satan" very clear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

The argument here is between people's interpretation of scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norwood1026
The argument here is between people's interpretation of scripture.

This is why I think that the bible is flawed everyone sees only what they want to. they twist the words to prove their point & ingore what they want too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.