lucifer - Page 3

acerrak · #21 06-07-2011, 08:03 AM

saduccess was the same way, no spirits no angels etc etc.

Sam · #22 06-07-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerrak

saduccess was the same way, no spirits no angels etc etc.

They were very sadducee (sad you see) because they did not believe in the resurrection

Nitehawk013 · #23 06-07-2011, 12:45 PM

Never said for a second that I, nor has anyone else here, deny the existence of Satan. Merely completely disagree with Lucifer, a name that could not possibly have been in the HEBREW writing Isaiah, being the "origin" story of Satan.

The fact that Ezekiel and Isaiah attribute "heavenly" or non-human atrributes to kings does not make them some sort of veiled lessons about Satan. Why stop with those two? In Ezekiel alone at least 2 other kings are addressed in poetic language that makes them sound as though they are not simply the kings thatthe verse4s themselves tell us they are.

mfblume · #24 06-07-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

People can get so logically minded they rule out anything supernatural in the Scriptures... until their child gets sick or possessed.

We have to face it... I know the human ego wants to be the center of it all. We want it to be all about us. But there are greater creatures in this creation that are higher than man. Fearsome, strange, and downright freaky creatures. Are they some sort of living hieroglyph? I think the idea is cool... clearly these very real beasts represent a greater reality. Every lamb slaughtered in the OT was a literal lamb, but typified Christ. These can be literal angelic creatures and be living hieroglyphs. I see them as living celestial representatives of creation itself. They are seen when all creation is giving praise to the Lamb of God.

I cast out devils, seen cancers healed and use word of knowledge, so the supernatural is not something we explain away at all. lol. Angels are not cherubims. They have the faces of earthly creatures and I believe were very literal beings, but even existing in reality are still symbolic. So I think they are literal creatures. Yes. But they are representative. Living hieroglyphs.

Cherubims were on the ark over the mercyseat indicating we are seated with Christ on his throne over all powers.

CHERUBS are COVERING entities. Covering means authority and power. Adam had authority in the Garden over the earth. TRADITION says the king of Tyrus was satan, but that is tradition. It may be right. But I lean towards Adam.

mfblume · #25 06-07-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Adam was a cherub?

Adam was a human being, but cherub is a positional picture. Covering and authority. Cherubs are not angels, btw. Try to find the bible saying cherubims were angels. Try to find where the bible says Michael or Gabriel are called cherubim. We have the tradition of cherubs as though they were naked babies with bows and arrows, or else a high level of angelic beings. But that is tradition. To strip away the tradition and leave us only with what the bible actually says reveals that the bible never said they were angels. If Satan was a cherub, then so is Michael and Gabriel. But the bible does not say they are. As I said, Cherubs had EARTHLY creatures' faces. The same four classes of creatures that Adam named. I am not saying they were not actual physical beings God placed in the Garden. But they were creatures solely created for SYMBOLIC imagery and message. They are not angels.

Like you said, lambs actually died and were sacrificed to show the message of Christ's cross. Yet these are different from cherubs ("cherubim" is "cherub" in plural). Cherubim were earthly faced creatures, and stood for the tribes of Israel , the people of God around the Tabernacle. They did not speak of angelic beings.

pastor RICK · #26 06-07-2011, 03:29 PM

wow this has went kinda crazy .. nowhere near topic now are we?

mfblume · #27 06-07-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastor RICK

wow this has went kinda crazy .. nowhere near topic now are we?

It's all related, since Lucifer was alleged to be satan and the King of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28, and Ezek 28 called him a CHERUB.

pastor RICK · #28 06-07-2011, 04:44 PM

oh yes bro i understand that , there were other post i was referring too. ,,i like just reading as i can ,, appreciate others view even if it is not like mine ..

i dont belive the devil ever was in heaven ..he was a liar from the beginning.. he was the smith that was created that isiaiah talked about the smith that bloweth the coals..

i dont believe that angels have free will ..

i do believe lucifer was adam ,, and cain was of that wicked one ,which was adam.

i dont think angels or anyother type being has a chance of sneaking around god and trying to dethrone him ,that doctrine is found in the 1st book of imaginations .. chapter 1 lol..

acerrak · #29 06-07-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastor RICK

oh yes bro i understand that , there were other post i was referring too. ,,i like just reading as i can ,, appreciate others view even if it is not like mine ..

i dont belive the devil ever was in heaven ..he was a liar from the beginning.. he was the smith that was created that isiaiah talked about the smith that bloweth the coals..

i dont believe that angels have free will ..

i do believe lucifer was adam ,, and cain was of that wicked one ,which was adam.

i dont think angels or anyother type being has a chance of sneaking around god and trying to dethrone him ,that doctrine is found in the 1st book of imaginations .. chapter 1 lol..

what bible are you reading??

new world order tranlation :P

pastor RICK · #30 06-07-2011, 09:30 PM

kjv.. try hooked on phonics lol.