|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 16:58:59 GMT -6
I don't think Lucifer is Satan. I don't think the Bible teaches that Lucifer is Satan. I think Lucifer is someone else.
Isaiah 14 is the only place Lucifer is mentioned. Other than the obvious meaning (Hebrew for "shining one" or "morning star" or "son of the dawn"), I think there are some clues to take into account.
The fall from heaven in Isaiah 14 is a figure of speech because Lucifer is called a star. Isaiah plainly calls him a man in verse 16. The key is the context. Isaiah chapter 14 begins with the word "For..." therefore we must go to chapter 13 to get the proper context. 13 is talking about the Day of the Lord, which is Christ's return to earth when the Lord's wrath against Babylon (and the king of Babylon) is carried out. Chapter 14 verse 16 says that the man Lucifer caused the nations to tremble...
If only there were some other character in the Bible, who is a man, and is prideful and wants to set himself up as God, and causes nations to tremble, and is associated with end time prophecy...
Lucifer is antichrist (the Beast), not Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 17:05:03 GMT -6
This assumes a Futurist interpretation of Revelation, of course...
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 13, 2016 17:13:43 GMT -6
Awesome find! You're quite brilliant, you know that?
Don't mention this on the CMR. Some members there will probably whittle down their cross necklaces to shank you with them.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 17:20:31 GMT -6
LOL not really brilliant just curious enough to go chasing truth I guess. Truth is precious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 13, 2016 18:13:23 GMT -6
I'm certainly open to the truth, which is why I readily accepted the information provided. Lucifer = Satan is one of those non-salvation related things I'd never researched myself. Makes me wonder what other things that we think are common knowledge which may present themselves otherwise with a little investigation?
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 18:21:35 GMT -6
I know what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 18:23:52 GMT -6
To be clear I do think Satan eventually enters a man and becomes one with the antichrist for a time but it's still blown my mind a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 18:24:27 GMT -6
...the same way he entered Judas...
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Apr 13, 2016 18:37:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by doommaster on Apr 13, 2016 18:47:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 19:33:58 GMT -6
I don't dispute that Ezekiel 28 is about Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 19:37:12 GMT -6
I see your point but I'm not disputing that Satan "falls" from heaven... I just believe it is during the eschatological times. I don't believe Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are talking about the same person exactly, though like I said I do believe Satan also enters the antichrist after he is expelled from heaven. Many textual critics believe Lucifer should not have been translated as a proper noun but rather a metaphorical phrase. I believe Isaiah 14 is about the antichrist specifically, and Ezekiel 28 is about Satan specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 13, 2016 20:30:33 GMT -6
It seems to me like those Ezekiel verses were calling the King of Tyre "son of man"? Is that weird?
The link doommaster posted more or less said to me "Satan fell in these verses. Lucifer fell in these. They've got to be the same.". That's still only alluding or making a reasonable deduction.
I don't know. I think DF is on to something here.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 20:45:35 GMT -6
Perhaps the Isaiah 14 saying he is fallen from heaven, if it really is the antichrist, is using that metaphor because Satan entered him... that's why the same passage can still call Lucifer a "man" who weakened the nations, because that's what the antichrist is, in his incarnation on earth. He is a man.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 13, 2016 20:48:37 GMT -6
So in a way, the prophet Isaiah is addressing both Satan and the antichrist at the same time...
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Apr 14, 2016 22:05:20 GMT -6
Just... be careful. In my research, I've seen several extremely flawed ideas of satan, to the point that they directly contradict scripture. I'm not sure why, but this just seems to be a subject that trips up a lot of people, and seems to yield an unusual amount of clinging to faulty exegeses that contradict scriptural truths.
Edit: And remember that not all mind-blowing truths are actually truths.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 4:30:52 GMT -6
I do agree that we have to be careful sometimes, but I'm not seeing any alternate explanations why "Lucifer" is called a man who weakened nations.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 15, 2016 8:19:00 GMT -6
What's the real harm in believing Satan is Lucifer or Satan isn't? As long as we're not flaming/trolling others for being on the other side of the fence, I really don't think this is even 1% as important as salvation, witnessing to others or even love.
I personally believe that the "chariot of fire" that took Elijah into the heavens was a extra-dimensional or alien UFO. I think this because "chariot" was the only vehicle at the time, therefore the only point of reference for a description. Also, the dialect used by King James's court was different than the common tongue, and every reference of "heaven" or "heavens" in the KJV literally means "up in the sky", not paradise for the afterlife.
Whether someone agrees with this theory, doesn't agree with it, or thinks I'm stark raving mad for believing it, all parties still get all my Christian love. I'm not about to hold on to this so tight that it causes problems with my brothers and sisters.
I feel the same way about Lucifer being a man too.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 15, 2016 9:04:02 GMT -6
Regarding the importance of issues, I'm looking back to something I experienced as a kid going to church. Something I kind of unearthed and was part of the reason my dad decided our family was going to go to church elsewhere.
I was going to a Christian church (that's the denomination - Christian) at the time, and in Sunday school class the teacher was using scripture regarding baptism being necessary for people to go to heaven. As a Baptist kid, I disagreed in the class in front of everyone, which was a pretty controversial for a junior high age kid to do to an old lady teacher since we were all expected to just gobble up everything she said as absolute truth.
My arguments were - What about what Jesus said to the thief on the cross next to him? - So, if someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and savior, but dies in a car wreck on their way to a baptism, they're just screwed?
Their counter arguments were those were "exceptions" because of "God's grace". We didn't get much farther than that because there were a pile of Bible verses to prove each point.
There were pretty heated church meetings about this (my dad, a deacon there, told me about them) and families were divided almost in half. Ones that believed baptism AND accepting Christ as savior was required for salvation. Ones that believe only accepting Christ is the only requirement.
Me as the kid who's now pretty quiet about this couldn't help but notice that everyone arguing (on both sides) has accepted Christ and is also baptized. Definitely seemed to me that the fighting about the issue was infinitely bigger than how important the issue actually was - at least for the ones doing the fighting.
That's why there's heaps of ash all around the CMR forum. People would rather shelve good old fashioned acceptance, peace and love behind broadcasting what's wrong, brow beating people over what's wrong and aligning the thinking of others to their own. ...over something that has very little to do with the salvation of anyone.
I get there are verses stating to smash false teachings and to stand up for truth, but I don't think it was intended to be done up to and beyond the point of fighting and harming others. ....especially fellow Christians. Talk about not being able to see the forest because there's too many trees in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 9:23:10 GMT -6
Oh I agree completely Thomas. I'm not trying to browbeat here. I just genuinely enjoy discussing theology and exegesis.
I also agree with you on water baptism. I did a write-up on it back a couple years ago. I had e-mailed an online ministry website to ask them to remove their claim on the "How to be saved" page that stated that a person MUST be water baptized or they aren't saved. We went back and forth for several e-mails and they never took it down. They believed in baptismal regeneration (Oneness Pentecostalism). Looking back, I probably shouldn't have done it but my heart was in the right place at the time (I didn't want people misled or doubting their salvation because they hadn't been water baptized). Probably just better to let the denominations teach what they teach.
Anyway, if I think of it this weekend I'll try to dig up the flash drive that has my write-up on water baptism and post it here.
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Apr 15, 2016 9:31:51 GMT -6
What's the real harm in believing Satan is Lucifer or Satan isn't? I'm not sure if there's really an issue with this specific topic. I've never heard it before. I just said that a lot of misunderstandings about the devil in general, lead to contradictions with scripture. In particular, the prophecies in the book of Revelation, which we're ordered not to contradict. Many Jews and Messianic Jews, for instance, claim that the devil "didn't rebel against God", but is an angel specifically sent out by God to work evil things. Ideas like that are in contradiction with, among other verses of course, prophecies in Revelation which portray the devil as being in rebellion, and being punished for his actions.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 9:53:14 GMT -6
Satan has operated under God's supervision and restriction; the Old Testament has made that clear. I do not, however, believe that God initiated the fall of man. I believe God had to "put up" with Satan because Satan made the argument that it was man who rebelled, he only tempted. I know that God is all-powerful but He is also just. Rom. 6:16 says whoever we obey becomes our master so when Adam and Eve disobeyed they made Satan their master so God could not destroy Satan without destroying man too. God used him to accomplish goals in the Old Testament I believe, and God's putting up with him for the time being. He will be cast down, and eventually into the lake of fire, at the end.
I'm still formulating my beliefs a little, but I have come to a place where I have to let the Bible say what it says despite man's traditions.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 9:57:59 GMT -6
That's not to say God controls EVERYTHING Satan does, far from it. I'm saying God has directly used him before at least a couple times in the Old Testament (at least that's what the text indicates).
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Apr 15, 2016 10:59:38 GMT -6
Satan has operated under God's supervision and restriction; the Old Testament has made that clear Restriction, yeah. But supervision?
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 12:14:23 GMT -6
Maybe supervision was a poor term, but if you agree with "restriction" (i.e. God "allowed" Satan to do certain things in the Old Testament to accomplish His goals of preserving mankind) then you get what I'm trying to say and I don't think we're irreconcilable in our thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Apr 15, 2016 12:43:40 GMT -6
By "supervision" I meant mostly monitoring and not mandating.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 15, 2016 13:45:39 GMT -6
Oh I agree completely Thomas. I'm not trying to browbeat here. I just genuinely enjoy discussing theology and exegesis. I also agree with you on water baptism. I did a write-up on it back a couple years ago. I had e-mailed an online ministry website to ask them to remove their claim on the "How to be saved" page that stated that a person MUST be water baptized or they aren't saved. We went back and forth for several e-mails and they never took it down. They believed in baptismal regeneration (Oneness Pentecostalism). Looking back, I probably shouldn't have done it but my heart was in the right place at the time (I didn't want people misled or doubting their salvation because they hadn't been water baptized). Probably just better to let the denominations teach what they teach. Anyway, if I think of it this weekend I'll try to dig up the flash drive that has my write-up on water baptism and post it here. Oh yeah chief. You're far from browbeating in here. Huge difference between that and discussion, even debate. When I say brow beating, I'm thinking at some point, emotion trumps intellect and the discussion is more about someone being wrong vs. Here's the correct information. Back and forth emails with someone regarding these subjects is still fair play in my opinion, as long as it doesn't venture into brow beating land.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Apr 17, 2016 17:42:40 GMT -6
I just believe it is during the eschatological times. I think I had one of those eschatological things as part of my cancer treatment. [itsme]
|
|