Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[Exodus16]

Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement.
New question: is Satan a fallen angel?
and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man.
Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement.
New question: is Satan a fallen angel?
and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man.
Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will.

Satan is indeed "fallen" as Isaiah 14.12 states, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the morning."

Satan also had a free will, as he decided to lift up his heart against God, and a third of the other angels with free-wills followed him. (Isa. 14.13-15, Ezek. 28.12-19)

Satan was the chief archangel, who apparently administrated all of God's creation. When he rebelled, all creation suffered.

Today, he is indeed a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Satan is indeed "fallen" as Isaiah 14.12 states, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the morning."

Satan also had a free will, as he decided to lift up his heart against God, and a third of the other angels with free-wills followed him. (Isa. 14.13-15, Ezek. 28.12-19)

Satan was the chief archangel, who apparently administrated all of God's creation. When he rebelled, all creation suffered.

Today, he is indeed a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.

A Jew (that is, someone who actually understands the Old Testament) would disagree with you, it doesn't say Satan in those verses.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Jew (that is, someone who actually understands the Old Testament) would disagree with you, it doesn't say Satan in those verses.

Read the verses.

You disagree with all I post, and now you are telling me that all the Jews will too?

[Exodus16]

Ok, who then is Daystar?
The repeated use of "I will" does seem to indicate some will power.
Are there verses that would show a lack of free will?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read the verses.

You disagree with all I post, and now you are telling me that all the Jews will too?

I have read the verses and this is why I disagree with you.

For example,

Ezekiel 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan.

All the verses refer to the kings. The start of Isaiah chapter 13 says "A Prophecy Against Babylon" in a number of bible versions.

Many Christians believe those verses refer to Satan because that is what they have been taught to believe. But the verses don't actually mention Lucifer or Satan.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read the verses and this is why I disagree with you.

For example,

Ezekiel 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan.

All the verses refer to the kings.

Satan was an angel created by God before He created the earth. The book of Job (38:4-7) tells us that when God laid the measure of the foundation of the earth, the sons of God (the angels) shouted for joy. This proves that God created the angels before He created the earth. From Ezekiel 28 we see that Satan was not only one of the angels, but the highest archangel, the head of all the angels.

Ezekiel 28 describes Satan's position in the universe before his rebellion and corruption. This whole chapter seems to speak about the king of Tyre. But verse 13 says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God." If we read the context, we can see that this was not the Eden in which Adam was put. This Eden was not on the earth, but in the heavens, on the holy mountain of God. (Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 2, Section 2)

Are you saying that the King of Tyre was in the Eden of God?

Ezekiel 28:12-14 says, “Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” (Witness Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 1, Vol. 1, Chapter 4, Section 2)

Are you saying the King of Tyre is the anointed cherub that covers and that God set him upon the holy mountain of God?

[Evangelical]

The average Christian (whose extent of biblical and spiritual understanding only has 5 main elements - God, Jesus, heaven, hell, Satan, angels and demons) thinks, "it's addressed to the King of Tyre, I'll ignore that obvious fact, but it mentions Eden and cherubs, so it must be referring to Satan". And I would ask you and them.. where does it say that the serpent in Genesis was covered in all of these precious stones? If anything it could be describing one of the angels guarding the tree of life!

It's a conflation and not the meaning of the text. Ask any Jew, it's their Scripture isn't it? It is clearly addressed to the King of Tyre. There is a perfectly rational explanation for the meaning of "Eden" and "cherubs", as explained below:

175The term Eden may be used metaphorically to describe the splendor of the temple complex of Tyre’s main god Melqart, with whom the king was seeking identity.555 This garden dweller was not naked, as was Adam in the biblical Garden of Eden. He walks in his garden wearing a luxurious robe or breastplate on which were nine556 precious stones displayed in the most exquisite settings of gold.557 It seemed that his magnificent garb had been prepared especially for the garden dweller from the day of his creation, i.e., his enthronement (v 13).

3. His occupation (28:14): You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you on the holy mountain of God. You walked about in the midst of the stones of fire. The figure changes a bit in v 14. The king of Tyre is now likened to a cherub.558 In the ancient Near East, a cherub was depicted as a sphinxlike creature with an animal body, wings, and a human head. These statutory creatures normally guarded the entrances to pagan temples. Cherubim in the Old Testament are always depicted as guarding something. Cherubim guarded the entrance to the original garden (Gen 3:24). For this reason the king of Tyre is depicted guarding his paradise, the garden of his god Melqart.559 He spread his wings over Tyre like the cherubim who guarded the ark of God in the tabernacle and temple. The king is said to have been on the holy mountain of God560 (v 14). The phrase is probably synonymous with the garden of God. This will be a further description of Tyre situated on its rocky isle.

http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/in.../2012/02/3711/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read the verses and this is why I disagree with you.

For example,

Ezekiel 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan.

All the verses refer to the kings. The start of Isaiah chapter 13 says "A Prophecy Against Babylon" in a number of bible versions.

Many Christians believe those verses refer to Satan because that is what they have been taught to believe. But the verses don't actually mention Lucifer or Satan.

That's like saying that Psalm 8.2-8 do not refer to Jesus Christ.

Better tell the writer of Hebrews 2 that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying that Psalm 8.2-8 do not refer to Jesus Christ.

Better tell the writer of Hebrews 2 that.

Not really. We know that Psalm 8 refers to Christ because of Hebrews 2. There is no New testament verse that I know of that links Satan with Ezekiel 28:12, or Isaiah 14:12.

If we cannot find such a reference in the New Testament, we should conclude that they only refer to the kings and not to Satan. For Isaiah 14:12 there is Luke 10:18. But the only connection is "falling from heaven", and the connection that it must refer to Satan is not so clear.

I can easily prove that Isaiah 14:12 is not talking about Satan or any angel, because verse 16 says this:

Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Because verse 16 says it is talking about a man, and Satan has never been a man, we can conclude that Isaiah 14:12 is not about Satan and there is no explicit link to Luke 10:18 which is referring to Satan's (not a man's) fall from heaven.

[Exodus16]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement.
New question: is Satan a fallen angel?
and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man.
Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will.

Actually I don't know if I disagree with the first statement.
Bc talking over these things verbally with a disinterested family member, I found myself agreeing with the opposite as well.
Back to the big question: How do these beliefs about satan shape my actions and relationships with others?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

How do these beliefs about satan shape my actions and relationships with others?

My (provisional) belief is this:

Fall 1. Satan

Originally Posted by Isaiah 14:12

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 28:12

“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Fall 2. Humanity.

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Pretty familiar. We know the rest of the story.

But Fall 3 isn't widely known. I talk to people who go regularly to church and they go, "huh?"

Originally Posted by Genesis 6

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

The third fall is significant to the narrative because:

1. The Book of Enoch goes into this story in some detail. The Epistle to Jude quotes Enoch's epistle, showing that a detailed narrative of the angelic fall was known to the early Christian believers. Additionally, Jesus quotes commonalities to Enoch, such as the "spirit flies out of a man and goes through waterless places, seeking rest", and that Hades is composed of 2 parts, quite distinct, with an impassable gulf in between.

2. Jude v. 6 also talks of "angels who didn't keep their assigned places, but fell" which seems to reference this same story.

3. 2 Peter 2 also references disobedient angels, now chained in gloomy Tartarus. Both Jude and 2 Peter 2 are parallel texts. So there are 2 witnesses in the NT. If they're referencing something other than Genesis 6 it's hard to imagine.

4. Revelation 12:4 speaks of the tail of the great serpent taking 1/3 of the stars from heaven. Again, I strongly suspect this is the Genesis 6 story, re-cast. Or else there are "two falls" (or more) of angels, with the subsequent narratives now lost, which I don't see suggested anywhere. Given that the Genesis 6 story looms so large in the NT imagination, I suspect the Revelation 12 and Genesis 6 are two views of the same fall.

Now to your question: All of this operationally shapes our views and actions towards others, how?

Answer: Jesus dealt with all 3 falls. He destroyed him who had the power of sin and death. Hebrews 2:14

He set the prisoners free. Humanity. See Isaiah 61:1, quoted in the gospels. See also Psalm 68:18, quoted by Paul in Ephesians 4.

But aftermath of the third fall is not often dealt with by the church, to its detriment. But look how often Jesus dealt with the third fall, operationally!

Originally Posted by Mark 1

23 Suddenly a man with an unclean spirit cried out in the synagogue: 24 “What do You want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are — the Holy One of God!” 25 But Jesus rebuked the spirit and said, “Be silent! Come out of him!”…

So when Jesus said, "Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?", I think He was referring to the aftermath of the third fall.

Notice that the third fall depended on the second, just as the second fall depended upon the first. The daughters of (fallen) men were attractive to the angels, and lured them just as satan used the tree of knowledge to attract and lure Adam and Eve.

So the way back, as I see it, is to deal comprehensively with the narrative in scriptural text, not truncate it to our simplistic liking. If this informs your relations with your neighbors that probably would be a good thing. It certainly seems to be quite relevant to the gospel narrative.

Acts 10. The gospel (good news) to the gentiles:

37 You yourselves know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee with the baptism that John proclaimed: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him. 39 We're witnesses of all that He did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.…

If you saw a treasure map, would you only use half of it? Would you assume any detail was irrelevant, before the treasure lay in your hand? Paul said, "I've not yet laid hold" (Phi 3:12); if Paul elsewhere said he saw so dimly (1 Cor 13:12), shouldn't we also humble ourselves, continue to examine, and look, and question both ourselves and the text?

The main problem with the Protestant reformation is we think we know so much. We really don't know much at all. And this really impinges upon our ability to affect the world: to smash the evil forces, to set the prisoners free, proclaim the light, wreck the gates of Hades, obviate sin and death, and ruin the prince of this age. It isn't our ignorance so much that's the problem, as it is our ignorance of our ignorance. If you know what I mean.

Lee's "high peak" theology is Exhibit A. It was high only in his presumptive, fallen imagination. It needs a small Bible to survive. If you quote the "wrong" texts in the Lc, they get nervous. Their kingdom begins to totter in front of them.

What kind of gospel is that?

[Exodus16]

Notice that the third fall depended on the second, just as the second fall depended upon the first. The daughters of (fallen) men were attractive to the angels, and lured them just as satan used the tree of knowledge to attract and lure Adam and Eve.
Wait who's luring whom?
This just got all "Leda and the Swan"

To clarify you are saying:
1. Satan fell
2. Humanity
3. 1/3 of the Angels fell

In an earlier comment. I spoke about a progressive fall of humanity. As I remember the steps to this were:
1. Mankind was ejected from Eden with a curse and a promise
2. Noah's ark after which lifespans were shortened, animals were given to man as food and the rainbow and its promise
3. Tower of Babel after which the languages of the earth were confused

[aron]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Wait who's luring whom?
This just got all "Leda and the Swan"

To clarify you are saying:
1. Satan fell
2. Humanity
3. 1/3 of the Angels fell

Notice that Genesis 6 is after Genesis 3? Unless that's irrelevant in what is otherwise clearly a chronological narrative, or there's some unnamed event in which the tail of the Dragon sweeps 1/3 of the stars out of heaven, and/or the "sons of God" were already poisoned before descending to earth to connubiate with poisoned humanity.

Leda and the Swan I don't know about - Greek myth? Not really interested, as my curiosity does have its limits.

Most Protestant Christians aren't interested in such subjects as the fall of the angels, either. And those that are, if Google is any indicator, often link them to Nephilim, Area 51, and whether Condoleezza Rice is an alien reptile. Again, my curiosity has limits.

But I'll say this: if you begin to consider it, it does help explain things like Paul writing to sisters to cover their heads "for the sake of the angels", and so forth.

And to me, to gloss over such matters is like saying that you're going after Hitler, and when someone points out the location of a Panzer division you say, "I don't care about them." Well, okay then.

[Exodus16]

I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.
It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated.
Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body Burka.

I was taught that head covering wasn't about sex but authority. Soldiers cover their heads in recognition of the chain of command. Satan rebelled against God, he stepped out from under His authority. Women covering their heads indicates they come under their husbands' authority. This is a powerful sign to angels, bc submitting in the fallen condition of humanity is much harder than submitting to God's righteous authority.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.

It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated.
Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body burka

I understand your concerns. Nonetheless it's worth considering what the writers & readers of the NT believed, before deciding how appropriate or even harmful such views might seem today.

Thanks for coming onboard. Your views are valuable. Here it's okay to have an opinion or point of view.