Revelation; Satan fell from Heaven

Originally posted by dontreally
As a Torah following person i do obviously believe in a concept of 'resurrection' but i have no idea what that idea in itself entails. If it means the ressurection of matter - okay, fine. Thats a Jewish idea. In the far off messianic times there is a belief that matter and spirit will become so merged that there will simply not be a point of definitive separation between them.

What i dont get though is thr idea of a 'new testament'

I can understand the purpose in christianity for non Jews...but what possible purpose can christianity give to a Jew - whose ancestors experienced the greatest revelation mankind has ever recieved - the exodus from Egypt and the giving of the torah to millions of Jews at mt. sinai.

Why would G-d perform such a wonderous miracle only to follow it 1400 years later with some guy preaching a zoroastrianesque theology. The success of the christian church is due to nothing else but the Roman empire. Thus, one must logically deduce, if he understands the nature of politics that the Romans probably established christianity as a way to

• overcome the social influence of Judaism
  
• imbed their theological beliefs within its scripture (new testament)
  
• control the masses
  
  And they accomplished all 3.

Alot of Jews like to make the assumption that Rome managed to get their fingers into all of our texts and add what they wished. This may be true in the Roman Catholic Church, which omitted the second commandment among other things, but not all of the Church was under Rome. This is a common misconception among westerners who believe that the RCC was the only Church until Protestantism. That was only one small patriarchate of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox church always seem to get overlooked. The original Church was mostly established in Antioch and to a lesser degree Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Rome claimed to be the autocratic leader of the church and the rest of the Patriarchs split from Rome. Constantine only influenced dogma, which turned out to rule the lives of Christians for generations as opposed to the Biblical texts, because most people were illiterate. They didn't even have to alter the texts to lie to people. Look at the teachings of Ya'hshuah and see if they support the Crusades. Pagan influences, while often accepted in Rome, were violently rejected in the East. The adoption of Icons into Church artwork lead to the organization of the iconoclasts that went out of their way to smash every last image of a human being in a church that they could find. The iconography won out in the end, but only after years of indifferent rulers, did the iconophiles get a sympathetic leader. Can you imagine the uproar if someone altered the texts? Furthermore, the Coptic and Ethiopian churches had no Roman interference and were practically forgotten until the 1700's. Their theology is nearly identical to the rest of the Orthodox (aside from being monophysite) though have curious Judaizer elements (keeping the Sabbath and the Lord's Day). The Judaizers (now would be considered Messianic Jews) also would not have stood for alterations in the scriptures. The ancient manuscripts of the NT date back long before Christianity became the state religion of Rome and they are all in 95% of agreement with each other. In conclusion, the only tamperings with the NT texts have been through bad translations like the Vulgate. The Orthodox meanwhile have retained the ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT and the Septuagint, which is far older than the Masoretic texts. And don't get me started on the Talmud and the Kaballah (unless you're a Karaite Jew and in which case, thumbs up). Christianity; believe it or don't, but don't belittle us and our sensibilities

There are books that exist outside of the traditional Biblical Canon which talk about 'Lucifer's fall from Heaven.' Very Interesting books to read. I am sure some here have heard of the book of Enoch. Well in the book of Enoch it speaks of this very thing. It also says that the fallen Angels gave mankind knowledge with the intent of deceiving us. Enoch refers to these fallen angels as the "Watchers". According to him, one-third of the heavenly host left with Lucifer in the rebellion. Interesting stuff that gives you a new perspective on this event.

I forget which book I read this in but there is another thing that I found highly interesting. Before the rebellion and right after God had created man, he called the heavenly host to come and worship the Image of God (Man). So the heavenly host is lined up and Lucifer is behind Michael. They are having a conversation and Lucifer is asking Michael "Why must I worship this creature when I was created before him"? Michael responds by saying:

"Because he is made in Gods image,and our creator has called us to kneel before the Image of our God."

Now keep in mind this is BEFORE THE FALL. At this point Lucifer is livid and burning with jealously because he sought what Man had. So he tells Michael that he will not kneel before that which was created after him. Michael tells him "Then our God will punish you for this transgression". Lucifer then says that he will set his throne above the Most High God. At this point he incites one-third of the heavenly host to rebellion. The main reason for the rebellion? The angels were jealous that god had created man in his image and commanded them to worship his image.

Some time after this the angels that rebelled deceived us, resulting in our fall and the fall of all manifested creation.

These books also talk about Christ and his purpose. Which was to restore us to our pre-fall state. He is to give us knowledge that proves we have been deceived. One of these deceptions is death. He allowed his crucifixion to prove his claims about the deception that is death. The books say that the rulers of the world are these fallen angels and they hold all of mankind in a grand deception of what we think is reality. It's very interesting stuff that explains alot.

Originally posted by kallisti36
Revelation isn't all prophecy it speaks of what was, is, and shall be. The earlier chapters have already happened. Mary had already given birth to the Messiah by the time John began writing on Patmos, so chronologically speaking, the dragon had been cast down by then. Bear in mind that the Messiah was pre-existant in Heaven, so he could have seen Satan fall at any time in the past.

Thank you for that contribution.
I certainly agree with your comments on the chronology of Revelation. I've always been describing ch12 as a "flashback" chapter, because it takes the story back to the birth of Christ.
See,e.g., The Woman in Heaven
But I still think, as I was saying to Alethea, that the remark in Luke needs to be understood in context as part of the conversation.
If the conversation runs;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, I think your enemy is losing power."
Then that is a very natural and comprehensible piece of dialogue.
Whereas if the conversation runs;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, and Satan rebelled against God before the world was created."
Then Jesus seems to be giving an answer which has no connection with what he has just heard.

My preference for the first version doesn't amount to assuming that the disciples had a complete understanding of what Jesus said. In fact the gospel doen't mention any kind of reaction. But surely it's reasonable to suppose that a person's conversation should at least make sense to himself? That Jesus would answer the people who addressed him in ways which responded to what they said (though sometimes obliquely), instead of being complete non-sequiturs?

And, yes, the Messiah was pre-existent. But could Christ, on earth, have had any conscious memory of that pre-existence? The early church was at great pains to establish the point that Christ was fully human as well as being fully divine- with a mind which was fully human. It seems to me that the full humanity of his mind is in danger of being compromised if he''s attributed with memories of pre-existence, during the period of his life on earth. That seems to be another reason to question the idea that he could be recalling a pre-Creation "fall of Satan", or any kind of "fall of Satan" based on such memories.

reply to post by dontreally
How Did The Maji Know?
Q. In reading your posts on Daniel chapter 9 about the 483 years till Jesus’ Crucifixion. How did the Persian Priests know what year to look for the star as the sign of Jesus birth?


A. Daniel had a relationship with these priests when he was placed in charge of them by King Darius (Daniel 6:3). The prophecy he received from Gabriel included the time they should start counting and the number of years it would take after that for the Messiah to come (Daniel 9:25). Daniel most likely gave them this information and they passed it along from father to son until the prophesied time came to pass.

In some circles Daniel is credited with founding the Maji , disclosing the time line to them, and perhaps entrusting them with his accumulated treasure for delivery to the Christ Child. If so, the gifts the Maji brought to Bethlehem could actually have come from Daniel. gracethrufaith.com...

you call it "zoroastrianesque theology" but didn't God put the stars in their places and make them for signs ?..Just like any truth that can be misunderstood weather in word or in symbol one should not throw out the baby [so to speek] Humans have been on a journey for quite a time now ..I have recently looked into this pyramid zodiac thing lately and although new to it I have found incredible information that actually helps me understand my Christian faith better ..I have found myself having to unwind myself from some of the false teachings within Christianity as well ...You can be sure that the truth can be found but that satan is always looking for ways to mislead and deceive .....peace

What fallen angel..??

Imagine a huge/deadly weapon array in earth’s orbit being zapped in galactic wars between “what ever forces” and crashed down somewhere (in depth of Pacific Ocean 11 km. to you and me) called Satan/Lucifer or what ever hundred of thousands of years before.

I have said it billions of times before and saying it again... bible is nothing more than recorded events in the past like Mahabharata telling by the survivals.

reply to post by amkia

That doesn't count as interpretation of the Bible.
There is no reason why that isolated sentence should be referring to the story which you've invented for it..

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by amkia

 

That doesn't count as interpretation of the Bible.
There is no reason why that isolated sentence should be referring to the story which you've invented for it..

I said “imagine”..!

The Bible is full of it so the Mahabharata, I’ll take Mahabharata more seriously because it is much older and much more detailed than bible!

To be honest..

Something horrible happened in the past forcing us to total amnesia, war between good and evil.. war between what ever, we human are the victims!

reply to post by amkia

This thread is an exercise in interpreting the intended meaning of a passage of Biblical prophecy..
There is a separate forum on this site for fictional writing.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by amkia

 

This thread is an exercise in interpreting the intended meaning of a passage of Biblical prophecy..
There is a separate forum on this site for fictional writing.

Good that you have mention “fictional”..

Do you have any “evidence” of falling angel or god for that matter..? do you believe what ever is written in bible..??

The older version of Satan you can find in Persian mythology called “Ahriman”. Do you know what Ahriman is mate..? He was created at the same time as Ahura-mazda by Ormozd!
Simply the opposite side of what Ahura-mazda was!

The whole story of God almighty and his rebellion Satan is borrowed from much older scripts formed cowardly in form of a book called Bible!

Do your home work …

reply to post by amkia

I'm not here to prove the Bible.
As I said before, my purpose on this thead is to work towards an understanding of what, exactly, the Bible is trying to say.
The place for controversies between religions is in the "Conspiracy in religion" forum.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by amkia

 

I'm not here to prove the Bible.
As I said before, my purpose on this thead is to work towards an understanding of what, exactly, the Bible is trying to say.
The place for controversies between religions is in the "Conspiracy in religion" forum.

edit on 1-1-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

You may misunderstand a bit; I am not talking about any conspiracies, I simply giving you a chance to widen up your perspectives!

The oldest religion with written scripts is Zarathustrianism and the oldest human/GODS epic is Mahabharata start from there before you make any conclusions.

reply to post by amkia

As I said, this is an exercise in understanding the meaning of a prophetic portion of the Bible.
You're referring to a book which does not relate to the Biblical God, and therefore it has no relevance whatever to the interpretation of the Bible. It belongs to a different religion.

reply to post by DISRAELI



Ahh


You keep forgetting that where the torah and bible stories are borrowed from!

reply to post by amkia

I've already stated the purpose of this thread.
You're not going to draw me into off-topic controversy.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by kallisti36
Revelation isn't all prophecy it speaks of what was, is, and shall be. The earlier chapters have already happened. Mary had already given birth to the Messiah by the time John began writing on Patmos, so chronologically speaking, the dragon had been cast down by then. Bear in mind that the Messiah was pre-existant in Heaven, so he could have seen Satan fall at any time in the past.

Thank you for that contribution.
I certainly agree with your comments on the chronology of Revelation. I've always been describing ch12 as a "flashback" chapter, because it takes the story back to the birth of Christ.
See,e.g., The Woman in Heaven
But I still think, as I was saying to Alethea, that the remark in Luke needs to be understood in context as part of the conversation.
If the conversation runs;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, I think your enemy is losing power."
Then that is a very natural and comprehensible piece of dialogue.
Whereas if the conversation runs;
DISCIPLES; "We have been very successful."
JESUS; "Yes, and Satan rebelled against God before the world was created."
Then Jesus seems to be giving an answer which has no connection with what he has just heard.

My preference for the first version doesn't amount to assuming that the disciples had a complete understanding of what Jesus said. In fact the gospel doen't mention any kind of reaction. But surely it's reasonable to suppose that a person's conversation should at least make sense to himself? That Jesus would answer the people who addressed him in ways which responded to what they said (though sometimes obliquely), instead of being complete non-sequiturs?

And, yes, the Messiah was pre-existent. But could Christ, on earth, have had any conscious memory of that pre-existence? The early church was at great pains to establish the point that Christ was fully human as well as being fully divine- with a mind which was fully human. It seems to me that the full humanity of his mind is in danger of being compromised if he''s attributed with memories of pre-existence, during the period of his life on earth. That seems to be another reason to question the idea that he could be recalling a pre-Creation "fall of Satan", or any kind of "fall of Satan" based on such memories.

edit on 1-1-2011 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Ah, you've bumped into one of the earliest points of contention in the Church. At the council of Chalcedon, they came to the conclusion that Christ was fully man and fully God. Not everyone agreed with this; these are the monophysites. They believe that Christ was the Holy Spirit personified in man. He had all of the weaknesses of the human frame, but was of one divine nature. Don't forget that Ya'hshuah was astonishing Rabbis even as a child and he did not cry when he was born. Also remember him saying "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". He was in a human body, but there was nothing human about him, because he never sinned or fell to temptation. He endured all of the sufferings of life, but did not sin and was fully aware of his purpose. You often hear that failure makes us human and we do not know our place in the universe. So if none of these apply to the nature of Christ, then his nature wouldn't be human.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure on this matter, because it isn't very well addressed in scripture. I'm not even sure of the trinity doctrine. I don't think dogmas are all that important, it's the message that matters.

Originally posted by amkia
What fallen angel..??

Imagine a huge/deadly weapon array in earth’s orbit being zapped in galactic wars between “what ever forces” and crashed down somewhere (in depth of Pacific Ocean 11 km. to you and me) called Satan/Lucifer or what ever hundred of thousands of years before.

Cthulhu?

Originally posted by kallisti36
you've bumped into one of the earliest points of contention in the Church. At the council of Chalcedon, they came to the conclusion that Christ was fully man and fully God. Not everyone agreed with this; these are the monophysites. They believe that Christ was the Holy Spirit personified in man. He had all of the weaknesses of the human frame, but was of one divine nature.

Yes, I was doing this "bumping" very consciously.
My personal view is that the balanced view of Chalcedon gets it right- we need to remember both aspects.
Whereas popular faith is always in danger of slipping over into unconscious Apollinarianism (i.e. the view that the divine Logos took the place of the human mind in Christ).

reply to post by kallisti36


I appreciate the derisive "dont get me started with Talmud or Kabbalah". Im sure you know much about it.

Let me explain something that many of the orthodox mainstreeam christians dont seem to comphrehend. All religious texts are allegorical/mystical in nature. It is the nature of this world that the spiritual is spoken of through the medium of symbol. Thus, the books of the Bible are all allegorical.

Also, another seldom understand thing about Judaism is the prominence and centality of the Torah. The entire revelation at Sinai and the giving of the Torah constitute the essence of Judaism. The "Talmud" which included the Mishna and Midrashim is the written codification of the Oral Torah. At the time that it was put into writing, the Rabbinic leaders (and this is history) were being hunted down by the Roman Empire. The christians have never faced oppression as ferocious as Titus and Hadrians persecution of the Jews circa 30 - 250 CE. 650,000 Jews were killed in this period. Judaisms greatest leaders were being sought after by the legions of the most "greek" of emperors, Hadrian (thus is was apt that it was he who sought to exterminate them). The Talmud records the murder of the '10 martyrs' the ten rabbinic leaders who were publically executed with the greatest of them, rabbi Akiba being a very gory one. Thus, the Oral Torah needed to be expanded upon in Writing. Again, Just like the Torah, Neviyim and Ketuvim, the Talmud, Mishna and Midrashim are highly allegorical. All Rabbinic writings are written in this manner which is why im so amused by people who give a casual 'study' of it (not easy by any means - The Talmud constitutes some 80 volumes of work - never mind the Mishna, commentaries etc) and than thihkn their now qualified to criticize it,.

So, firstly, the Talmud and Oral Tradition of Judaism is completely legitimate. Anyone who has properly studied Kabbalah - and not kabbalah center or gnostic/hermetic corruptions understand that Kabbala is the cornerstone of Judaism. It simply means "recieved" and it refers to that Sod - secret level of Torah that only the sages and most learned of the people are initiated into.

Back again to my original point though. Torah is the centerpiece of Judaism. The Jews have believed since its giving (and im not Jewish, mind you) that the Torah is the blueprint of all reality. The other biblical books although divinely inspired are not in the same category of the Torah. They simply serve to enforce the Torah and warn people of the consequences of not doing so.

My issue with Christianity is its complete futility. I understand that Christians have a very Jewish ethos and i respect Christianity and Christians. I just cant logically see the purpose of its trinitarian philosophy or the idea of an intermediary.

In simple psychological terms, an intermediary is a construct that is placed between yourself and the object. Obviously all christians believe in G-d and love G-d. But their devotion is also directed towards "jesus" or at other times, towards saints. The idea of moshiach in Judaism was NEVER about G-d incarnating into man. This first of all is a notorious pagan idea - dionysus, perseus, apollo, krishna, horus, among others were born through 'a virgin' birth. Moshiach symbolized the collective soul. In the word moshiach itself is Moshe. Moshiachs soul purpose was in motivating and impelling others towards the service of G-d. In some highly mystical way, moshiach has the ability to awaken the spiritual core of all people to lead them towards G-d. The one G-d. Moshiach, G-d frobid, is NEVER and has never been thought of as an intermediary. The thoguht initself is anathema to me and all understanding monotheists. G-d alone is to be our focus. G-d alone, the omni present and all knowing is available to any person at any time and there is absolutely no logical need for the concept of Christ. So.. I really dont see the justification in the belief.

G-d is there for everyone.. When i pray, i pray to HaShem. I dont need any 'spiritual or psychological' intermediary to lessen his brilliance for my mind. He comes and helps and guides me and all people are capable of this sort of relationship.

So atleast you can understand because there really isnt even a spiritual Need for "jesus christ" you can see why i see it as a gnostic/pagan construction. At the core of the Christian tradition is a hybrid between Greek/Pagan ideas and Judaism. Theres an incredible emphasis on G-d mercy - as if Torah and Judaism wasnt merciful. That is the issue. The pagan aristocratic leaders of the nations have a very antinomian and belligerant attitude towards the Jews and they have for thousands of years. Their beliefs are built around the concept of the 'self' -who at the same time is identified with G-d. This is the 3 in 1 idea. The ego, the self and G-d are one. Im not saying this is a universal christian idea cause i know it isnt, but there are those who conflate the self with G-d.

It is true that there is an essential spark within each person which is at one with G-d, but Judaism teaches that we are all 'children' and 'servants' of G-d. We are built in his IMAGE - not him, but his image, which refers to the Sefirot (spiritual attributes of creation).G-d is infinite and beyond all comprehension. The point of the torah the sole purpose of Judaism is to inform mankind that there is a G-d and it is incumbent upon everyone of us to humble ourselves in order to build a relationship with him. Were put in this world in order for us to know him.

Again, im not trying to insult christians but i do feel i have a right to proffer this idea which to me considering the earlier agrgression of the Greeks Romans towards the Jews make perfect sense. The greeks and romans were the ones who 'created' christianity. They even made way for the growth of christendom by wiping out the Jewish populations in Judea. The evidence clearly shows that the PTB - the great powers of Pagan Rome devised a clever mechanism to both suppress and usurp the influence of Judaism. Christianity is the "bastard" offspring in that they took so much from the pagan greeks/egyptians/babylonians and also much from zoroastrianism (undoubtedly the inner meaning of the 3 gifts of the persian magi) and yet simultaneously giving the impression that their tradition was the 'fullfilment' of Judaism. In truth, the real 'dad', the driving esoteric influence behind Christianity has been Hellenistic paganism. Though this is not known or understood by people because that would require a) understanding of Judaism - which people do not have (they usually just get vituperations of it) and an understanding of pre-christian pagan theology. As can be gleamed from texts like Hesiods Theogany, Homers Illiad, and many other Egyptian,Babylonian and Zoroastrian texts.

here's a youtube video: www.youtube.com...
that explains the name 'Satan'
and therefore when the spirit being Lucifer 'fell from heaven'


if one will notice that the Serpent/Satan was already existant before the Garden of Eden, or Adamic man
for that matter ...even before Eve was formed from Adams rib.
Satan was presumably there already when Adam & Lilith were both created from the clay, but only took the form of the serpent of Genesis to become a physical/material being to interact with Eve alone.


Lucifer 'fell' along with 1/3 of Angels, during the inital presence on planet Earth, when they created a bizzare world of monsters that preyed on one another in an endless, macabe orgy of death... the creator overturned that creation that the now 'Satan' ruined, caused to be desolate and chaotic and without form or organization making a renewed creation which Satan still had access to enter.


Man is said to be made 'a little lower than Angels'...
so i don't know where the info came that Lucifer fell for refusing to worship man / image of God...



my best guess is that Lucifer 'fell' sometime immediately before the Cambrian mass-extinction-event



may you have good fortune in 2011