I wonder where this might lead...

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

@Giuliano This article doesn't prove anything, but it mentions the verses in Ezekiel having a dual meaning.

Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?

Question: "Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?"

Answer: At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to refer to a human king. The city of Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1– 28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9, 10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the king of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Like Satan, the human king of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17–21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.

Source: Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan? | GotQuestions.org

Giuliano · Oct 7, 2019

Prayer Warrior said:
@Giuliano This article doesn't prove anything, but it mentions the verses in Ezekiel having a dual meaning.

Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?

Question: "Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?"

Answer: At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to refer to a human king. The city of Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1– 28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9, 10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the king of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Like Satan, the human king of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17–21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.

Source: Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan? | GotQuestions.org

The text seems fairly clear to me. It's about a man. There is definitely a comparison being made between the Prince of Tyre and the covering cherub, but the two are not the same in my book.
.

marks · Oct 7, 2019

I think Satan's sin was envy for what God had planned for humanity.

Much love!

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
The text seems fairly clear to me. It's about a man. There is definitely a comparison being made between the Prince of Tyre and the covering cherub, but the two are not the same in my book.
.

Did you read this paragraph?

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Nancy · Oct 7, 2019

Prayer Warrior said:
What is your source for this info on the "Oral Torah"?

I can see this very clearly in your pantheistic beliefs.

So, you just applied what Jesus said to his disciples to Adam and Eve concerning the Tree that God told Adam and Eve not to eat from?? Hmm.

I said they didn't need to know about evil. They succumbed to the temptation to disobey God. Sin entered God's material creation through Adam's disobedience, bringing death.

Romans 5:12--"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

In case you hadn't noticed, this is one statement, not two. It's actually written as one sentence. You can't separate the two parts to this one command.

Even I understand what God is saying here. They could eat freely from every tree except that one tree. If you and I were going somewhere, and I wanted to bring some bags of food that I had prepared, I might say, "Take every bag except that one." You would know that I never meant for you to take that one bag even though I said "take every bag."

If either of us says anything that is not true, I hope that no one believes those things. Yeah, I and millions of other Christians throughout history have understood that the serpent in the Garden represents the devil. Not to say that millions of Christians can't be wrong, but this is a very widely accepted belief.

Well, at least you're telling me where you got the interpretation of these verses. I appreciate this since I've been asking you where you're getting your ideas.

But I have to laugh at this narrow interpretation of verses that sound so much like they're describing Satan. Could have dual meanings, but so much of this clearly applies to Satan. I'm sure that some Christian commentaries would bear this out, but I haven't read any on these passages to tell you one way or another. I don't tend to consult commentaries even though I think they can be useful at times.
.

Who other than Satan would tell them to do something against God's own orders?
James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” So, I'm with you on this, for sure.
In Him Always!

Giuliano · Oct 7, 2019

Prayer Warrior said:
Did you read this paragraph?

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Yes, and while I think it almost certain that he had fallen under the spell of the demonic, I would not conclude he was possessed by Satan himself. I think Satan has more to do than enter one human body. It would limit his activity. I think he'd let some other fallen spirit do it.

John does equate serpent, dragon and Satan in Revelation, I think. The dragon gives power to the beast of the water. I don't see the beast as being possessed by Satan then, not as being "inside" him. Later the beast of the earth and false prophet are disposed of first, and then Satan is bound.

Giuliano · Oct 7, 2019

Nancy said:
Who other than Satan would tell them to do something against God's own orders?
James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” So, I'm with you on this, for sure.
In Him Always!

There are people who might tell you to go against God. They may be crazy, they may be under the spell of the demonic, but I wouldn't assume they are also Satan except in a general way.

Nancy · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
There are people who might tell you to go against God. They may be crazy, they may be under the spell of the demonic, but I wouldn't assume they are also Satan except in a general way.

Well, I do not believe that the "serpent" in the garden was a person. Either the spirit of the thing/person is from God or it is from Satan...I know of no in-between.

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

Interesting Quotes~
Pertaining to radical education reform

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom… The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.

—John Dunphy, The Humanist (January/February 1983)

+++++++++++++

Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.... Every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling; that he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.... In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true god and the usherer of the true kingdom of god.

—John Dewey, My Pedagogic Creed

++++++++++++++

To Dewey, as to Wundt, man was an animal, alone with his reactions and entirely dependent upon experiential data. He [Dewey] believed that learning occurred only through experience, that the stimulus-response mechanism was basic to learning, and that teachers were not instructors, but designers of learning experiences. At the Dewey School in Chicago, and later at the Teachers College of Columbia University, Dewey was able to implement and promote the interchangeability of psychology and education, successfully enough to become the leading figure in American education.

—Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection

++++++++++++++

What we’re into is the total restructuring of society. What is happening in America today…is not simply a chance situation in the usual winds of change. What it amounts to is a total transformation of society.... Our total society is in a crisis of restructuring and you can’t get away from it. You can’t go into rural areas, you can’t go into churches, you can’t go into government or into business and hide from the fact that what we are facing is the total restructuring of our society.

—Dr. Shirley McCune, National Governor’s Assoc. Conference, 1989

+++++++++++++++

The basic goal of education is change—human change.... This issue of Educational Leadership focuses attention upon the school as a change agent—and the specific focus is on changing people.

—Harold Drummond (December 1964)

+++++++++++++++

The Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP) is designed to achieve the following three major goals:

1. Development of a new kind of elementary school teacher who… engages in teaching as a clinical practice… and functions as a responsible agent of social change

2. Systematic use of research and clinical experience in decision-making processes at all levels

3. A new laboratory and clinical base, from the behavioral sciences, on which to found undergraduate and in-service teacher education programs, and recycle evaluations of teaching tools and performance....

BSTEP provides the elementary school teacher with particular sets of behavior and mental processes, to function as a practitioner specifically trained to give comprehensive aid to a client. The BSTEP teacher is expected to learn from experience through a cyclical style of describing, analyzing, hypothesizing, prescribing, treating, and observing consequences. The last activity, observing consequences of the treatment administered, in turn leads to the first, describing the changed situations, to begin a new cycle. The feedback from the iterative [involving repetition] design is used to improve his practitioner skills and knowledge, and to better fill the needs of the client-pupil…. The Program is designed to focus the skills and knowledge of behavioral scientists on education problems, translating research into viable programs for preservice and in-service teachers. (p. 6-7).

—BSTEP (Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program) Feasibility Study (Project No. 32042, published 12/31/69)
(Emphasis added)

++++++++++++++++

We see the use of innovative technical knowledge combined with staff development in the context of a school improvement approach that is multilevel, involving not only the school, the district, and the state agency but reaching out as well to create cultural change in the community.

—School Change Models and Processes, U.S. Department of Education publication (emphasis added)

++++++++++++++++

If the values component is not built into the elementary social studies curriculum from the very beginning, there will be no predictable change in pupil behavior. We have finally come to grips with the uncomfortable understanding that unless our pupils indicate by their behavior that they have not only understood but have internalized our high-minded goals relating to values, we have not succeeded.

—Nancy W. Bauer, “Guaranteeing the Values Component in Elementary School Social Studies,” Social Education, January 1967

+++++++++++++++++

Teacher education programs must consider shifting their emphasis from transmission of information to transformation of student thinking through dialogue. Dialogue offers a way for students to externalize thinking skills and develop a clear, thought-out point of view…. Dewey’s (1933) notion of open-mindedness, a characteristic associated with a person’s ability to reflect, is one of the primary aims of seminar instruction (emphasis added).

—"An Examination of the Construct of Critical Reflection: Implications for Teacher Education Programming in the 21st Century” (Forlenza-Bailey, Sentner and Yost, Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 1, 2000, p. 39) (Emphasis added)

Giuliano · Oct 7, 2019

Nancy said:
Well, I do not believe that the "serpent" in the garden was a person. Either the spirit of the thing/person is from God or it is from Satan...I know of no in-between.

I also don't think the serpent was a physical serpent; but then I also don't think the trees were physical trees and so on. The question that I think needs answer is why it was there in the first place. I agree God does not tempt people; but He does allow them to be tempted sometimes.

I also ask if we can believe that Satan is eating dust now? And how many times is Satan going to be cast down?

Nancy · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
I also don't think the serpent was a physical serpent; but then I also don't think the trees were physical trees and so on. The question that I think needs answer is why it was there in the first place. I agree God does not tempt people; but He does allow them to be tempted sometimes.

I also ask if we can believe that Satan is eating dust now? And how many times is Satan going to be cast down?

So you are of the belief that the garden of Eden and the story of Adam and Eve was just a parable?

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
Yes, and while I think it almost certain that he had fallen under the spell of the demonic, I would not conclude he was possessed by Satan himself. I think Satan has more to do than enter one human body. It would limit his activity. I think he'd let some other fallen spirit do it.

John does equate serpent, dragon and Satan in Revelation, I think. The dragon gives power to the beast of the water. I don't see the beast as being possessed by Satan then, not as being "inside" him. Later the beast of the earth and false prophet are disposed of first, and then Satan is bound.

But how do you explain the part about being in the Garden of Eden? Obviously, the king of Tyre never was.

I'm referring to verse 13 that says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God...."

4Jesus · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
The text seems fairly clear to me. It's about a man. There is definitely a comparison being made between the Prince of Tyre and the covering cherub, but the two are not the same in my book.
.

Just to chime in here, do either of you (PW and Guiliano) deny that spiritual/demonic possession occurs in humans, literally? Meaning, can not the Prince of Tyre have been possessed by satan himself? Thus, the comparison, and actions, would be one and the same because they were united, literally.

I'm pretty sure I know where PW stands on this (but didn't want to assume, so that's why I asked you both), but curious if you do Guiliano.

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

Nancy said:
Who other than Satan would tell them to do something against God's own orders?
James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” So, I'm with you on this, for sure.
In Him Always!

Or someone acting on behalf of Satan, but no one else was in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

4Jesus said:
Just to chime in here, do either of you (PW and Guiliano) deny that spiritual/demonic possession occurs in humans, literally? Meaning, can not the Prince of Tyre have been possessed by satan himself? Thus, the comparison, and actions, would be one and the same because they were united, literally.

I'm pretty sure I know where PW stands on this (but didn't want to assume, so that's why I asked you both), but curious if you do Guiliano.

Did you read the article I posted? If not, please do. I think it's very good.

It could be saying both--that the king of Tyre was possessed of the devil, but some of the descriptions cannot apply to the king.

4Jesus · Oct 7, 2019

Prayer Warrior said:
Did you read the article I posted? If not, please do. I think it's very good.

It could be saying both--that the king of Tyre was possessed of the devil, but some of the descriptions cannot apply to the king.

I hadn't read it when I posted that quote to Guiliano, but have now since you posted this

I agree, yes, that it is possible for possession by satan to occur, and for satan to lead that person to lead his kingdoms. In fact, this same method is how I think the "beast" of Revelation will lead the world - the grand finale if you will. And of course it could've happened with other leaders in the past, such as Pharaohs, Caesars, Hitler, etc.

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

4Jesus said:
I hadn't read it when I posted that quote to Guiliano, but have now since you posted this

I agree, yes, that it is possible for possession by satan to occur, and for satan to lead that person to lead his kingdoms. In fact, this same method is how I think the "beast" of Revelation will lead the world - the grand finale if you will. And of course it could've happened with other leaders in the past, such as Pharaohs, Caesars, Hitler, etc.

Yeah, I have no doubt other world leaders have been possessed. Hitler was a Satan worshipper.

I usually hear two possibilities for the man often called the antichrist. He could be a human who is possessed by Satan, or he could be Satan incarnate. I lean toward the second possibility, but I don't really have strong views about this. I'm sure some Christians do.

marks · Oct 7, 2019

Giuliano said:
I also don't think the serpent was a physical serpent; but then I also don't think the trees were physical trees and so on. The question that I think needs answer is why it was there in the first place. I agree God does not tempt people; but He does allow them to be tempted sometimes.

I also ask if we can believe that Satan is eating dust now? And how many times is Satan going to be cast down?

God tests people, to give them opportunity to show faith and fidelity. When we fail the test, it means we did not remain in trust, and so fell into sin. But that's not God's desire. His desire is for us to remain in faith, and therefore fidelity.

Much love!

Prayer Warrior · Oct 7, 2019

@Giuliano Just wondering why you believe that Satan was not the one who tempted Eve in the Garden. Is your belief from something you read? Is it part of an overall belief system?

BTW, I hope you haven't felt too ganged up on in this thread. (I know what that's like, believe me.) I appreciate you hanging in there with me.

brakelite · Oct 7, 2019

4Jesus said:
Also, there's Daniel 9:27 "27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

The "he" in the above verse is the Messiah...it is after all a Messianic prophecy...the covenant was confirmed by Jesus for a prophetic week...7 years...3 1/2 in person...3 1/2 through the His disciples until the stoning of Stephen after which the gospel was taken to the Gentiles. That final week completed the 490 years of Israel's probation from that very same chapter you quoted.
The stoning of Stephen was the Sannhedrin's final rejection of Messiah and they represented the nation. From that time on, Iarael ceased to be God's vessel for taking the gospel to the world. The "vineyard was taken over by the King and give to another who would give the King its fruits in due season".
Jesus, through His death, caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Regardless of the continuing vain attempts to continue the practice by the rulers. It was Jesus Himself who said to the Sannhedrin, "behold, your house is left unto you desolate".

Giuliano said:
it is an impure thought to think God put it there to tempt them -- God doesn't tempt anyone.

Not tempt...test.

Giuliano said:
"Oh, so you compare yourself to the covering cherub! Oh, you were in Eden!"

Lucifer, before his fall, was the covering cherub. Or one of them. The other was Gabriel.

I wonder where this might lead...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

brakelite

Guest

Similar threads