Post by Dave on Sept 22, 2021 11:22:17 GMT -5
SDA/Catholic doctrine of Fallen Angels
1- satan was a beloved and cherished angel of the lord
2- proof = cherub chata – two words from two different sentences of Ezk 28
3- proof – satan = a cherub angels of the lord that changed his own nature against God’s Will
What is a Cherub?
Adam Clark Exodus 25:18 Christian Commentary
Thou shalt make two cherubims - What these were we cannot distinctly say. It is generally supposed that a cherub was a creature with four heads and one body: and the animals, of which these emblematical forms consisted, were the noblest of their kinds; the lion among the wild beasts, the bull among the tame ones, the eagle among the birds, and man at the head of all; so that they might be, says Dr. Priestley, the representatives of all nature. Concerning their forms and design there is much difference of opinion among divines. It is probable that the term often means a figure of any kind, such as was ordinarily sculptured on stone, engraved on metal, carved on wood, or embroidered on cloth. See on Exo_35:8 (note). It may be only necessary to add, that cherub is the singular number; cherubim, not cherubims, the plural. See what has been said on this subject in the note on Gen_3:24 (note).
Adam Clark Genesis 3:24 Christian Commentary
He placed at the east - מכדם mikkedem, or before the garden of Eden, before what may be conceived its gate or entrance; Cherubims, הכרבים hakkerubim, The cherubim. Hebrew plurals in the masculine end in general in im: to add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims. But what were these? They are utterly unknown. Conjectures and guesses relative to their nature and properties are endless. Several think them to have been emblematical representations of the sacred Trinity, and bring reasons and scriptures in support of their opinion; but as I am not satisfied that this opinion is correct, I will not trouble the reader with it. From the description in Exo_26:1, Exo_26:31; 1Ki_6:29, 1Ki_6:32; 2Ch_3:14, it appears that the cherubs were sometimes represented with two faces, namely, those of a lion and of a man; but from Eze_1:5, etc.; Eze_10:20, Eze_10:21, we find that they had four faces and four wings; the faces were those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; but it seems there was but one body to these heads. The two-faced cherubs were such as were represented on the curtains and veil of the tabernacle, and on the wall, doors, and veil of the temple; those with four faces appeared only in the holy of holies. The word כרב or כרוב kerub never appears as a verb in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore is justly supposed to be a word compounded of כ ke a particle of resemblance, like to, like as, and רב rab, he was great, powerful, etc. Hence it is very likely that the cherubs, to whatever order of beings they belonged, were emblems of the All-Mighty, and were those creatures by whom he produced the great effects of his power.
Mathew Henry Ezekiel 28:11-19 Christian Commentary
Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power;
Mathew Henry Commentary on Ezekiel 28:1-19 Christian Commentary
Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours. Pride is peculiarly the sin of our fallen nature. Nor can any wisdom, except that which the Lord gives, lead to happiness in this world or in that which is to come. The haughty prince of Tyre thought he was able to protect his people by his own power, and considered himself as equal to the inhabitants of heaven. If it were possible to dwell in the garden of Eden, or even to enter heaven, no solid happiness could be enjoyed without a humble, holy, and spiritual mind. Especially all spiritual pride is of the devil. Those who indulge therein must expect to perish.
craigkeener.com/does-ezekiel-2812-14-refer-to-the-devil/
Does Ezekiel 28:12-14 refer to the devil? - Christian Commentary
August 22, 2011
Like Isaiah, Ezekiel also has oracles against the nations: Ammon (25:1-7), Moab (25:8-11), Edom (25:12-14), Philistia (25:15-17), Tyre (26:1-28:19), Sidon (28:20-26), and Egypt (29:1-32:32). The passage sometimes applied to the devil, 28:12b-19, is in the heart of an oracle against the ruler of Tyre; in fact, verse 12 begins, “Son of man, take up this lament against the ruler of Tyre.” No one disputes that the context refers to the ruler of Tyre, but those who apply the text to the devil declare that it also applies to him, because (they claim) some features of the text cannot apply to anyone but the devil.
This argument, as we shall see, is not actually accurate. The lament calls this ruler arrogant about his wisdom and perfection of beauty (28:12, 17)–just as Tyre claimed to be perfect in beauty (27:3-4, 11) and full of wisdom that brought wealth (28:3-4), self-proclaimed wisdom that made the ruler think he was a god (28:6) though he was but a human being (28:8-10). This ruler was in Eden, the garden of God (28:13), which advocates of the devil-interpretation think must be taken literally: only the devil was in Eden, they say. But this claim is not true; Adam and Eve, who did seek equality with God (Gen. 3:5), also lived in Eden, and Ezekiel could compare the Tyrian ruler’s hubris with that of the first people.
Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler. The ruler in this passage exalts himself in pride and is cast down; the casting down is more explicit in the oracle earlier in the chapter (28:2-10). He claimed to be a god, enthroned in the heart of the seas (28:2; Tyre was off the seacoast of Phoenicia). God has Ezekiel mock this ruler: You think that you are as wise as a god (28:6), but God would bring judgment on this ruler by other nations (28:7); then would he still pretend to be a god in front of those who would kill him (28:9)? He was a “man,” not a god, and he would die a horrible and violent death (28:8-10). This is hardly a description of the devil, an immortal spirit; this is an earthly ruler who claimed to be a god, who would learn his mortality at the time of God’s judgment on Tyre.
Yet even if these two passages referred to the devil as well as to earthly rulers—though in context they do not—why do defenders of this view often apply these passages to the devil yet never apply them also to earthly rulers judged by God for their arrogance? Wouldn’t examples of human arrogance make even more useful passages for preaching or teaching matters relevant to our hearers? I suspect that many believers simply assume these passages refer to the devil because that is the way we have always heard them interpreted, but many of us never closely examined them in context.
What is a Cherub?
1 Adam Clark - What these were we cannot distinctly say.
2 Adam Clark - The cherubim. Hebrew plurals in the masculine end in general in im: to add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims. But what were these? They are utterly unknown. Conjectures and guesses relative to their nature and properties are endless.
3 Mathew Henry - Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power;
4 craigkeener – those who apply the text to the devil declare that it also applies to him, because (they claim) some features of the text cannot apply to anyone but the devil.
This argument, as we shall see, is not actually accurate.
5 craigkeener - Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler.
6 craigkeener - even if these two passages referred to the devil as well as to earthly rulers—though in context they do not—why do defenders of this view often apply these passages to the devil yet never apply them also to earthly rulers judged by God for their arrogance?
7 craigkeener - I suspect that many believers simply assume these passages refer to the devil because that is the way we have always heard them interpreted, but many of us never closely examined them in context.
Why doesn’t every Christian Commentary support the SDA Robert view?
No Jew supports the Robert’s view
No Messianic Jew supports Robert’s view
No Gnostic Christian support Robert’s view
Many – Christian Commentaries do not support Robert’s view
Not all types of Christians support Robert’s view
I belong to this group
Yes – there is a sub-set within Christianity that do believe in cherub chata
That would be those closest to Rome and the Roman doctrine of Fallen Angels – Roman Catholics, Reformed Baptist, and SDA
Instead of teaching that God is absolute – That God’s Will is absolute – and there is only One true God
The doctrine of Fallen Angels teaches a weak God
God cannot even hold the angels He created specifically to serve and praise Him
A created being – an angel – recreated his own nature against God’s Will
Then this satan recreated all of God’s tov creation against God’s Will – against God’s Plan
ADD Rev 12 and your satan caused 1/3rd of all God’s angels to turn against God
The doctrine teaches that even angels can fall from God’s Grace
Scripture says – who can oppose God – no one
But the doctrine of fallen angels is built upon satan opposing God
The group I belong to says this teaching is garbage – it elevates satan to godhood and disrespects God in so many ways
For 5000 years Jews have been dyeing to defend the One True God
The Jews were crushed / disbanded / and murdered in a holocaust – yet they say – One True God
Yes – there is a sub-set within Christianity that do believe in cherub chata
And they says things like
Yes – I believe in two kings and to gods locked in an eternal controversy
The legancy of the Roman Edit and the satanology they preach
Why do they preach it – so that man is depended upon the church not God
To keep man focused here upon the church – sidetracked – anything but preaching spiritual Christianity and service to the Lord
1- satan was a beloved and cherished angel of the lord
2- proof = cherub chata – two words from two different sentences of Ezk 28
3- proof – satan = a cherub angels of the lord that changed his own nature against God’s Will
What is a Cherub?
Adam Clark Exodus 25:18 Christian Commentary
Thou shalt make two cherubims - What these were we cannot distinctly say. It is generally supposed that a cherub was a creature with four heads and one body: and the animals, of which these emblematical forms consisted, were the noblest of their kinds; the lion among the wild beasts, the bull among the tame ones, the eagle among the birds, and man at the head of all; so that they might be, says Dr. Priestley, the representatives of all nature. Concerning their forms and design there is much difference of opinion among divines. It is probable that the term often means a figure of any kind, such as was ordinarily sculptured on stone, engraved on metal, carved on wood, or embroidered on cloth. See on Exo_35:8 (note). It may be only necessary to add, that cherub is the singular number; cherubim, not cherubims, the plural. See what has been said on this subject in the note on Gen_3:24 (note).
Adam Clark Genesis 3:24 Christian Commentary
He placed at the east - מכדם mikkedem, or before the garden of Eden, before what may be conceived its gate or entrance; Cherubims, הכרבים hakkerubim, The cherubim. Hebrew plurals in the masculine end in general in im: to add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims. But what were these? They are utterly unknown. Conjectures and guesses relative to their nature and properties are endless. Several think them to have been emblematical representations of the sacred Trinity, and bring reasons and scriptures in support of their opinion; but as I am not satisfied that this opinion is correct, I will not trouble the reader with it. From the description in Exo_26:1, Exo_26:31; 1Ki_6:29, 1Ki_6:32; 2Ch_3:14, it appears that the cherubs were sometimes represented with two faces, namely, those of a lion and of a man; but from Eze_1:5, etc.; Eze_10:20, Eze_10:21, we find that they had four faces and four wings; the faces were those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; but it seems there was but one body to these heads. The two-faced cherubs were such as were represented on the curtains and veil of the tabernacle, and on the wall, doors, and veil of the temple; those with four faces appeared only in the holy of holies. The word כרב or כרוב kerub never appears as a verb in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore is justly supposed to be a word compounded of כ ke a particle of resemblance, like to, like as, and רב rab, he was great, powerful, etc. Hence it is very likely that the cherubs, to whatever order of beings they belonged, were emblems of the All-Mighty, and were those creatures by whom he produced the great effects of his power.
Mathew Henry Ezekiel 28:11-19 Christian Commentary
Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power;
Mathew Henry Commentary on Ezekiel 28:1-19 Christian Commentary
Ethbaal, or Ithobal, was the prince or king of Tyre; and being lifted up with excessive pride, he claimed Divine honours. Pride is peculiarly the sin of our fallen nature. Nor can any wisdom, except that which the Lord gives, lead to happiness in this world or in that which is to come. The haughty prince of Tyre thought he was able to protect his people by his own power, and considered himself as equal to the inhabitants of heaven. If it were possible to dwell in the garden of Eden, or even to enter heaven, no solid happiness could be enjoyed without a humble, holy, and spiritual mind. Especially all spiritual pride is of the devil. Those who indulge therein must expect to perish.
craigkeener.com/does-ezekiel-2812-14-refer-to-the-devil/
Does Ezekiel 28:12-14 refer to the devil? - Christian Commentary
August 22, 2011
Like Isaiah, Ezekiel also has oracles against the nations: Ammon (25:1-7), Moab (25:8-11), Edom (25:12-14), Philistia (25:15-17), Tyre (26:1-28:19), Sidon (28:20-26), and Egypt (29:1-32:32). The passage sometimes applied to the devil, 28:12b-19, is in the heart of an oracle against the ruler of Tyre; in fact, verse 12 begins, “Son of man, take up this lament against the ruler of Tyre.” No one disputes that the context refers to the ruler of Tyre, but those who apply the text to the devil declare that it also applies to him, because (they claim) some features of the text cannot apply to anyone but the devil.
This argument, as we shall see, is not actually accurate. The lament calls this ruler arrogant about his wisdom and perfection of beauty (28:12, 17)–just as Tyre claimed to be perfect in beauty (27:3-4, 11) and full of wisdom that brought wealth (28:3-4), self-proclaimed wisdom that made the ruler think he was a god (28:6) though he was but a human being (28:8-10). This ruler was in Eden, the garden of God (28:13), which advocates of the devil-interpretation think must be taken literally: only the devil was in Eden, they say. But this claim is not true; Adam and Eve, who did seek equality with God (Gen. 3:5), also lived in Eden, and Ezekiel could compare the Tyrian ruler’s hubris with that of the first people.
Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler. The ruler in this passage exalts himself in pride and is cast down; the casting down is more explicit in the oracle earlier in the chapter (28:2-10). He claimed to be a god, enthroned in the heart of the seas (28:2; Tyre was off the seacoast of Phoenicia). God has Ezekiel mock this ruler: You think that you are as wise as a god (28:6), but God would bring judgment on this ruler by other nations (28:7); then would he still pretend to be a god in front of those who would kill him (28:9)? He was a “man,” not a god, and he would die a horrible and violent death (28:8-10). This is hardly a description of the devil, an immortal spirit; this is an earthly ruler who claimed to be a god, who would learn his mortality at the time of God’s judgment on Tyre.
Yet even if these two passages referred to the devil as well as to earthly rulers—though in context they do not—why do defenders of this view often apply these passages to the devil yet never apply them also to earthly rulers judged by God for their arrogance? Wouldn’t examples of human arrogance make even more useful passages for preaching or teaching matters relevant to our hearers? I suspect that many believers simply assume these passages refer to the devil because that is the way we have always heard them interpreted, but many of us never closely examined them in context.
What is a Cherub?
1 Adam Clark - What these were we cannot distinctly say.
2 Adam Clark - The cherubim. Hebrew plurals in the masculine end in general in im: to add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims. But what were these? They are utterly unknown. Conjectures and guesses relative to their nature and properties are endless.
3 Mathew Henry - Anointed kings should be to their subjects as anointed cherubim, that cover them with the wings of their power;
4 craigkeener – those who apply the text to the devil declare that it also applies to him, because (they claim) some features of the text cannot apply to anyone but the devil.
This argument, as we shall see, is not actually accurate.
5 craigkeener - Ezekiel refers to an arrogant human ruler.
6 craigkeener - even if these two passages referred to the devil as well as to earthly rulers—though in context they do not—why do defenders of this view often apply these passages to the devil yet never apply them also to earthly rulers judged by God for their arrogance?
7 craigkeener - I suspect that many believers simply assume these passages refer to the devil because that is the way we have always heard them interpreted, but many of us never closely examined them in context.
Why doesn’t every Christian Commentary support the SDA Robert view?
No Jew supports the Robert’s view
No Messianic Jew supports Robert’s view
No Gnostic Christian support Robert’s view
Many – Christian Commentaries do not support Robert’s view
Not all types of Christians support Robert’s view
I belong to this group
Yes – there is a sub-set within Christianity that do believe in cherub chata
That would be those closest to Rome and the Roman doctrine of Fallen Angels – Roman Catholics, Reformed Baptist, and SDA
Instead of teaching that God is absolute – That God’s Will is absolute – and there is only One true God
The doctrine of Fallen Angels teaches a weak God
God cannot even hold the angels He created specifically to serve and praise Him
A created being – an angel – recreated his own nature against God’s Will
Then this satan recreated all of God’s tov creation against God’s Will – against God’s Plan
ADD Rev 12 and your satan caused 1/3rd of all God’s angels to turn against God
The doctrine teaches that even angels can fall from God’s Grace
Scripture says – who can oppose God – no one
But the doctrine of fallen angels is built upon satan opposing God
The group I belong to says this teaching is garbage – it elevates satan to godhood and disrespects God in so many ways
For 5000 years Jews have been dyeing to defend the One True God
The Jews were crushed / disbanded / and murdered in a holocaust – yet they say – One True God
Yes – there is a sub-set within Christianity that do believe in cherub chata
And they says things like
Yes – I believe in two kings and to gods locked in an eternal controversy
The legancy of the Roman Edit and the satanology they preach
Why do they preach it – so that man is depended upon the church not God
To keep man focused here upon the church – sidetracked – anything but preaching spiritual Christianity and service to the Lord