Was Lucifer a Real Being—or Just a Metaphor for Evil?

Theology
1
Was Lucifer a Real Being—or Just a Metaphor for Evil?

4ff30e9c-dbf4-4fd7-b6b0-3428c0e29182
4ff30e9c-dbf4-4fd7-b6b0-3428c0e291821536×1024 79.9 KB

The question of whether Lucifer was a literal angel or a symbolic figure continues to spark debate. Join the conversation in Crosswalk Forums.
#BiblicalInterpretation #SpiritualWarfare #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

Was Lucifer once a radiant angel who fell from heaven—or is the name simply a poetic way of describing pride, rebellion, and the corruption of power? Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have long been interpreted as accounts of Lucifer’s fall, but some scholars argue those passages speak more about earthly kings than a literal being.

This article explores how Lucifer became associated with Satan, and what Scripture does (and doesn’t) say about that transformation:
:backhand_index_pointing_right: How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan? - Bible Study | Crosswalk.com

Do you believe Lucifer was a real angelic being who fell from heaven?
Or do you see the story as symbolic of the evil found in human hearts and systems?

Understanding the origin of evil shapes how we understand God’s justice, mercy—and our own spiritual battle.

2

If lucifer is a mythical being then so are the other angels mention in scripture and if they are mythical so is Jesus.

3

Peace to all,

Logically Lucifer is the “Liar King” in lies in that He could tell stories that we not all truths or tell lies partial lies and He could tell lies straight outright and he could tell lies that were partly truths and not all truth making Him the Father or lies, all lies and what a liar He is.

Here is the logical test, to understand the God of Abraham, and completly logical in all generalization.

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.”
Logically is this line a lie? Or a truth?

What say ye?

Peace always,
Stephen

4

Peace to all,

We will never die, surly of the Spirit.
The Father of lies never explained the Two Natures, Spirit and flesh becoming again through the Christ.

Peace always,
Stephen

5

Hear me out guys @StephenAndrew @SincereSeeker

  1. Textual-Historical Foundations: Philology and Ancient Near Eastern Polemics
    The term ‘lucifer’ as used in Isaiah 14:12 originates from the Latin lucifer(light-bearer), a Vulgate (see Jerome’s Vulgate) rendering of the Hebrew הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר (Helen ben Shachar, “shining one, son of the dawn”). THis poetic ephithet is a hapax legomenon (linguistics meaning) and sits within taunt oracle agasint the melek Bavel ( king of Babylon), a genre frequent in prophetic diatribe (refer Isaiah 14:4) The rise of celestial imagery in polemic against earthly kings is not incidental but part of the Ugaritic mythopoetic tradition (Ugaritic means cannanite), wherein kings were often depicted with divine pretensions, a direct affront to Yahwistic monotheism. Importantly, this passage resides within the Hebrew poetic construct of the qinah mete r(poetic meter mostly used in lamentations, just like in English we have iambic etc), whose primary function is lament or satire, not historiography. The etymological fallacy of equating Helel with a literal pre-existent angelic being fails to respect the poetic genre and the semantic range of the root הלל (to shine/boast), especially when juxtaposed with שָׁחַר (dawn), a mythological image likely echoing Canaanite astral deities like Shahar and Shalim.
    Ezekiel 28, similarly, addresses the nasi of tyre, another mortal potentate cloaked in Edenic imagery, “You were signet of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty…in Eden, garden of God” (Ezek 28:12-13). This is part of the prophetic literary device of idealised hyperbole, using archetypal language of Eden and priestly regalia (term for stones resembling those on the high priest’s breastplate) to mock the king’s inflated pride. It is not a systematic angelology.
  2. Patrisitic Reception and Early Christian Recontextualization
    Despite the exegetical indications of an earthly referent, the Patristic tradition, particularly Origen of Alexandria, Tertullian, and later Gregory the Great, began interpreting Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 typologically—seeing them in pre-historical allusions to the arch rebel, whom we later call Satan. Origen (De Principiis, I.5.5) presents a protologic fall of the intellective spirits wherein one archangel, by misuse of his free will initiates a cosmic cascade of ontological disorder. Here, Lucifer is a metaphysical archetype, not merely a fallen king but the archēgonos kakia, the primordial progenitor of evil. This angel prelapsarian and luminous is said to have fallen per superbian (through pride, a theologically correct word to use is per superbian) as Ausgisitne articultes in De Civitate Dei XI.13 Nullum vitium diabolum fecit nisi superbia (“No vice made the devil except pride”). Thus Lucifer is ontologically reinterpreted not merely as a historical referent, but as a cosmic persona of rebellion, later absorbed into the persona of Satan.
  3. Systematic Theology: Metaphysics of Angelic Fall and Theodicy
    TO speak of Lucifer’s fall is to engage not in exegesis alone but in metaphysical angelology. According to Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.63), angels are pure intellects, whose choice is instantaneous and immutable. Lucifer’s fall then must have occurred extra-tempore, at the very moment of his creation, in an actus singularis voluntatis (a single definitive act of prideful non serviam, i.e. “I will not serve”) which severed his esse from his bonum ordinis. Lucifer’s transformation into Satan signifies a radical re-ordering of being toward non-being, malum privationis. He becomes incapable of beatific participation, not because of ontological alteration (he remains angelic in substance) but because of existential inversion- a deiform creature now disfigured by anti-theosis. Theologically, this fall inaugurates the metaphysical contagion of evil, a parasitic, non-entity, a privatio boni (refer to Augustine, Confessions VII. 12) which infects through diabolical logismoi thought-forms aimed at destabilising created telos.
  4. Apocalyptic Literature and the Second Temple Context
    In Second Temple Jewish Literature, particularly Book of Enoch and Life of Adam and Eve, we encounter a pre-Christian mythos of angelic rebellion (eg- watchers, azezel), elements that conflate and compound the Lucifer tradition, The Revelation of John (Rev 12:7-9) explicitly depicts "the great dragon… that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan,” being cast out of heaven. Here Luciferian imagery converges with Satanic identity, echoing not Isaiah or Ezekiel directly but drawing from Jewish Apocalyptic cosmology, a genre imbued with celestial warfare motifs. Thus, the Johannine tradition is less an exegesis of Isaiah 14 and more a culmination of intertestamental developments that personify evil in the Satan, dragon archetype.
  5. Hermeneutics: Symbolic Typology and Ontological Realism
    Is lucifer a literal fallen archangel or a symbol of imperial hubris? The answer lies not in a binary, but in a multi-level typology. According to Henri de Lubac’s Spiritual exegesis, scripture operates on four levels: literal, allegorical, topological and anagogical. On the literal level, Isaiah and Ezekiel critique early tyrants. But on the allegorical level, they image cosmic pride. On the topological level, they warn the soul against hubris. On the anagogical, they depict the eternal fall of a once radiant being into utter desolation. In this framework, lucifer becomes both a mythic archetype and metaphysical reality, the fallen archangel whose ontological brilliance curdled into nihilistic shadow. He is simulacrum lux et tebebrae (parody of divine radiance, now enthroned in perdition).
6

Hi,

Matthew 4:10-11 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. KJV

Was Jesus speaking to the most stupid angel in history, or to a metaphor?

satan is real. (I refuse to capitalize his name.)

Blessings

1 Like
7

Samuel_23, you brought the whole theological spice rack, but forgot the salt of scriptural clarity. So let’s shake this up.

Yes, Isaiah 14:12 uses הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר—a poetic phrase that makes Hebrew professors feel fancy. But poetic genre doesn’t cancel prophetic truth. You say this is “just” about the king of Babylon? Okay, but why does the taunt suddenly rocket into the heavens with “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God” (Isa. 14:13)? That’s not just royal arrogance—that’s cosmic treason. Earthly kings don’t try to overthrow the stars. Somebody’s pride is poking through history into metaphysics.

Ezekiel 28? Same thing. Sure, it’s addressed to the king of Tyre, but unless that man had a summer home in Eden and used fire to walk around (Ezek. 28:13–14), we’re dealing with layered revelation. It’s not either-or—it’s prophetic typology at work. Earthly hubris is a shadow of heavenly rebellion. Satan didn’t just show up in Revelation 12 out of nowhere like some dragon-shaped party crasher.

And the Church Fathers? You act like they were inventing fan fiction. Newsflash: Origen, Augustine, Tertullian, they weren’t dummies—they were drawing lines the Bible already sketched. Revelation 12:9 explicitly identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan.” That’s not just metaphor—that’s mugshot identification.

You want metaphysics? Fine. Aquinas hits it on the head: Lucifer made one instant, irreversible choice—non serviam. He traded light for shadow, beauty for pride, and got a one-way ticket to spiritual ruin. Evil isn’t creative—it’s a parasite. And Lucifer is the original host.

So yes, Lucifer is a real being. Not just a poetic metaphor with a Ugaritic backstory, but a high-ranking angelic traitor whose pride outpaced his position. Isaiah and Ezekiel saw the smoke of his fall through the lens of earthly arrogance. But Revelation shows the fire—and it’s real.

Lucifer isn’t just Babylon’s ghost or Tyre’s arrogance. He’s Satan’s prototype. And like all bad theology, his pride started with “Did God really say…?”

Spoiler: God did say. And He cast him down.

1 Like
8

Yes @SincereSeeker, i see your point of view, I agree to it 99% but the evidence is not in Isiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 but its elsewhere in the bible but I’m putting forward what I have learnt abt this and would like to get a further clarification on this matter.

  1. Isiah 14:12, we need Linguistic and Contextual integrity
    The phrase in Isaiah 14:12 is הֵילֵל בֶּן-שָׁחַר (Helen ben Shachar), which means literally “shining one, son of dawn”. The term helel is a hapax legomenon, used once in the Hebrew Bible. The Vulgate translates it as lucifer, which was later misunderstood as a proper noun, thereby retroactively influencing Christian demonology.But here’s the crucial point: Isaiah 14 is introduced in verse 4 as mashal (מָשָׁל) meaning a taunt or satirical proverb agasint the king of Babylon. The literary form is not historical narrative nor apocalyptic. Its Political poetry, heavy with irony, mockery and hyperbole.
    To read this as a literal biographical account of a fallen angel is to collapse genre, ignore original audience, and impose later theological constructs anachronistically
    Even elevated imagery seen in “I will ascend to heaven… I will raise my throne above the stars of God”, is a literary parody of royal hubris. Ancient Near Eastern kings claimed cosmic titles, this is a polemic against the pretensions of deified kingship, not ontological account of an angelic rebellion.
  2. Ezekiel 28
    Ezekiel 28:12-19 is a lamentation of the king of tyre, introduced plainly in verse 12. The language about being in “Eden” “anointed guardian cherub” and “blameless in your ways” is rich symbolic theology, not metaphysical biography. The mention of “precious stones” corelates with the high priest’s breastplate (refer Exodus 28:17-20). The “mountain of God” motif recalls temple theology, not angelology. “You were in Eden” is not a historical claim about the king of a cherub; it is a symbolic reversal of sacred space, a parodic fall from holy privilege. In Second Temple Judaism, Eden is often a metaphor for sacred presence or priestly vocation (as seen in Jubilees, 1 Enoch). The king of tyre is portrayed as an Adamic priest-king, not a fallen archangel.
  3. Revelation 12
    Citing Revelation 12:9 as if it were a plain historical account, “The great dragon… that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan…”..But this is an apocalyptic genre, a visionary, symbolic and liturgical. Revelation is saturated with symbols. The dragon with seven heads (Revelation 12:3), the woman clothed with the sun (12:1) and the stars being swept own are not literal histories but symbolic portrayals of cosmic conflict. The “war in heaven” motif is not Isaiah 14 in disguise, it is drawing from jewish apolcalpytic tradidiotn such as
    1 Enoch 6-11: The rebellion of the “sons of God”
    Jubilees 10-12: Angelic battles and Satanic opposition
    Qumran Texts (eg War Scroll): Cosmic dualism between light and darkness
    Thus revelation is not citing Isaiah or Ezekiel, nor retroactively interpreting them, It draws from a different stream of intertestamental angelology.
  4. The Patristic witness: Typology not exegesis
    Chruch fathers like Origen, Ausgustine and Gregory the Great, Tertullian, indeed spoke of satan’s fall using Isaiah 12 and Ezekiel 28, but they never claimed it was originally about satan rather they used them typologcally or allegorically. As
    Origen (De Principiis I.5.5) distinguishes between the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture.
    Augustine in City of God XI.13 acknowledges that the devil fell by pride but does not exegete Isaiah 14 as historical fact—he uses it as illustrative.
    Gregory the Great in Moralia on Job reads Ezekiel 28 typologically to describe angelic pride, not exegetically as historical description.
    That means Patrisitic method is theological application, not grammatical-historical exegesis.
  5. Angelic rebellion in systematic theology
    The doctrine of satan’s fall is theologically sound, but its scriptural basis lies elsewhere as in
    Revelation 12
    Luke 10:18
    2 Peter 2:4
    Possibly Genesis 6:1-4: interpreted through 1 Enoch>
    So lucifer’s fall is valid theologically development but not a valid exegetical conclusion from Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28. Like any theological arguments we must distinguish certain parameters:
    The logical truth (satan fell from grace)
    Exegtical method (Isaiah and Ezekiel are showing historical satire)
    Doctrinal clarity (Lucifer is not the original satanic name)
9

@joe, ik what u were saying but im was clarifying about the misconception of Isiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, that’s it’s symbolic, historical satire, especially Isiah 14 is written with Hebrew Qinah meter used commonly with lament or satire, so the arguments in it were mostly likely a metaphor, meant to ridicule tyrants.

10

Samuel_23, I see what you’re doing—trying to thread the theological needle between “contextual integrity” and cosmic truth. But brother, if you keep slicing genre from doctrine like that, you’ll end up with a Bible that can’t do anything but whisper literature reviews.

Let’s hit this point by point, shall we?

  1. Isaiah 14 – Genre ≠ Gag Order

Yes, mashal means a taunt. Yes, it’s poetic. No, that doesn’t neuter its depth. Are you seriously saying that because Isaiah is roasting the king of Babylon, that means there’s zero spiritual subtext? Isaiah mocks the king for trying to ascend to heaven, sit on the mountain of the gods, and make himself like the Most High (v.13-14). That’s not just royal ego—that’s cosmic trespass. That’s spiritual treason. When Scripture starts talking in the language of the divine realm, you better believe it’s not just describing a guy in a funny hat with too much eyeliner.

  1. Ezekiel 28 – Eden Isn’t Vegas

You say “You were in Eden” is symbolic? Sure—but symbolic of what, exactly? How many Phoenician kings strolled through Eden wearing stones from the priestly breastplate while playing guardian cherub cosplay? That’s not metaphor—that’s a telescoping lens of typology and revelation. Yes, it’s poetic, yes, it’s temple language—but who exactly was the first temple rebel? Hint: It wasn’t the king of Tyre. This isn’t symbolic theology vs. angelology—it’s both. The king of Tyre is being paralleled with a prior fall. That’s what typology does—it points back as well as forward.

  1. Revelation 12 – Symbolism Doesn’t Equal Fiction

Let me get this straight—you say Revelation’s dragon isn’t Satan literally… even though the text literally says it is (Rev. 12:9)? That’s not interpretation—that’s evasion. Symbolic genre doesn’t mean symbolic identity. When Jesus says “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18), was He giving a weather report or pulling from Enoch fanfic? No. He’s talking about a real being and a real fall.

  1. The Church Fathers – Allegory with Teeth

You say Origen and Augustine used Isaiah and Ezekiel typologically, not exegetically. And you’re half-right—which is to say, not wrong, but not complete. The Fathers weren’t guessing. They were recognizing patterns the Spirit embedded in Scripture, across layers. Isaiah and Ezekiel aren’t giving us the whole doctrine of Satan’s fall—but they’re pulling back the curtain and letting us glimpse the smoke from a deeper fire.

  1. Theological Clarity – Lucifer by Any Other Name

Yes, “Lucifer” is a Latin carryover. But don’t get caught up in etymological shell games. The issue isn’t the name—it’s the identity. Scripture doesn’t give us Satan’s angelic LinkedIn profile with pre-fall job titles. But it gives us enough. Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Revelation 12, Luke 10, 2 Peter 2:4—they’re puzzle pieces. You just don’t like that Isaiah and Ezekiel aren’t labeled “Systematic Angelology for Beginners.”

Here’s the bottom line:

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 aren’t only about Satan, but they’re not not about him either. They’re windows—typological, prophetic, poetic—into a rebellion that started before Babylon, before Tyre, before Eden was guarded by a flaming sword. If we deny those shadows point to a real fall, we end up with theology that’s literary but gutless. And Satan loves a toothless Church.

Lucifer fell. Pride lit the match. Scripture lit the path. Don’t dim it with genre gymnastics.

1 Like
11

Thanks @SincereSeeker , I understood what u were saying before, I got more clarity from you about this topic. Thanks again.

1 Like
12

Peace to all,

In rational generalization, Lucifer existed in intelligence logic before creation was ever created was even created, just like us, with choice becoming into the image of the Selected Father becoming again through manifestation by the power of the selected “Choice” Spirit.

Matthew 11:27, which says, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”.

In all generalization, Lucifer was a bad liar and he could lie and not tell the full truth and he could outright lie and tell the truth through partial truths and not tell the full truth and lies at the same time becoming the image of His Father and Teh Father of Lies and became the Snake. Lucifer is the angel used by God and through The Power of the Holy Spirit created the first sin through concupiscence creating man’s freedom of Choice to love or not to love, becoming again in all to love and to love with only the Most Love through His Passion becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Peace always,
Stephen

13

StephenAndrew, peace to you too—but I’m gonna have to trade in your “rational generalization” for a sharp dose of biblical precision.

Let’s clear the fog:

Lucifer didn’t “exist in intelligence logic” before creation—he was created (Col. 1:16). He’s not some eternal cosmic principle floating in God’s thought cloud. He was an angel, created good, who chose evil. Full stop. No mystical abstraction needed.

Now, Matthew 11:27? Beautiful verse—about the Son revealing the Father, not about Lucifer’s origin story. Let’s not yank that out of Christ’s mouth and shove it into Satan’s resume. Jesus isn’t talking metaphysics of fallen angels; He’s proclaiming divine intimacy and exclusive revelation.

And this idea that Lucifer somehow created sin through the Holy Spirit? That’s not just theologically confused—it’s borderline blasphemous. God’s Spirit doesn’t create sin. The Holy Spirit is holy, not a co-conspirator in the fall. James 1:13 shuts that door hard: “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone.” Sin was born when Lucifer rejected God, not when God used Lucifer as some dark creative tool.

You said Lucifer became “the image of his father”—but that’s not God. That’s the devil. John 8:44 makes it crystal clear: “You are of your father the devil… he was a murderer from the beginning… for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The devil fathers lies, not because God sent him to, but because he chose rebellion over worship.

And no, he didn’t “create man’s freedom of choice.” That freedom came straight from God’s image in us (Genesis 1:26–27), not some spiritual loophole opened by a lying serpent. Satan exploited freedom—he didn’t invent it.

Look, I appreciate the poetic flair. But don’t dress up confusion in spiritual-sounding syntax and call it revelation. Lucifer isn’t God’s shadow puppet. He’s a rebel. A created being who fell by pride, not a mystical necessity in some cosmic dualism.

God is sovereign. Satan is subordinate. Sin came by choice, not divine orchestration. And salvation? That’s not a return to vague “One Spirit Family,” but to Christ alone, crucified, risen, and reigning.

Peace, yes—but peace with truth.

2 Likes
14

Peace to all,

Truthfully, Lucifer is a created being designed exactly to do what he was supposed to do by given functions from the power of the Holy Spirit Family.

Thanks how is everyone? I’ve been working on my Mystic training and here’s what I’ve come up with. I also found out some things. What makes someone able to become a Mystic and it’s very interesting what I found and it seems to be easy to do.

To me Forefathers of the Trinity and the first and third centuries couldn’t figure out the Trinity because they didn’t have my cell number in the 21st-century. To me, they all missed the mark, by seeing the Holy Spirit as a person instead of seeing the Holy Spirit as the family of God one God in being becoming again in all through the Christ in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being and they missed seeing the mother of God, Mary, as The God of mercy pre-existing as queen of heaven and mother of God in intelligence creation, logic before creation was ever created was even created together with the father and the son and one Holy Spirit family.

And we know we are saved through the faith of Abraham, but in understanding the logic of the kingdom of the divine will We can truly see God with new OMNILogical Eyes.

How about a hallelujah?

Truly, Lucifer did help create sin through the power of the Holy Spirit. We know through the power of the Holy Spirit everything comes from. At the same time, Lucifer helped in the creation of love through failed choice to become again fulfilled love through The Passion of The Christ, The Family of God conceived in Jesus becoming again in all. One Holy Spirit Family One God in being loving only and loving with only the most love becoming again both natures transformed glorified and transfigured becoming again One God in being. If you wanna blame sin on Lucifer, you can also blame Him for the creation of love. And also remember, we helped through Adam and Eve, we all would have done ot it’s not God’s fault, nor Lucifers. it’s our fault, becoming again One God, the “Gift” is our fault freely given to us by God with nothing expected in return because this “is” just who God is, to me, when HE says, “Before Abraham, I Am.”

To me logically God‘s spirit is the Holy Spirit intelligence logic that existed before creation was ever created was even created, and follows the pattern of what would Jesus do in all cases of the fulfilled faith and morality through the Christ becoming again One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Fulfilled intelligence logic becoming again in mankind, is undefiled and has no chance to fail through logic infallible and OMNIrationallogically? cannot sin. Static eternity will be unfailing forever, yet fulfilled dynamically through his passion, becoming one body and two natures spirit in life never failing.

Man’s freedom to choose is from failed logical intelligence with the power to choose to love or to love not.

Logically Jesus said what is it to you if he should remain alive until I return, you must follow me. Here we see, Jesus is telling faithfully the logical truth, and with respect to which nature?

And the devil lied when he said, surely you will never die. The devil told the truth when he said, surely you will never die. The same story from the father of lies is both a lie and a truth, how is that? The father of lies is such a liar, He can tell the truth and a lie in the same line.

To me some are more logical and faithless and some have faith, but don’t understand the logic yet some are logically faithful.

True, SincereSeeker,We know through faith are we saved through the life and spirit of God but for those that don’t know faith, logic becomes clear faith is a reality.

Logically in the garden of Eden, do you think Adam and Eve had true love?

To me, the logical can become faithful understanding the new eve becoming the immaculate conception through The family of God conceived in the flesh of Jesus becoming the Christ in all mankind becoming again One Holy Spirit one God in being.

Now say that three times fast,

Jesus says I have better and He fulfilled eternal love from both natures through the Christ in His Passion.

Any more logical questions? just kidding. I know I’m just….. Now, how about a hallelujah praise God amen,

Peace always,
Stephen
mystic in training
There is no work greater even possible than for the salvation of souls.

15

StephenAndrew… brother. I love your enthusiasm. I really do. But somewhere between “intelligence logic” and “Holy Spirit Family becoming again in all,” you’ve walked right off the theological map and into the swamp of spiritual stream-of-consciousness.

Let me cut through the mist like a double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12 style):

1. Lucifer Did Not Help Create Sin Through the Holy Spirit

That’s not mystical—that’s mistaken. That’s not revelation—that’s reversal. Sin is opposition to the Holy Spirit, not a byproduct of Him. James 1:17 says every good and perfect gift comes from God, not sin. To say the Holy Spirit powered Lucifer’s fall is like blaming the sun for the shadow. Sin came by rebellion, not design. The devil didn’t fulfill God’s love story—he tried to ruin it.

“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.” – Ezekiel 28:15

You can’t toss the blame back on God or the Spirit. That’s what Adam tried in Eden—“The woman YOU gave me…” (Genesis 3:12). And God didn’t buy it then either.

2. The Trinity Is Not Waiting for Your Cell Number

You say the Church Fathers “missed the mark” on the Trinity. Brother, these were men who bled, wept, and prayed through centuries of heresy and martyrdom to guard the truth that the one God is three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—co-equal, co-eternal, not parts or metaphors or “Family logic clusters.” That’s not error—they were the iron wall against it.

You don’t get to rewrite the creeds because you’ve got Wi-Fi and a notebook.

3. Mary Is Not the Pre-Existing God of Mercy

No. Just no. Mary is blessed among women (Luke 1:28), not the eternal Queen of Heaven pre-existing creation. That’s paganism in a Sunday dress. She is the Mother of God incarnate, not the mother of the Trinity. She was chosen, she did not exist before time. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Not Mary.

4. Sin Is Our Fault, But Lucifer Lit the Match

Yes, Adam fell. Yes, we sin. But to say “you can’t blame Lucifer” is like saying you can’t blame the arsonist because the building was made of wood. Jesus didn’t hesitate to say Satan was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). That wasn’t a metaphor—that was a spiritual mugshot.

5. Mysticism Without Scripture Is Just Self-Help with Incense

You say logic leads to faith and faith leads to logic—but Paul didn’t say “Faith comes by logic.” He said “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Any mysticism that doesn’t kneel before Scripture is just spiritual narcissism in a theological tutu.

Final Word:

God’s truth isn’t a cosmic riddle we solve with enough “becoming again” buzzwords. It’s clear, eternal, and rooted in the blood of Christ and the authority of Scripture. If your theology can’t be found in the Word, it shouldn’t be found in your doctrine.

So here’s your hallelujah:
Hallelujah, God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).
And amen to that.

Let’s stop mystifying what God has made plain and start submitting to what He has revealed.

Peace always—but with truth, not just “logic.”

2 Likes
16

You are the only person I have observed who refuses to capitalize his name…besides myself! So pleased to know! God Bless & protect you!

17

ladyhawke, fellow lowercase legend—I salute you! Ain’t it something how the humble things confound the proud? (1 Cor. 1:27). I love that you noticed. There’s a quiet joy in keeping our names small while keeping His Name big.

And since you brought it up—no, Satan doesn’t care if we capitalize his name. He’s not interested in punctuation politics. He doesn’t want your respect; he wants your attention. He’ll settle for fear, fixation, or even fascination. Capital letter? Meh. Capital place in your life? That’s his endgame.

But here’s the twist: when we refuse to exalt him—even in text—we remind him of what he lost. And when we exalt Christ with every breath, every word, every line typed or spoken, we drag that snake back underfoot where he belongs (Rom. 16:20).

Stay lowercase. Stay bold. And keep lifting up the only Name worth capitalizing.

God bless and protect you, sister!

1 Like
18

Peace to all,StephenAndrew… brother. I love your enthusiasm. I really do. But somewhere between “intelligence logic” and “Holy Spirit Family becoming again in all,” you’ve walked right off the theological map and into the swamp of spiritual stream-of-consciousness.

Thanks for the update revising my thinking thanks for your help

1 Like