Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Intoducing Me


seeker

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
We are just discussing angels. Got a bit off-topic. The prOBlem is, the word angel CAN be applied to a human, just as the word 'god' can be applied to a human, depending on the context. An angel, strictly-speaking, in a messenger. It could be a human, though more often than not, it is a heavenly messenger. And 'god' can be applied to a mighty one who is human, or God, THE mighty One. IN Rev 2&3, why were the letters, sent from God, written at the hand of John, addressed to the angels of the churches, rather than to the churches, themselves? And why would the Lord need to send them through the hands of John to His heaven;ly messengers, rather than directly from Himself? And why would it aply to angels, rather than the men of the churches?
Demonstrate 1 place where the Scripture calls a man an angel. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not convinced that Rev 2&3 aren't referring to men

If there was no context in Rev.1. And if there was another place in Scripture, for reference, ...then sure.

As it stands, we take it at face value.
As it stands, we have context, in this very passage.

Unless we have reason to overturn these factors, we cannot.

Then there is this, at the end:
Rev 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:worship God.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

If there was no context in Rev.1. And if there was another place in Scripture, for reference, ...then sure.

As it stands, we take it at face value.
As it stands, we have context, in this very passage.

Unless we have reason to overturn these factors, we cannot.

Then there is this, at the end:
Rev 22:8-9
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:worship God.



Anishinaabe

I still raise the same points, though-

 

  Why does God need John to write a letter to heavenly angels over each church, and, in most cases, rebuke the ANGELS for the activities of the churches? Or commend the ANGELS for them? Is it the angels who are doing well? Or doing wickedly? Are the angels to blame, say, for the church at Laodicea being carnal and worldly? Because, the letter IS addressed to, not the churches, but to the ANGELS of the churches.

 

Now, if the angels were, indeed, the human messengers of God to each church, the pastor or bishop or elder or which ever term we wish to use, then clearly, the letter is written to that one to whoim the Lord has given authority for the proper teaching and upbringing of that church, and thus, the letter is not JUST to them, but to the church as a whole.. The context doesn't fit it being to an angel of Heaven-it DOES fit being to a human messenger.

 

Of course, I give myself room to be wrong, because you are correct, as far as we can tell, the Bible doesn't otherwise use it in this way, but until the context can be better explained in a way that it would make SOME sense, as to why the letters would be from God, through a man, to the heavenly angels, and why the Lord doesn't deal directly with the angels, and send John to the men, then I will hold to my understanding of the scripture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I still raise the same points, though-

Why does God need John to write a letter to heavenly angels over each church, and, in most cases, rebuke the ANGELS for the activities of the churches? Or commend the ANGELS for them? Is it the angels who are doing well? Or doing wickedly? Are the angels to blame, say, for the church at Laodicea being carnal and worldly? Because, the letter IS addressed to, not the churches, but to the ANGELS of the churches.

Now, if the angels were, indeed, the human messengers of God to each church, the pastor or bishop or elder or which ever term we wish to use, then clearly, the letter is written to that one to whoim the Lord has given authority for the proper teaching and upbringing of that church, and thus, the letter is not JUST to them, but to the church as a whole.. The context doesn't fit it being to an angel of Heaven-it DOES fit being to a human messenger.

Of course, I give myself room to be wrong, because you are correct, as far as we can tell, the Bible doesn't otherwise use it in this way, but until the context can be better explained in a way that it would make SOME sense, as to why the letters would be from God, through a man, to the heavenly angels, and why the Lord doesn't deal directly with the angels, and send John to the men, then I will hold to my understanding of the scripture.


You are trying to make sense of the Apocalypse, to gain it's meaning?
Isn't that the long way around?

Why did God send letters through Paul, to, say...Timothy?

IDK

Are these angels?

Rev 12:4
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

God said these are:

Rev 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches:and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


Now, if you can show me where a church has only one human messenger assigned to it, then I could see a crack in the door.
But I see this:

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

So that is out.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You are trying to make sense of the Apocalypse, to gain it's meaning?
Isn't that the long way around?

Why did God send letters through Paul, to, say...Timothy?

IDK

Are these angels?

Rev 12:4
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. Many hold to these being angels-are they? Perhaps not-the Bible calls them stars. This would prOBably be better addressed separately

God said these are:

Rev 1:20
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches:and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Again, these are angels, messengers. They could be individuals, human messengers.


Now, if you can show me where a church has only one human messenger assigned to it, then I could see a crack in the door.
But I see this:

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

 No one is saying that there cant be multiple 'prophets', but I believe there is generally one who is overall, a 'bishop' if you will, an overseer, what we would call a pastor/shepherd today. But again, that's another conversation. 

So that is out.

Anishinaabe

We are going pretty far afield in this, but I'll answer once more-any more and I suspect we might want to start a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Genesis 19:1 to Genesis 19:5
Hebrews 13:2


Gen 19:1
Chapter 19
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Gen 19:5
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


God called them 'angels'.
A bunch of queer rapists called them 'men'.
Whose side are you on?

I say that, in ridicule, to make a point.
I assume you are on God's side, until you tell me different.

Heb 13:2
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers:for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Are we unaware that they are men?

No.

They appear to be men.

We are unaware that they are angels.

This isn't rocket science.

Here's the context....from the intro chapter of the very book you are misinterpreting:

Heb 1:7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Heb 1:14
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


They are clearly not us.
They are never called us.
They appear to us, and are made to look like us, for our sake.
They are spirits, our ministers, and not us.

Psa 8:4-5
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

There isn't a single reference where God calls a human messenger "angel" from Gen to Jude.
So there is no reason to think He was calling those who He clearly revealed as angels, to John, in Rev.1, "men", in chapter 2.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't see how references to angels could actually be meaning men rather than angels. If we are to take that stance this would seem to indicate the KJB is flawed in this area since the translators specifically chose to use the term messengers when referring to men and reserved the use of the term angels to refer to God's ministering spirits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gen 19:1
Chapter 19
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom:and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;


Gen 19:5
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


God called them 'angels'.
A bunch of queer rapists called them 'men'.
Whose side are you on?

I say that, in ridicule, to make a point.
I assume you are on God's side, until you tell me different.

Heb 13:2
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers:for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Are we unaware that they are men?

No.

They appear to be men.

We are unaware that they are angels.

This isn't rocket science.

Here's the context....from the intro chapter of the very book you are misinterpreting:

Heb 1:7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Heb 1:14
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?


They are clearly not us.
They are never called us.
They appear to us, and are made to look like us, for our sake.
They are spirits, our ministers, and not us.

Psa 8:4-5
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

There isn't a single reference where God calls a human messenger "angel" from Gen to Jude.
So there is no reason to think He was calling those who He clearly revealed as angels, to John, in Rev.1, "men", in chapter 2.


Anishinaabe

I didn't mean to confuse nor am I confused. I do agree that angels and humans are seperate beings. I just misunderstood what you were looking for. I took your question literally. The references I gave did answer the post that I quoted. Angels, when active here on earth, do take the form of man. I believe they are sexless beings not bound by time or demensions.

Besides why would a man want to be an angel anyway.

1. They can't sing songs like "amazing grace", "redeemed", or "since Jesus came into my heart" and fully understand what they mean.

2. They don't know what it's like to have Jesus die for them. 

3. We are his beloved bride.

 

Angels cannot understand us or salvation. I don't blame them either. Why would God come down and die for me. 1 Peter 1:12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't mean to confuse nor am I confused. I do agree that angels and humans are seperate beings. I just misunderstood what you were looking for. I took your question literally. The references I gave did answer the post that I quoted. Angels, when active here on earth, do take the form of man. I believe they are sexless beings not bound by time or demensions.

Besides why would a man want to be an angel anyway.

1. They can't sing songs like "amazing grace", "redeemed", or "since Jesus came into my heart" and fully understand what they mean.

2. They don't know what it's like to have Jesus die for them. 

3. We are his beloved bride.

 

Angels cannot understand us or salvation. I don't blame them either. Why would God come down and die for me. 1 Peter 1:12

Exactly, 

1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

Isn't "the angel of the church of Philadelphia" one of the angels? Else it would have to specify "which things the heavenly angels desire to look into"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

PLease understand: I'm not seeking to be contentious. My only point I made was, why would it be necessary for God to address angels, ie, heavenly beings, of the OBvious pros and cons of the various churches with which they have to do, and tell them to get the prOBlems right, as though it was somehow the fault of the angels to fix the prOBlems, or that the angels were worthy of the praise for what was going on correctly in the churches?   

 

Clearly it is not so much the churches being addressed, but the ANGELS of the churches. Are THEY to blame for the prOBlems? Are THEY responsible for the good? It is perhaps my own lack of understanding, and of course, I judge nothing according to purely my own understanding, but why address angels, when it is the men in those churches who are responsible for both good and ill. Why, then, directly address the angels? Shall I blame the angel of the church of Herlong for all my troubles?

 

Seriously, if someone can give some sort of an answer to this, other than, "Well, it says angels it must mean heavenly beings'. Yeah, I get it. But again, the word 'god' is used very rarely when referring to men, but it IS used. So why could not the term angel be used in one instance of men, when the meaning of a messenger would still be valid? And would they not be, indeed, a messenger of God to that church?

 

Again, not trying to be contentious. The context just doesn't seem to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Exactly,
1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Isn't "the angel of the church of Philadelphia" one of the angels? Else it would have to specify "which things the heavenly angels desire to look into"

Yes. More common sense.
Thank You for this contribution.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...