Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
John the baptist is called an "Angel" the exact same Greek word used to describe heavenly messengers and it is quoted from the OT so we know it is the exact same Hebrew word as well.
So - if you are going to adhere to bible inerrancy you may do well to see there is more to the story rather than simply contradict something I say because it doesn't fit your overall understanding.
No - cherubim and seraphim are not sent out as messengers and so cannot accurately be described as angels. Angels (look up the plain meaning and study the usage WITHOUT theological commentaries added) and you will see it simply means "messenger". They can be humans or they can be spiritual but they carry a message.
What you describe are "living creatures" and are a different thing altogether. Like I suggested - sometimes it's good study your bible and lay off religious essays which try to add in church tradition.
Hebrew: Mal'ak - messenger or representative
Greek: Angellos - a messenger, envoy, one who is sent
Again - it's VERY hard to think outside of modern stereotypes of certain words. Angel, hell, demon and heaven are great examples of the type of words I'm referring too. Go back to the Greek and Hebrew and you can make some great discoveries.
Angels are messengers. Angels carry out judgments of God. Angels control whether, Revelation 7:1 as a part of judgment. Angels-Cherubs and Seraphs guard the throne of God (as in honor guards). Representations of cherubs are on the lid of the ark over the mercy seat.
Angels are not human beings. A human being may be a messenger but he remains a human being. An angel is a higher form of creature than a human being is.
From the Scripture:
Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his ANGELS waging war with the dragon (Satan). And they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his ANGELS were thrown down with him.
Matthew 26:53 ''Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of ANGELS?
As I have said. Angels are far from being mere messengers. In Revelation angels are shown as administering the judgments of God on mankind.
Cherubs and Seraphs have their own specific functions. They are angels of their own classes. Satan is an cherub angel.
Learn about angels at this first link particularly.
A human being may be a messenger but he remains a human being. An angel is a higher form of creature than a human being is.
Mike, you are making my point. THE BIBLE PLAINLY CALLS JOHN THE BAPTIST AN ANGELLO AND MALAK.
Luke 7:27
This is he of whom it is written: "Behold, I send My messenger (Angellos) before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.
Mal 3:1
"Behold, I send My messenger (Malak) , And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger (Malak) of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.
So you choose to ignore the bible in favor of your religious essays, which is fine, just let it be known that's what you are doing. Same goes for heaven, hell, demons - all of it. You ignore the bible you claim to represent over and over to protect your world view and church tradition. Go for it - no problem...
Mike, you are making my point. THE BIBLE PLAINLY CALLS JOHN THE BAPTIST AN ANGELLO AND MALAK.
Luke 7:27
This is he of whom it is written: "Behold, I send My messenger (Angellos) before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.
Mal 3:1
"Behold, I send My messenger (Malak) , And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger (Malak) of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts.
So you choose to ignore the bible in favor of your religious essays, which is fine, just let it be known that's what you are doing. Same goes for heaven, hell, demons - all of it. You ignore the bible you claim to represent over and over to protect your world view and church tradition. Go for it - no problem...
All that has been said by me and that is in the links is straight from the Bible. How is it then that you claim that I am ignoring the Bible?
Are you saying that you don't believe in heaven, hell and demons?
I advise you to study the material in the link that I provided and learn something about the issue that you erroneously think you know something about.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
All that has been said by me and that is in the links is straight from the Bible. How is it then that you claim that I am ignoring the Bible?
Because of this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Angels are not human beings. A human being may be a messenger but he remains a human being. An angel is a higher form of creature than a human being is.
I have shown you about 3 times that "angel" in the bible and in the original Greek and Hebrew does not necessarily refer to a spiritual being and ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY does in certain cases refer to human beings. I quote it in black and white. Instead of addressing this you repeat the same error again "Angels are not humans" and proceed to stick to the religious/theological/traditional view no matter what.
I do my own research. You quote links to traditional church think.
We both could learn something if you would actually address my points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Are you saying that you don't believe in heaven, hell and demons?
You should know by now that the word hell has no Greek or Hebrew equivalent. Don't you read these threads??? Again, we both could learn something if you would actually address legitimate points brought to you. If not you are just trolling - not discussing (this is a discussion forum).
A big problem with traditional church teachings is they take one possible meaning of a term and apply it to everything and even force apply it to things which have nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I advise you to study the material in the link that I provided and learn something about the issue that you erroneously think you know something about.
If you would address legitimate points made which disprove some of your beliefs that would be a great help Mike. Why are you unwilling to do this?
You are posting theological conclusions made by others which you happen to agree with and which you see support in scripture for. I am referencing the Hebrew and Greek scriptures which raise legitimate questions about these conclusions. If your case was so solid you wouldn't have to bolster it with links to 50 hr. long (are whatever they were) audio teachings. Like a massive flood reinforcing a particular spin or conjecture will make it true.
The ideas the church espouses about Lucifer and fallen angels etc. are well known and have been around for centuries. I guess that's what apologetics are all about - trying to convince folks certain concepts are absolute truth no matter how many obvious possible inconsistantcies and unknowns and outright errors are in it.
I have shown you about 3 times that "angel" in the bible and in the original Greek and Hebrew does not necessarily refer to a spiritual being and ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY does in certain cases refer to human beings. I quote it in black and white. Instead of addressing this you repeat the same error again "Angels are not humans" and proceed to stick to the religious/theological/traditional view no matter what.
I do my own research. You quote links to traditional church think.
We both could learn something if you would actually address my points.
You are using the fact that the word 'angel' means 'messenger' in an attempt to draw attention away from the reality of the angelic conflict. Human beings are not in view in any of the passages that are referencing the angelic conflict. Angels are a separate classification of beings then humans are. The angelic conflict is not about human messengers.
Quote:
You should know by now that the word hell has no Greek or Hebrew equivalent. Don't you read these threads??? Again, we both could learn something if you would actually address legitimate points brought to you. If not you are just trolling - not discussing (this is a discussion forum).
A big problem with traditional church teachings is they take one possible meaning of a term and apply it to everything and even force apply it to things which have nothing to do with it.
Hell is an English word that English speaking people often use to refer to Hades. Some use it when they actually mean the lake of fire. In fact, the word 'hell' better describes the lake of fire than it does Hades.The only people who make an issue of the word 'hell' are those who don't believe the Bible concerning the fact that unbelievers are going to spend eternity in the lake of fire.
As far as 'discussing things', I am telling you about the reality of the angelic conflict. You can either accept it or you can reject it. And I assure you that you have nothing to teach me.
Quote:
If you would address legitimate points made which disprove some of your beliefs that would be a great help Mike. Why are you unwilling to do this?
You are posting theological conclusions made by others which you happen to agree with and which you see support in scripture for. I am referencing the Hebrew and Greek scriptures which raise legitimate questions about these conclusions. If your case was so solid you wouldn't have to bolster it with links to 50 hr. long (are whatever they were) audio teachings. Like a massive flood reinforcing a particular spin or conjecture will make it true.
The ideas the church espouses about Lucifer and fallen angels etc. are well known and have been around for centuries. I guess that's what apologetics are all about - trying to convince folks certain concepts are absolute truth no matter how many obvious possible inconsistantcies and unknowns and outright errors are in it.
You would like to think that you can disprove the Bible. Everything that I have posted concerning the angelic conflict is Scriptural. The passages support the reality of it.
The 'others' that you are referring to are quite knowledgable in the original languages.
You reject what the Bible itself says and resort to calling it the teachings of the church. And then you condemn the church.
The links that I post are to provide true and accurate doctrinal information. My purpose on this forum is not to debate but rather to provide doctrinal information pertaining to the word of God.
Now rather than continue to take this thread off topic why don't you just start a thread of your own and anyone who who wants to 'discuss' anything with you can do so.
As for readers just coming onto this thread, take a look at the links I have posted and see just what it is that this poster is attempting to disprove. Frankly, I don't even remember why the subject of the angelic conflict came up on this thread. I'm going to have to go back and take a look.
I went back and looked, and the reason I brought up the angelic conflict was because of a comment made by this poster in post# 105 about not understanding the 'big picture'. The links that I provided are on posts# 125 and 131.
But again, this is not the topic of this thread.
Last edited by Michael Way; 02-05-2010 at 02:29 AM..
You are using the fact that the word 'angel' means 'messenger' in an attempt to draw attention away from the reality of the angelic conflict. Human beings are not in view in any of the passages that are referencing the angelic conflict. Angels are a separate classification of beings then humans are. The angelic conflict is not about human messengers.
Hell is an English word that English speaking people often use to refer to Hades. Some use it when they actually mean the lake of fire. In fact, the word 'hell' better describes the lake of fire than it does Hades.The only people who make an issue of the word 'hell' are those who don't believe the Bible concerning the fact that unbelievers are going to spend eternity in the lake of fire.
As far as 'discussing things', I am telling you about the reality of the angelic conflict. You can either accept it or you can reject it. And I assure you that you have nothing to teach me.
You would like to think that you can disprove the Bible. Everything that I have posted concerning the angelic conflict is Scriptural. The passages support the reality of it.
The 'others' that you are referring to are quite knowledgable in the original languages.
You reject what the Bible itself says and resort to calling it the teachings of the church. And then you condemn the church.
The links that I post are to provide true and accurate doctrinal information. My purpose on this forum is not to debate but rather to provide doctrinal information pertaining to the word of God.
Now rather than continue to take this thread off topic why don't you just start a thread of your own and anyone who who wants to 'discuss' anything with you can do so.
As for readers just coming onto this thread, take a look at the links I have posted and see just what it is that this poster is attempting to disprove. Frankly, I don't even remember why the subject of the angelic conflict came up on this thread. I'm going to have to go back and take a look.
I went back and looked, and the reason I brought up the angelic conflict was because of a comment made by this poster in post# 105 about not understanding the 'big picture'. The links that I provided are on posts# 125 and 131.
But again, this is not the topic of this thread.
Okay Mike. We'll go back to discussiing Heathen Inbreddedness. Sorry for distracting you with the Hebrew and Greek biblical text.
It's great that you have all the mysteries of the universe figured out and have nothing to learn at all. Excellent. Must be nice.
I'm glad God has you to fight his battles for him. Lord only knows what he would do without you. He'd probably just sit and spit out sarcasms all day. lmao.
BOO! You're caught up in YOUR man made Religion and you're the one whose afraid and offended...not God. In your case I would say it's a good thing God allows only two people to be gathered for "it" to be so. After all, we've seen Jonestown and Koresh. If only they had stood firm in that scripture, like your self, then so many innocent children would still be alive today and not dragged to their death by FALSE religion. It may be hard for you to believe or understand but God doesn't NEED you...he loves you and permits you for his will. The God I serve doesn't need my anger nor does he need me to fight his battles; the God I serve allows me to plant my seed with peace and love towards my brothers and sisters. Sometimes a little tough love can go a lot farther than a SLAP TO THE FOREHEAD. (Pentecostal reference lol)
The golden street question is: If God told you that you could NEVER speak on his behalf again...would u still love and serve him?
Amen.
Since the scripture "If two or more gather...yada yada yada" has been brought up; Why do churches exist? All we need is two people, it says so right there in the Bible, I guess pastors don't really get it after all. hmm.
I'm glad God has you to fight his battles for him. Lord only knows what he would do without you. He'd probably just sit and spit out sarcasms all day. lmao.
BOO! You're caught up in YOUR man made Religion and you're the one whose afraid and offended...not God. In your case I would say it's a good thing God allows only two people to be gathered for "it" to be so. After all, we've seen Jonestown and Koresh. If only they had stood firm in that scripture, like your self, then so many innocent children would still be alive today and not dragged to their death by FALSE religion. It may be hard for you to believe or understand but God doesn't NEED you...he loves you and permits you for his will. The God I serve doesn't need my anger nor does he need me to fight his battles; the God I serve allows me to plant my seed with peace and love towards my brothers and sisters. Sometimes a little tough love can go a lot farther than a SLAP TO THE FOREHEAD. (Pentecostal reference lol)
The golden street question is: If God told you that you could NEVER speak on his behalf again...would u still love and serve him?
Amen.
Who exactly are you speaking to? Yourself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
God is a wimp?
Yourself?