Angels

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Then change it to messenger. That is what it means. Maybe it will help you settle in your mind what the Bible is telling you.

The term, 'angel' is specifically referring to spirit beings, messengers of God, and you have nothing to prove otherwise.

This argument is merely due to the insidious infection called New Ageism that has wormed its way into the minds and hearts of Christians.

This thread has nothing to do with new age thinking, gnostism, or any of the sort. What it is designed to do is make sure we have a CORRECT scriptural view and what GOD's Word says about the subject.

If we were to replace angel with messenger, we would not be altering the text. The text was altered by those translators who placed the word angel in where they knew the word messenger would be appropriate, but since doing so did not fit their preconceptions or agendas, we see the word angel throughout our Bibles.

ps. The translaters did the same thing with the word deacon. They should have translated it as servant or minister EVERY TIME, but again, to fit the agenda, the "deaconed us."

 

[Alabaster]

This thread has nothing to do with new age thinking, gnostism, or any of the sort. What it is designed to do is make sure we have a CORRECT scriptural view and what GOD's Word says about the subject.

If we were to replace angel with messenger, we would not be altering the text. The text was altered by those translators who placed the word angel in where they knew the word messenger would be appropriate, but since doing so did not fit their preconceptions or agendas, we see the word angel throughout our Bibles.

ps. The translaters did the same thing with the word deacon. They should have translated it as servant or minister EVERY TIME, but again, to fit the agenda, the "deaconed us."

There are no such translator errors in scripture regarding angels.

 

[Lloyd]

Angels are Angels, not human beings .. I think we need to realise the difference.

If Angels were human beings, then why would the scriptures make the point of calling them Angels? If the Greek word for Angels is messenger, and the reference was really just to specify a human messenger, then the consistent approach throughout scripture would have been either Angel, or messenger, not both.

If the Bible states Michael fought with his Angels in heaven, then how is it possible that these were human beings? If Michael is human, then who is he and where is his reference in scripture? What earthly 'messengers' are these that fought with him?

How about Revelation? John saw many Angels, and his description alone signified their stature. He called them mighty on many occasions, and made clear reference to them as Angels. If they we're not Angels, but human beings, then who were they, and why would John refer to them as Angels, and describe them as those that worship God on his throne?

How about when Angels visited those on earth in scripture, why would those visited be so afraid if they were human beings? Or how about when Paul I believe said .."Even Angels long to look into these things..." - why would Paul say that if Angels were human beings? It doesn't make sense. Or how about when the Bible states about Angels being chained up in darkness:

1 Peter 1:12
It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

Jude 1:6

And the Angels who did not keep their positions of Authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great day.

How about the 4 Angels on the corners of Euphrates? Messengers or Angels?

Let's not draw up fantasies about Angels, but see the truth.

All praise to God...

 

[Bick]

Having gone through a thorough study of "angels" and "spirit beings", I'm convinced that the word "angel" is merely an Anglosized rendention of the Greek, "aggelos" which is pronounced "angelos" when two "g's" (gammas) are together.

As others have pointed out, "aggelos" means "messenger", and from the Bible context one determines whether to render it "angel"--a spirit being, or "messenger"--a human being.
Actually, there are a number of versions which render "aggelos"--Greek (malak--Hebrew) as "messenger in all cases.

Examples in the N.T. where "aggelos" is rendered "messenger"--a human being:

Matt. 11:10, "I send my messenger before thy face..." KJV, etc.
Luke 7:24, "...when the messengers of John departed..."
James 2:25 "..Rahab...when she had received the messengers..."

In the O.T. the number rendering "malak" as "messenger" are too many to list.

In the KJV, "principalities" is the word consistently used for "arche", which means generally, "first" or "preeminnent" or "chief" or "rulers." Thus, my understanding is they are the rulers of other created spirit beings. But, they are not "angels."
As a matter of fact Romans 8:38 clarifies this: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come...." KJV, putting both "angels" and "principalities" in the same sentence.

Amazing it is, that one third of the angels have gone over to Satan as his "messengers." I believe they are active today on earth and in heaven until the war in heaven, as revealed in Revelation 12:7-9, when Michael and his angels drive them down to the earth, which, to me, is yet in the future.

I believe the cherubs (cherubim--Heb.) and seraphim are spirit beings, but not "angels." They have their own description and responsibilities.

Bick

 

[Alabaster]

Angels are Angels, not human beings .. I think we need to realise the difference.

If Angels were human beings, then why would the scriptures make the point of calling them Angels? If the Greek word for Angels is messenger, and the reference was really just to specify a human messenger, then the consistent approach throughout scripture would have been either Angel, or messenger, not both.

If the Bible states Michael fought with his Angels in heaven, then how is it possible that these were human beings? If Michael is human, then who is he and where is his reference in scripture? What earthly 'messengers' are these that fought with him?

How about Revelation? John saw many Angels, and his description alone signified their stature. He called them mighty on many occasions, and made clear reference to them as Angels. If they we're not Angels, but human beings, then who were they, and why would John refer to them as Angels, and describe them as those that worship God on his throne?

How about when Angels visited those on earth in scripture, why would those visited be so afraid if they were human beings? Or how about when Paul I believe said .."Even Angels long to look into these things..." - why would Paul say that if Angels were human beings? It doesn't make sense. Or how about when the Bible states about Angels being chained up in darkness:

1 Peter 1:12
It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;

Jude 1:6

And the Angels who did not keep their positions of Authority but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great day.

How about the 4 Angels on the corners of Euphrates? Messengers or Angels?

Let's not draw up fantasies about Angels, but see the truth.

All praise to God...

Thank you, Lloyd!