Angels Among Us

Posted Sunday, September 28, 2008, at 2:44 PM

Seems like one of my blogs led to a discussion on Angels so I will devote this one entirely to Angels. They were created before the foundation of the earth and existed with God and his first two created beings, Jesus and Lucifer also known as Satan or the Devil, to back this up read the following verse

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:3 KJV

1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:4 KJV

Not until verses 14 through 19 did he create the sun , moon and the stars.

I believe the fall of Satan and his angels happened between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis along with the first destruction of the earth for God would not create chaos.

Lucifer or Satan was already in the garden when man was created and was very jealous of the creation God had made, because the new creation could create life, the only other being that could do this was God.

The only way that angels could do this was to take possession of man and use the man's physical body to perform the act.

In chapter 6 of Genesis it talks of the "sons of God" which means angels took wives of man and created offspring which became the "giant race" that David would destroy.

This was the serpent seed that Satan created, when God warriors David and his soldiers killed the remnant Satan had to resort to demonic possession which I believe still goes on today.

For Paul said we fight not against flesh and blood [as David did] but against principalities in Eph 6v12 which is evil power from high places, the rulers of darkness.

Fallen angels have to have a physical body to do their demonic deeds.

Angels were the word of God before the written word of Moses came into existence and they relayed what God wanted to tell man, since man lost his relationship with God there had to be a go between.

They came to Abraham, they came to Lot, they destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the book of Enoch it goes into detail on what the angels did and what they taught man, this book is accepted as Cannon by the church in Ethiopia and I happen to believe in it myself, it is worth reading.

Angels are mentioned 273 times in 34 biblical books and they are listed as helping man and harming man.

Angels possessed and still possess as much will as man

14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:12-15 KJV

1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jude 1:6 KJV

Jude 6:0 KJV

The reason that Jesus when born of man was create a little lower than the angels was so he could die, die for our sins that is.

Some traits of angels are as follows.

They report directly to God-Job1:6

They do not marry-Matt22;30

They were created to live forever Rev 4;8

Some help humans-Heb 1;4

Some harm humans-Mark5;1-5

They are invisible Rom. 1:18-32

They display desire 1 Pet.1:12

They are not omnipresent Dan 10;12

They are not omnipotent Dan.10;13

They are not omniscient Matt 24;36

There are several more, but that will keep you reading for a while.

The angels are part of the Elohim family of heaven with Jehovah as its leader and like in fleshly families the children rebel and leave sometimes, but how happy the Father is when one of his children come home[the prodigal son]

For all of God's children here on earth in the flesh if you have wandered away you can always come home.

Come home before the terrible thunder starts and the lightning hits which will be the Great Tribulation, come the the outstretched arms of the Father who sent his Son to prepare the way.

The door is open, but who knows for how much longer come in before it is finally shut for good.

I do believe in Guardian angels sent to warn people of bad things as I still believe in evil angels who still possess men's physical being that cause the ungodly things they do.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

1.Where in scripture do you find that Jesus was "created".

Gen. 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

John 1 "In the beginning was the word and word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us." v.3, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Col. 1:16 "For by him (Jesus Christ) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

Jesus Christ IS God, not a creation made by God. The separation of the God head into the trinity is obvious even at creation. "Let US make man in our own image." (See above passages.)

2. Angels were sent to Lot, but they did not destroy Sodom and Gomorah, God himself did: Gen. 19:23 "By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. 29 So when GOD destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham.....

3. What is your scriptural authority for the following statement? (This was the serpent seed that Satan created, when God warriors David and his soldiers killed the remnant Satan had to resort to demonic possession which I believe still goes on today.)

4. Again, your scriptural authority for this statement? (Fallen angels have to have a physical body to do their demonic deeds.)

5. While it is true that the term 'angel' often means messenger. Your statement, (Angels were the word of God before the written word of Moses came into existence and they relayed what God wanted to tell man, since man lost his relationship with God there had to be a go between.) is totally discredited by the first chapter of St. John's gospel. According to John, the word has always been Jesus Christ, not an angel.

There were occasions when angels were used as go-betweens for God and man, but it was not always the case. Once even an ass was used. Look up Balaam and see what his donkey told him. Num. 22-24 God also spoke directly to the heathen, Balaam.

-- Posted by dmcg on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 7:06 PM

For one the demonic spirits were

"in something"whether in the people or cast out into the pigs.

The bible says that God cannot be tempted yet Jesus was tempted in every fashion.James 1:13

Matthew. 4:1-10

I believe in the Godhead God the Father Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit as my guide through life.

Not that all three are one for Christ never praised himself but always the Father.

He come in his Father's name not his, that is how you will tell the Anti-Christ.

Again I go back to the Jewish version of the bible not our King James version.

I have been asked where is my scriptural reference for the rapture or your evedince for the trinity as you see it?

I do not discredit the 1st chapter of John, the word was with God, but the angels did come and teach man, again the original manuscripts from whence the bible came.

Elohim is Hebrew for God's not singular.

I have heard the trinity explained 1 in 3 and 3 in one , to me those are just the same.

Again I go to what was taught by first century Christians not was has been filtered down through all these years.

The Nicean council voted in the trinity over 300 years after the death of Jesus.

I just can't see where all through the bible that Jesus is talking to the whole time.

In todays Christianity you get called a heretic for not believing the trinity. I preach

Jesus Christ born of a virgin

Jesus Christ crucified on a cross

Jesus Christ rose on the Third day

Jesus Christ is coming back.

Whether you believe in the trinity[as it is taught is up today] but it has no bearing on your salvation.

For if God is eternal, how can God die?

We can never fully understand the trinity so I do not try, I just get as close to the original teachings as I can.

This includes the serpent seed and fallen angels and other teachings that are not taught in today's churches.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 7:48 PM

Genesis 1:4 and God created the light and it was good.

Jesus said he was the light, God never said the darkness was good.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 7:53 PM

Michael,

You assume to understand my comprehension of the Godhead. I never mentioned the trinity did I?

Just because demons were inhabiting a man and were cast into a herd of swine does not indicate they could not function without a physical host. What would have happened to them had they not been cast into the swine? Once the swine were drowned, what happened to the demons? Notice that Jesus himself had the power to cast them into the swine. Col. 2:8-15 Gives insight into the triumph of Jesus Christ over the eternal spirits of this earth.Look at the other scriptures where Jesus came into contact with people who were possessed with demons. Notice how the demons recognize Jesus as divine. Read Ephesians 4:1-16. You will find where Jesus triumph over the powers of darkness gives anyone freedom from possession by demons by accepting him as Lord.

Jesus was God before he came to earth to live AS a man. He was unlike any other man to have ever lived. He was God incarnate (in the flesh). John explains this beautifully. Read it in Greek, John's original language. I use the English translation because this is a public forum, and because I suspect you do not read Greek. John 1:14 "And the Word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." His vulnerability as a man becomes obvious in his being tempted. Yet he did not sin, the earmark of his divinity. Heb. 4:14-16

Do you read Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? I read Greek some and find it disconcerting that you suggest that the English Word of God is compromised. If you do not yourself read the original languages you should be careful how you condemn the English versions. Studying with others who do read the languages is not the same as being fluent in them yourself. Beware whom you choose to believe. If you profess to read them, then please show me the exact inconsistencies and let's discuss them.

God did not die. Jesus Christ died as a mortal. His being was eternal, it has always existed. His death had to occur for mankind to receive salvation. Without his death he could not have been raised. His being raised was the triumph of physical as well as eternal spiritual death, the curse from the Garden of Eden.

Read Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Since scripture cannot refute scripture, you must balance John's words with Paul's. Jesus became the Son of God AT the virgin birth. He had existed as God before.

I do not profess to be a completely competent biblical scholar. But I have been at it for many years, My advice to both of us is keep studying and pray to comprehend what we read. May we also be diligent to come to the humility needed to accept the message as God intended it, not as we waant it.

-- Posted by dmcg on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 8:52 PM

Amen and good studying to the both of us.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 9:01 PM

There is spiritual light and physical light. One is not the same as the other. Jesus is the spiritual and physical light. Remember John tells us that Jesus was the force through which God made everything that was made.

Don't be confused into thinking Jesus is not eternal. And the word was GOD, John 1. It is without question. Our minds cannot comprehend how all this works, but it is essential to our faith in Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords that we accept his former position with the Father. This mystery is revealed through the word of God. Had God not intended mankind to understand it in his native tongue, why would all present have heard it in their own language at Pentecost when Peter and the eleven stood in their midst, proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ to the multitude for the very first time since his ascension into Heaven?

-- Posted by dmcg on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 9:02 PM

Genesis 1:4 and God created the light and it was good.

Jesus said he was the light, God never said the darkness was good.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 7:53 PM

HAHAHAHA Wow what an epiphany! Really pulling it out of your butt now.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 9:03 PM

E.M at lwast I have hope in something, do you? to dmcg we each seem to believe in the same God just see things a bit different, the same as everyone out there.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 9:59 PM

that was supposed to be least, I am tired and going to bed ,Blessings to you all.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 10:00 PM

Thought some of these might be interesting studies, and discussions.

http://www.matchdoctor.com/thread_87_281...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra...

Too sleepy to read this one will come back to finish reading it later.:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/on...

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sun, Sep 28, 2008, at 11:25 PM

dmcg, "scripture cannot refute scripture" Then there is a lot for someone to reconcile there. "I read Greek some and find it disconcerting that you suggest that the English Word of God is compromised" Compromised may be too polite of a word. "then please show me the exact inconsistencies and let's discuss them." Do you want linguistic incontinences only, or are the general inconsistencies in the scripture fair game also? Are we including OT and the added problems with additional translations, not to mention the source issues and Josiah's reforms? Also, do we also want to include the few major problems with the NT texts? I just do not know where to start. I guess I could start with a big one, the comma of 1 John since the Trinity was already mentioned. How could you, an apparently well educated person, dare to question Michael on his beliefs of the Godhead? Your opinions have at best equal scriptural authority to his, at least as far as I know. There was plenty of other stuff sitting right there in his comments that you could have replied to in the same way and with authority, but you chose to beat him over the head with the first chapter of John? I can list contradictions to that all night, Here are just a few: Matt 24:36, Gal 4:4-7, Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Peter 3:22 and to my understanding, pretty much all of Hebrews 1. I question your sincerity when you wrote: "May we also be diligent to come to the humility needed to accept the message as God intended it, not as we waant it.".

michaelbell, Thanks for the topic in your own words and thoughts. As always, I appriciate it.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 12:47 AM

memyselfi

I wasn't beating Michael over the head about anything. I applaud his attempts to express his beliefs. One of the problems of written communication lies in "reading intent" into a person's words. I assure you sir/madam that there is no malice in my heart toward Michael or you. I do not question your sincerity nor your motivation, I would appreciate likewise from you. How can any of us speak with authority unless we use the word of God as the basis of our assertions?

If God's creating light means he CREATED the Son, then how can we reconcile the passages that clearly teach that Jesus was the driving force of the ENTIRE creation?

Matt 24:36 What does this passage have to do with Jesus' eternal existence?

Gal 4:4-7 "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir." Notice the scripture does not say God created his son, rather he sent him.

Acts 2:24 Of course Jesus died. Why did God raise him from the dead. Please help me understand your point. How does this have any bearing on the eternal nature of Jesus Christ? Some might see this as an ambiguity of scripture, I see it as an explanation of the nature of the Father's will for his Son, whom he sent.

Romans 10:9 Again,what does God's raising the Son have to do with the Son's eternal nature?

I Pet 3:22 Sitting at the right hand of God. I have no problem with this, what is your point?

When you question my sincerity, do you not judge me? You are free to weigh my words, my understanding of scripture or lack there of, my apparent confusion; but when you judge my sincerity, you go too far. I certainly would not be so presumptuous as to question yours. I would appreciate the same consideration from you. I assert that you misread my statement. As you reread it, please note that I included myself in the benediction. I now include you as well. If we approach the understanding of God's word with preconceptions and prejudices, how can we accept the intent of God's message to us. I pray for a clean, pure heart. I'm sure you do likewise.

-- Posted by dmcg on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 5:31 AM

dmcg, I did go back and re-read your comments and I may well have misread them. If so, I do apologize. I have done that before on several occasions and will undoubtedly do it again in the future. This is a less than perfect forum for communicating. What I thought you were implying was that because you believed differently than Michael, that a few verses could prove beyond any doubt one of the most questionable assertions of modern Christianity. To my way of thinking, the advice you gave, while you were admittedly including yourself, was apparently only really directed to Michael as you had already comprehended in the orthodox, witnessed by what I had perceived as condescending smugness. I must have been wrong in my perception though. The passages I gave did not imply the existence of a non eternal Jesus, but clearly show a separation that is prevalent throughout the Bible and casts significant doubt on the few verses that promote a differing view. I am sorry about including Matt 24. The KJV reads somewhat differently that the NIV which is my most commonly read version. The difference is minor, and must be another one of those instances Erasmus capitulated on.

The first part of John is to me one of the more troublesome parts of the NT. The exact understanding of the Hymn to the Word is somewhat elusive. The Greek influence on this the latest gospel is evident to my understanding. I do not have any problem with how you or anyone else interprets the scripture or worships, but I do wonder if there is anyone that Michael can please. I for one appreciate his desire to learn no matter where it takes him. What I see though, is everyone attacking his beliefs from every angle. Much of what Michael believes is lost on me, but he is extending the effort, which is more than I can say for most Christians I know.

I do try to maintain a clean and pure heart however, I am an atheist. I appreciate the thought in your benediction regardless. Without hesitation, I can honestly say that I do approach religious study without preconceptions and prejudices and hope you do as well. I understand that it can be very hard to do when burdened with millennia of tradition and the weight of the organized church at large.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 8:02 PM

memyselfi,

Thank you for your response. It is hard for me to comprehend how you could be an atheist. As for me, not believing in an eternal God would require much more faith. My belief and faith answer many disconcerting questions that nothingness would engender.

I am not a young person. It has taken me years of thought and wonder to have any sort of grasp on the book of John. If you are as intent a student as you seem, then obviously you wrestle with these issues just as I. When the window of my limited insight was opened on those passages, I found great peace therein.

The complete writings of John and the Psalms are my favorite parts of the Bible. Jesus chose John as his favorite, his collection of ideologies perhaps are evidence of why. Although some would dispute it, I believe he was the only of the original disciples to live his life into old age. His later writing reflects his apparent understanding of the true essence of acceptance by God, that being love. That love is the key to obedience. It is that perfect love that compels one to seek God's will in life, trying as best as frail mortals are capable, to live perfectly, however unsuccessfully.

If I did not appreciate Michael's desire to find truth, I would not respond to his blogs. Just as I, he is searching. I am open to direction and teaching and I certainly appreciate his being likewise. It seems to me, perhaps mistakenly, that he is young in his faith, that he has a zeal most have lost, and that these forums fan his ardor. I certainly hope and pray that I have not hindered his, nor your desire to pursue study.

Above all else, Michael does not have to please me; rather, it is God we should all be attempting to please as He finds pleasure in our seeking to do his will. As I watch my children and grand-children, it becomes even more obvious just how much it means to have a Heavenly Father, a Brother to whom all power and authority have been given, and a Spirit to direct me. I do not understand their being, nor do I deem it necessary. It comforts me to think I am on their side. I sincerely hope that you too will come to acknowledge them in your life.

I leave you with this thought. While many are obsessed with understanding the intricacies and predictions found within the Revelation, I suggest that it is not in the understanding of those mysteries that solace lies; rather in comprehending the last part where the victory over sin and death are revealed and the reward is achieved. And in this correspondence, my final question to you would be: what if after you die, you were to find that the word of God IS true and you have rejected it, what will you have lost? If on the other hand you believe, only to find it to have been false, what difference will it have made?

-- Posted by dmcg on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 4:55 AM

I cannot answer the questions you posed to me at the end of your comment. You, like so many people that I know, make the assumption that my beliefs are chosen by me. I can not choose to believe any more than you could choose to be an atheist. You may question the motives of my heart and you would not be the first, but I assert that my stubbornness or willful rejection are not responsible for my beliefs. I could very easily pretend to believe, but that would accomplish very little as you said above "what difference will it have made".

I find it ironic that you are fond of all the books attributed to John and Psalms. Psalms is my least favorite book of the OT, and in the NT any of the books by John are neglected by me with The Apocalypse being virtually ignored. There is a dualism that borders on the polytheistic in much of his writing that appears to belong in a different collection of writings entirely. I cannot make these books blend with most of the others for some reason and do hope that one day I will be able to as you have.

I doubt you have hindered anyone at all. I just wonder if defensive study is appropriate in all instances. It is fine at times, and can be a motivating factor to tackle some serious reading, but if that is all one gets, I believe it narrows the object of learning down to the minutia building up fortresses around verses as opposed to the overall picture that is so important in my opinion.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 11:48 PM

I can not choose to believe any more than you could choose to be an atheist.

Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 11:48 PM

Prewired Robots have invaded us???

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 1, 2008, at 6:17 PM

Okay.... you wanna write about predestination, the freedom to choose and total depravity in the fallen state again? Fine by me, you start.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Wed, Oct 1, 2008, at 11:14 PM

Were you predistined to write the above post?

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 7:25 AM

Of course not PB, I wrote that on my own volition however, I do suspect that you were predestined to make my head pound just a little bit harder now than it was earlier tonight.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 10:17 PM

You said "you start". I started.

I guess you figure BC Powders were predistined.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:56 AM

No, but they are in my opinion dictated by the forces of determinism, and I am determined to have a couple more tonight.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:05 PM

Aaaaw, the delight in seeing faith put into something. Even if it is a BC Powder. It is a starting point to build upon.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 6:18 PM

My faith in the BC was unfortunatly short lived and misguided.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sun, Oct 5, 2008, at 12:52 AM