Angels

[Starise]

I see at least four things about angels likely many people would like to know.

Appearance- 

Function-

Hierarchy-

Purpose-

 

On appearance, Is appearance literal ? Some of these beings are unusual to say the least.

 

 

 

[Retrobyter]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

I see at least four things about angels likely many people would like to know.

Appearance- 

Function-

Hierarchy-

Purpose-

Shalom, Starise.

May I suggest that NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that kruwViym ("cherubim") or sraafiym ("seraphim") are "angels!"

In fact, where the four beasts (kruwViym) are mentioned in Revelation, they are said to be WITH the angels, but not said to be angels themselves:

Revelation 5:11-14 (KJV)

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 12 Saying with a loud voice,

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing!"

13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying,

"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."

14 And the four beasts said,

"Amen."

And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Therefore, we don't know about the appearance of "angels."

Regarding "function," I would think that is obvious in the name. "Angels" function as "messengers" for God. That there are hundreds of millions of these messengers, God can send as many as He desires to various persons around the globe, any time he chooses.

As far as a "hierarchy" goes, the only ones we can be sure about is the common "angel" and the "archangel," a "chief angel," as it were. Again, these could be supernatural messengers or HUMAN messengers, as the need arises. The prophets of God who were responsible for the writings of the Navi`iym (the prophecies of the various Prophets) all were HUMAN messengers, particularly to deliver messages from YHWH God to the children of Israel. Occasionally, there were some sent to the leaders of Gentile nations, such as Yonah sent to Nineveh and Elishah ("Elisha") sent to some of the surrounding nations, such as Syria.

Their "purpose" is to deliver God's message to whom they were sent. Some were sent with good news (Luke 2:8-14) and some were sent with bad news (Genesis 19:1-13). Some were sent in pairs, and others were sent in multitudes. But their purpose is to COMMUNICATE.

6 hours ago, Starise said:

On appearance, Is appearance literal ? Some of these beings are unusual to say the least.

Absolutely, however, remember that all of these were given as visions to the prophets. So, who knows how much is literal? I tend to believe they are literal beings, but I'm no expert nor do I have God's knowledge of the subject.

[Starise]

Thanks for elaborating your ideas on these points. I was attempting to narrow my field of vision so I could concentrate on the main ideas and branch from there.

Sometimes on the Worthy forum the branches overgrow and need to be trimmed back.

This all has the tendency to side track my personal thinking sometimes, and since I have a tough time holding a line of thinking when things get too far away from the subject, I try to keep it simple and concise.

You are apparently a study in Hebrew languages and I applaud you for this, however the need to constantly bring up base translations and magnify everything at the word level sends a strong signal to me that translations must not be seen as reliable in ascertaining a true meaning of the text, which in a nutshell says what most people are reading is misleading and we need a scholar in Hebrew to step in and set the record straight.

I find concordances to be very helpful at times because I don't know Hebrew. Greek and Aramaic also being languages scripture was translated into or maybe even written in originally, and I do use these study helps when I feel it is necessary.

It appears in this case there is a NEED to dig into the original languages to get a better grasp of angels, but in doing so I feel some veering as the subject of serpents was raised and was tied into Satan maybe even as a physical representation. I'll admit this part of it has interested me since serpents, dragons and the like are a part of most ancient cultures as god figures. Did we digress too far afield from 'angels' ? If this is how some of them are appraised then I think not.

It is commonly stated Lucifer is, or was one the chief entities in heaven who rebelled. It is also common to call him a "fallen angel". As I mentioned earlier, it seems the dark side gets the most attention and this thread pretty well bears it out. Maybe this is a good thing because they are the enemies of Christians and we should know our enemy.

Earlier in the thread other heavenly classifications were introduced and it was never argued these other classifications were anything but angels of one type or another.

As I understand things, angel is a relatively recent term if we look at history  up until now, and as you pointed out the term came as an explanation or as a word in Greek that replaced other words for them used earlier.

I see all of this as a good reason for WHY we need to dig a little deeper into the subject. I'm just not sure we can do so in a way here that would do the subject justice. After a 50+ post thread we are back to attempting to replace or discount the word "angel". Why is it so important to omit the word now that we have been using  for hundreds of years as an understanding for what these things are?

Edited March 7, 2022 by Starise

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Thanks for elaborating your ideas on these points. I was attempting to narrow my field of vision so I could concentrate on the main ideas and branch from there.

Sometimes on the Worthy forum the branches overgrow and need to be trimmed back.

This all has the tendency to side track my personal thinking sometimes, and since I have a tough time holding a line of thinking when things get too far away from the subject, I try to keep it simple and concise.

Shalom, Starise.

You're welcome, and I'm trying hard not to be too lengthy, which will also help, I think.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

You are apparently a student in Hebrew languages and I applaud you for this, however the need to constantly bring up base translations and magnify everything at the word level sends a strong signal to me that translations must not be seen as reliable in ascertaining a true meaning of the text, which in a nutshell says what most people are reading is misleading and we need a scholar in Hebrew to step in and set the record straight.

I believe that YHWH God is quite capable of keeping the well-intentioned, prayer-filled translations pure enough and powerful enough to help people come to Him and find "salvation," or rather, God's justification.

But, after 2,000 years of copying and translating, let's face it: There WILL be transmission errors in the copies and translations. It's inevitable! No two languages are one-to-one relationships. That is, a single Hebrew word, for instance, may have different words used for translation into any language, not to mention the cornucopian basket of hodge-podge languages in the American English language! Also, one English word may have been used to translate multiple Hebrew words.

In set theory, this is a 1-to-n relationship and an n-to-1 relationship, and these relationships overlap! The spiderweb they weave for all the various words in each language is ponderous.

People also have the monumental task of being sure that what one reads is what one pictures in his or her mind! Two people can read exactly the same thing, and come away with entirely different understandings of what they just read!

So, yes, sometimes we just need to get back to the roots of what we read, back to the original languages, as much as we are able, to get a better picture of what is being said by the author.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

I find concordances to be very helpful at times because I don't know Hebrew. Greek and Aramaic also being languages scripture was translated into or maybe even written in originally, and I do use these study helps when I feel it is necessary.

It appears in this case there is a NEED to dig into the original languages to get a better grasp of angels, but in doing so I feel some veering as the subject of serpents was raised and was tied into Satan maybe even as a physical representation. I'll admit this part of it has interested me since serpents, dragons and the like are a part of most ancient cultures as god figures. Did we digress too far afield from 'angels' ? If this is how some of them are appraised then I think not.

Good. However, I would also advise getting your hands on Hebrew and Greek grammar books. Concordances and lexicons can only do so much, but to understand what is truly being said, one must know the grammar, as well. There are good software programs (apps) out there that can help, too. My favorite right now is BibleHub.com. This isn't an ad for it, since I have no invested stock in it, but I find it one of the most thorough study helps on-line.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

It is commonly stated Lucifer is, or was one the chief entities in heaven who rebelled. It is also common to call him a "fallen angel". As I mentioned earlier, it seems the dark side gets the most attention and this thread pretty well bears it out. Maybe this is a good thing because they are the enemies of Christians and we should know our enemy.

You can call him "haSatan" or just "Satan." That's Hebrew for "the Enemy," but a very COMMON mistake is to use Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 as though they were additional information given about haSatan. Neither location is talking about the being referred to as "haSatan," and both are talking about MEN who died! "Lucifer" is a Latin translation for the Hebrew word "heeyleel," which means "shining one." While it may be used as a name, the passage is about the "king of Babylon." One must always look at a verse within its context to understand it correctly.

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Earlier in the thread other heavenly classifications were introduced and it was never argued these other classifications were anything but angels of one type or another.

As I understand things, angel is a relatively recent term if we look at history  up until now, and as you pointed out the term came as an explanation or as a word in Greek that replaced other words for them used earlier.

I see all of this as a good reason for WHY we need to dig a little deeper into the subject. I'm just not sure we can do so in a way here that would do the subject justice. After a 50+ post thread we are back to attempting to replace or discount the word "angel". Why is it so important to omit the word now that we have been using  for hundreds of years as an understanding for what these things are?

We don't need to stop using the word IF we can remember what the word means! The word "angel," coming from the Greek word "aggelos," means "messenger." That being said, we also need to remember that the Bible talks about "supernatural messengers" from God as well as "HUMAN messengers." These HUMAN messengers may be from another human being, OR they also may be from God, as prophets are. Context will keep them understood.

[Starise]

God afternoon @Retrobyter

I can see the need to look when the word angel is used in scripture to determine the context. Could be men or it could be beings other than human. In most cases I read it seems the latter is true.

The idea of inter dimensional beings who 'ain't us'  and who can see us but we can't see them is a little unsettling at times for me I'll admit. This is why the battle is described as an invisible battle that takes place. While they can and do enter our realm, they exist in that other realm.

Consider the bible text below. How would the "angels in heaven" rejoice if they were not aware? We know they see and are aware of what occurs down here.

Luke 15:10

NIV

10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Hebrews 12:1

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,

WE are surrounded by an invisible cloud of witnesses.

I see a duality in Ezekiel 28 because it colors way outside the lines of a common worldly king in the 2nd part of the chapter.

The " King of Tyre" was never in the garden of Eden. Ezekiel 28:12-19.

Note ha Satan was a guardian cherub if he is spoken of here in this context.

I have concluded verse 13 could well be referring to a beautiful scaly being. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Retrobyter]

On 3/8/2022 at 2:05 PM, Starise said:

Good afternoon @Retrobyter

I can see the need to look when the word angel is used in scripture to determine the context. Could be men or it could be beings other than human. In most cases I read it seems the latter is true.

Shalom, Starise.

I believe that, as you investigate the context of each occurrence, you might just discover that these messengers would be better understood to be human messengers.

On 3/8/2022 at 2:05 PM, Starise said:

The idea of inter dimensional beings who 'ain't us'  and who can see us but we can't see them is a little unsettling at times for me I'll admit. This is why the battle is described as an invisible battle that takes place. While they can and do enter our realm, they exist in that other realm.

Consider the bible text below. How would the "angels in heaven" rejoice if they were not aware? We know they see and are aware of what occurs down here.

Luke 15:10

NIV

10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

I'm willing to admit that there are several instances in Scripture that may indeed by supernatural messengers in the sky. However, I still believe that they are rarely beings we need to be concerned about in normal everyday living. Our trust in God and in His Son Yeshua` the Messiah supersede their involvement.

On 3/8/2022 at 2:05 PM, Starise said:

Hebrews 12:1

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,

WE are surrounded by an invisible cloud of witnesses.

No, the "great cloud of witnesses" are all those mentioned in Hebrews 11. They are our examples to follow, each one a testimony to God's love, willingness to help, and His power to provide.

On 3/8/2022 at 2:05 PM, Starise said:

I see a duality in Ezekiel 28 because it colors way outside the lines of a common worldly king in the 2nd part of the chapter.

The " King of Tyre" was never in the garden of Eden. Ezekiel 28:12-19.

Note ha Satan was a guardian cherub if he is spoken of here in this context.

I have concluded verse 13 could well be referring to a beautiful scaly being. 

Ezekiel 28:1-19 (KJV)

1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,

2 "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus,

"'Thus saith the Lord GOD;

"'"Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, 'I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas'; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: 4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: 5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:"

6 "'Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD;

"'"Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; 7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. 8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. (drowning and being buried at sea)

9 "'"Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, 'I am God?' but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. 10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it," saith the Lord GOD.'"

12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus (Tyre), and say unto him,

"'Thus saith the Lord GOD;

"'"Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 "'"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 "'"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."'"

In ALL of these verses, not ONCE was he called "haSatan!"

Apparently, as the king of Tyre, a port city, he was also an explorer and a very wise trader. He had personally gone far to other countries by ship, and had gone to places no other had gone, and had collected much wealth. This may also have been about his ancestors who helped in the building of the Temple for King Solomon. Tyre is a port city for Lebanon from which Solomon had shipped much lumber for the building of his houses and the House of God.

It's also possible that, at one point in time, soon after the global Flood of Noach's time, that the location of Gan-`Eden was still known. The rivers were still named the same, and if he had sailed and ported to ships he owned on the waters of the East, such as the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aqaba, the Gulf of Aden, and the Persian Gulf, he or one of his ancestors may have indeed discovered the remnants of Gan-`Eden itself.

While it is POSSIBLE that God may have been referring to haSatan, I don't believe that it's probable.

[Retrobyter]

On 3/4/2022 at 10:05 AM, Golds and Blues said:

Thankyou for mentioning the hebrew letter ayin and the comparable meaning of eyes.

Yes, I'm quite well educated in the manners of shabbat new moons when the sky is shared. לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת

2 chronicles 8

יג  וּבִדְבַר-יוֹם בְּיוֹם, לְהַעֲלוֹת כְּמִצְוַת מֹשֶׁה, לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְלֶחֳדָשִׁים, וְלַמּוֹעֲדוֹת שָׁלוֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה--בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת, וּבְחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת.

13 even as the duty of every day required, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the appointed seasons, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.

Shalom, Golds and Blues.

Can you please change the font on this? I can't even tell what goes with what.

[Retrobyter]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:01 AM, Golds and Blues said:

24 leaves are found on the olive branch. The number can be found at the sod level of PaRDeS exegesis.

 לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת

Shalom, Golds and Blues.

Really? I don't even know what you're talking about! "The sod level of PaRDeS exegesis?" What in the WORLD are you talking about?! "24 leaves?" WHO CARES?!

And, לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת (lashabaatowt = "to-the-shabbats" [feminine]); how does that fit in to whatever you are saying?

Quit trying to be "mysterious" or "hyperspiritual"; it's counterproductive.

Okay, so I looked it up and found that it has to do with the four levels of RABBINIC Judaism. (I should note that this info comes from NoahsArkFellowship.org.)

Quote

 

PaRDeS (Jewish exegesis)

Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:

• Peshat (פ ָׁשטְּ ) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning. 
• Remez (ֶר ֶמז ) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
• Derash (ד ַרשְּ ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
• Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

 

As a Messianic Jew, I've never been exposed to this line of mysticism. But, I've known it in Christian circles all my life! As a Baptist preacher's son, I've been exposed to allegorical and mystical thinking for a long time. I reject it simply because God is not into hiding things from those who love Him.

The Peshat meaning, the DIRECT meaning, is enough for me. That's how the Bible was written, and that's how it should be understood.

All this other "stuff" I find to be distractive and nonsensical. "Those who go looking for trouble usually find it!"

Edited March 17, 2022 by Retrobyter
to add new (to me) knowledge & to cite my source

[Starise]

On 3/4/2022 at 9:39 AM, Alive said:

No--honestly, I am lost in this conversation

Me too. 

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Me too. 

Shalom, Starise and @Alive.

Yes, you're both sensing the same thing. As I said before, coming from a website called "NoahsArkFellowship.org," I found ...

Quote

 

PaRDeS (Jewish exegesis)

Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:

• Peshat (פ ָׁשטְּ ) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning. 
• Remez (ֶר ֶמז ) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
• Derash (ד ַרשְּ ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
• Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

 

For me, using this chart, I would say that a person should stick to the Peshat or the plain, simple, direct meaning of the text.

All of this other nonsense is "blowing smoke" using words found within a text as though they were related on their own merit to the same words in other contexts. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In my opinion, it's a way to CONFUSE THE ISSUES PURPOSEFULLY in an attempt to appear "spiritual" and "knowledgeable" on some higher level. I believe this is one of haSatan's attempts at CONFUSING God's Word, distracting the individual away from the simple truths one may find within a context.