• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Angels on Assignment

ByronArn

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jul 28, 2011
352
15
37
Ohio, USA
Visit site
✟19,002.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I have heard this book brought up in high esteem a few times in the charismatic church my wife and i recently started attending. I am considering reading it, but i was wanting an idea of how good it is first. Has anyone here read it? If so, what did you think of it? Does it teach Scriptural doctrines on Angels, or is it New Age-y in it's teachings?
 

tturt

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2006
16,141
7,612
✟964,906.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here’s just a couple of my notes from reading “Angels on Assignment” and study: (I gain what I need and leave the rest when reading these type of materials - well, really anything).

1 - Not once did they (the angels inserted for clarification in this post) leave without giving Bible references where the message could be found.
2- God emphasized that we should quit worrying about HIS responsibilities.
3-When studying about Moses tabernacle, Yahweh said to ask for contributions and some folks gave generously. But for some portions of construction though every family contributed and they gave the same amount. Their shekels were melted and made into various items such as sockets and pins to support the tabernacle’s gate, the veil, the altar. It was boring construction stuff to me until I read “Angels on Assignment.” I learned that the integral part of that framework was families. This is a common thread throughout Scripture and obvious in some places such as Abraham, Isaac and Israel but families are also there in other Scriptures such as these (Exo 30:12-16 and 38:25-31).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
I thought that the book was very edifying. Of particular note was the warning against being lukewarm. Don't feel like going to church? I think the angel called it being on "thin ice". Not that we are in bondage to attend every meaning, but we should examine our motives and if the flesh is the primary reason not to, be warned.

Although you can read the book, it's a greater blessing to buy it because you can loan it out. I recommend it. It's loaned out right now. I was hoping it would come back soon!
 
Upvote 0

ByronArn

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jul 28, 2011
352
15
37
Ohio, USA
Visit site
✟19,002.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I thought that the book was very edifying. Of particular note was the warning against being lukewarm. Don't feel like going to church? I think the angel called it being on "thin ice". Not that we are in bondage to attend every meaning, but we should examine our motives and if the flesh is the primary reason not to, be warned.

Although you can read the book, it's a greater blessing to buy it because you can loan it out. I recommend it. It's loaned out right now. I was hoping it would come back soon!

I actually found it online, and downloaded the epub (an ebook file format) version onto my smartphone. I read it when I am waiting in line somewhere, on my break at work, or on the public bus on my way to somewhere. So far, I have found it pretty edifying. Especially the list of God's priorities.

Edit: Oops, I forgot to include the link. Here it is: http://www.angelsonassignment.org/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jamadan

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
711
32
✟23,566.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
One clue as to knowing he made it all up is the angel's calling Satan 'Lucifer", a name which does not appear in the original language and was a reference of the Babylonian King, not Satan. Satan was never called 'Lucifer' . . . angels would know that. There were other problems with Scripture in the book. I once a list of 70 Scriptural errors from the book. Read it if you want, but it's bogus.
 
Upvote 0

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟29,264.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
One clue as to knowing he made it all up is the angel's calling Satan 'Lucifer", a name which does not appear in the original language and was a reference of the Babylonian King, not Satan. Satan was never called 'Lucifer' . . . angels would know that. There were other problems with Scripture in the book. I once a list of 70 Scriptural errors from the book. Read it if you want, but it's bogus.


Interesting logic. Hmmm...

What do you make of Gabriel's name then? Literally it means "Man of God." Considering angels are not men, what do you suppose the other angels call him? Surly they would know that "Gabriel" is simply what people call him, and not his real God-given name, right?


As far as Lucifer goes, Christians have been calling Satan "Lucifer" since before English was a language. I have no problem with the idea that when talking to English speaking people angels would use a name we are familiar with. Otherwise they would never refer to Jesus as "Jesus"!


From my personal experience (fwiw) I can say that there is an entity who "owns" the name and identity of Lucifer. Similar I guess to how there is one angel who goes by "Gabriel" and is known as character from the Bible. And while I have met another angel that went by the name Michael, he was quick to explain that he was not the archangel we think of when we hear that name.

(Do feel free to plug your ears and go "Nya nya nya" when I talk if you like. I'm sure you will find some reason not to believe what I say... ;) )
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
One clue as to knowing he made it all up is the angel's calling Satan 'Lucifer", a name which does not appear in the original language and was a reference of the Babylonian King, not Satan.
That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
Isaiah 14:4

In this case the Babylonian king is a king of a spiritual kingdom.


The city of Babylon does not exist anymore, yet it is referred to here.

Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
Rev 18:10

Notice in this case, a place can be known "spiritually" by name. Sodom in the physical world is also no more.

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Rev 11:7-8

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.
Psalms 48:1-2

This is where God is.

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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isaiah 14:12-15

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luke 10:18

Again, the reference to a king, of a spiritual kingdom. This "king" was in Eden, the garden of God, and was a created being. No man on earth fits this description.

Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 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.
Ezek 28:11-13

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. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezek 28:14-15

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. 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.
Ezek 28:16-17

What is often thought to be an "error" in the Bible is not that at all. It is certain that the church historically has been misled in many areas. The Holy Spirit has also been at work in the church and Satan was Lucifer. Not that this is necessary for your salvation to know this, but we learn that pride is a great sin, and that we must keep our hearts, EVEN in the presence of God.
 
Upvote 0

jamadan

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
711
32
✟23,566.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
What do you make of Gabriel's name then? Literally it means "Man of God." Considering angels are not men, what do you suppose the other angels call him? Surly they would know that "Gabriel" is simply what people call him, and not his real God-given name, right?

First, I suggest reading the wiki article on it - Lucifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - as it covers it pretty well.

Gabriel and Michael are both named in Scripture. Satan is also named as 'Satan'. There was never anyone named 'Lucifer', it was a reference to the king of Babylon which Jerome translated 'morning star' as 'lucifer' which the King James translators converted into a proper name. In short, it was an error that appears only in the King James version. All other versions have correctly restored the original back to 'morning star'. So there is no name 'Lucifer" anywhere in the Bible and never has been. Jesus called Satan by his correct name, so would his angels.

As to why Buck would include this in his fiction, he did so in an attempt to lend credibility to his story thinking that angels would call Satan by his 'original' name, but in so doing, he's reinforced the fact that he never spoke to angels. Scripture has never referred to Satan as Lucifer.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu

Jezebel's bain
May 14, 2012
2,349
212
✟3,900.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
First, I suggest reading the wiki article on it - Lucifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - as it covers it pretty well.

Gabriel and Michael are both named in Scripture. Satan is also named as 'Satan'. There was never anyone named 'Lucifer', it was a reference to the king of Babylon which Jerome translated 'morning star' as 'lucifer' which the King James translators converted into a proper name. In short, it was an error that appears only in the King James version. All other versions have correctly restored the original back to 'morning star'. So there is no name 'Lucifer" anywhere in the Bible and never has been. Jesus called Satan by his correct name, so would his angels.

As to why Buck would include this in his fiction, he did so in an attempt to lend credibility to his story thinking that angels would call Satan by his 'original' name, but in so doing, he's reinforced the fact that he never spoke to angels. Scripture has never referred to Satan as Lucifer.

Satan isn't a name, it's a title. The same is true of Lucifer. It is the translation of a title in Hebrew into the name of a pagan deity in Latin. That Latin translation got used as a name in later English translations. Heylel isn't 'morning star', it is 'light-bringer' or 'shining one'. It CAN BE a reference to Venus but this is the masculine form. The associated with 'morning star' comes from 'ben Shachar' as 'son of the Morning'. Now Shachar was also a Canaanite deity and is referenced in Job 38. The feminine form of Lucifer is Diana Luciferah. Heylel is a title of the pagan sun god. It would be equivalent to Pheobus in the Greek, an epitaph of Apollo son of Zeus.

Now Molech was the 'shameful king' of the Canaanites that is used as a proper name in English as well. Molech was a title of the Canaanite sun god. In Tyrus/Tire he has the title Melqart, 'king of the city'. Eze 28 is addressed to Melqart the primary deity of Tyrus. The prophecy before is to Baal as 'prince' and the one after to 'she of Sidon', ie Ashtoreth. Eze 28 consists of prophecies to the 3 main members of the Canaanite pagan pantheon.
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
You have to witness to it by the Spirit of God. It's pretty obvious you don't. I won't condemn you, but as you call it "fiction" (he calls it truth), you're actually calling him a liar. It's one thing to have reservations based on your understanding of the Word, but another to say that he is lying.

Although you didn't say it outright, to take someone's testimony (particularly an annointed one) and call it fiction is to call him a liar.

I assume you "overlooked" the reference to the King spoken of earlier as being a created being that was in the Eden?
 
Upvote 0

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟29,264.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
First, I suggest reading the wiki article on it - Lucifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - as it covers it pretty well.

Gabriel and Michael are both named in Scripture. Satan is also named as 'Satan'. There was never anyone named 'Lucifer', it was a reference to the king of Babylon which Jerome translated 'morning star' as 'lucifer' which the King James translators converted into a proper name. In short, it was an error that appears only in the King James version. All other versions have correctly restored the original back to 'morning star'. So there is no name 'Lucifer" anywhere in the Bible and never has been. Jesus called Satan by his correct name, so would his angels.

As to why Buck would include this in his fiction, he did so in an attempt to lend credibility to his story thinking that angels would call Satan by his 'original' name, but in so doing, he's reinforced the fact that he never spoke to angels. Scripture has never referred to Satan as Lucifer.


From your article on wikipedia:

The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer

That's what I thought. Ever since the Latin Vulgate was made, people have been calling Satan "Lucifer". Right? It was completed by the year 405 ce, long before English had developed as a language.


Tobias is not my real name. Yet I answer to it around here. If someone else came on this forum and started also using the name, I might take steps to defend my right to use it, or at least make sure people don't confuse the two of us. Same situation applies to Lucifer. That may not be his real name, but he has been using it now for many centuries, so the identity sticks.


If an angel were to come to you and start talking about me, what name so you think he would use? You know me as Tobias, so I doubt he would feel the need to correct your misconceptions about my real name.



Generally, when individuals with superior intellect speak to others who are considerably less intelligent, they dumb down their information to the level they feel is appropriate. Often times though they overdo it, and end up either sounding stupid or extremely condescending.

Also, conversations between angels and humans are limited, so there is a need for angels to avoid touching on subjects they don't have the time or permission to spend hours teaching on.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu

Jezebel's bain
May 14, 2012
2,349
212
✟3,900.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

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! 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: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isaiah 14:12-15


Why is it that everyone takes this passage out of context? Why not display the following verses? Well generally they don't want you to see the passage in context because it is about the death of 'Lucifer'.

Isa 14:16-21
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

Who is the 'they' that call him 'a man'? You have to go to the verses before to see they are the 'kings of the nations' that rule in Sheol.

Isa 14:9-10
9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

It is the 'kings of the nations' that reside in Sheol that 'lie in glory' in their own houses that say, 'Is this the man ...?' He is the 'man' that has become weak as the prior dead kings. Lucifer is a man that is now dead but people leave out the verses before and after to build false doctrines.

Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the word Shamayim which is translated 'heaven'. It also means 'sky'. He is cast down from a height, not from Yah's heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
The passage refers to more than one person. The same goes for other scriptures, like the "Judas" reference in the Psalms. I believe some of the Messianic passages in the psalms also fall into this category.

A man was not: "Fallen from Heaven"

Regardless of whether we called him "Lucifer" or any other name, that is who we are referring to. The same goes for the name "Jesus" which is an anglicized version of Yeshua. We know who we are talking about.

The Holy Spirit has spoken of this matter to the church and this is not just a traditional gaffe made by the Roman church.
 
Upvote 0

jamadan

Newbie
Jan 1, 2009
711
32
✟23,566.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
The gaffe was made by the translators hired by King James, not Jerome, who translated it correctly. And that gaffe has misdirected mankind on this subject ever since. The 'morning star' being referred to was clearly a man who thought himself like God, the King of Babylon, much like the Roman Caesar thought he was god. That's why the literary language sounds like its referring to a heavenly being, because he thought himself exalted like that and demanded the same of the world he ruled. I completely disagree with Yahu's unique take on it, but concur with his statement that it was always referring to a man, and not a fallen archangel Jesus called 'Satan'. All Bible translators since King James have corrected this error, so it's not like what I'm saying is my idea, it's universally accepted by theologians across the denominational spectrum today. The problem is once something like this gets ingrained, it's difficult to correct, especially with KJ-only fundies out there still thumping away.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu

Jezebel's bain
May 14, 2012
2,349
212
✟3,900.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The passage refers to more than one person. The same goes for other scriptures, like the "Judas" reference in the Psalms. I believe some of the Messianic passages in the psalms also fall into this category.

A man was not: "Fallen from Heaven"

Regardless of whether we called him "Lucifer" or any other name, that is who we are referring to. The same goes for the name "Jesus" which is an anglicized version of Yeshua. We know who we are talking about.

The Holy Spirit has spoken of this matter to the church and this is not just a traditional gaffe made by the Roman church.
Shamayim, the word translated as 'heaven' does not always mean the realm of Yah. That is considered the '3rd heaven' while the 'air' and the realm of the stars are considered the 1st and 2nd heaven but use the same Hebrew word. Both the air (clouds) and stars are mentions but you are assuming the 3rd heaven.

A man can fall from the Tower of Babel after setting himself up as a god to rule over man and Yah did cast down that evil.

"Lucifer" was trying to ascend into the sky above the clouds. He was on earth trying to elevate himself and was cast down in death. He is trying to elevate his position above the 'morning stars' that sang when Yah laid the foundation of the earth.

"Lucifer" is a man. It says so right there in the passage in the verses you ignore. It also mentions his father, Shachar. He is the 'shameful king' of Babel that had people rejoice when he dies, his body decays, is eaten by worms, cast out of his grave and his spirit descends into the pit while other spirits in Sheol call him as weak as they now and 'a man' that caused all the problems.

Augustine spread the doctrine you are spouting, not the Holy Spirit.

Even in Eze 28 in the 3 prophecies to the pagan gods of Tyrus/Sidon it claims they think they are gods but really only man.

Eze 28:
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.
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.

Now the 'prince of Tyrus' was the god Baal. He was a secondary god of Tyrus, one of the Canaanite pantheon. He was a man that claimed god status because of his lineage. You would know him as Nimrod who was worshiped as Baal, Tammuz, Orion, ... after his death. He was a 'son of man', ie the son of Cush. It was via his mother that he claimed god status as Nephilim. He is the 'nephew' of the shameful king of Babel that is cast down in Isa 14. It even mentions 'the nephew' in that passage.

The pagan gods tried to elevate their status to that of 'gods' but Yah classifies them as 'man'. They die like man. They descend into Sheol as the spirits of man. They become weak as the other spirits of the dead.

Even a 'cherub' that is born on earth is 'a man'. He is NOT some leader of a mythical rebellion of 1/3 of the angels of Yah. That is taken from another passage taken totally out of context. It is talking about an event in the tribulation and isn't even a reference to Yah's angels but the pagan 'host of heaven (the 2nd heaven)'.

Isa 57:9 And thou wentest to the king (Molech) with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers (demons) far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell (sheol).

Why is offerings and sacrifices to Molech 'debasing thyself unto Sheol'? What 'messengers' are they sending? This passage is about ritual witchcraft conducted in Molech worship. The entire passage is about the worship of the Baalim.
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
The Prince of Tyrus is not the King of Tyrus. Take a look at some of those Messianic prophesies and see where it talks about someone else, and then Christ. The entire Psalm is not, yet some of the most famous words about Christ are in the same psalm.

This happens in Isaiah as well. It will speak of the present and then the future. It speaks of Israel then and now. It "typifies" a situation that might apply to any point in time on this earth.

Read the Judas psalm. It cannot apply to Judas in its entirety, but is "veiled" or hidden. When Paul or Peter speaks of it, it is by inspiration that we know that this is what was prophesied.
 
Upvote 0

Yitzchak

יצחק
Jun 25, 2003
11,250
1,386
59
Visit site
✟33,833.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I have heard this book brought up in high esteem a few times in the charismatic church my wife and i recently started attending. I am considering reading it, but i was wanting an idea of how good it is first. Has anyone here read it? If so, what did you think of it? Does it teach Scriptural doctrines on Angels, or is it New Age-y in it's teachings?


You don't get the whole book , but at least you get a free preview of some of it at this link.

Angels on Assignment: God's Relentless Protection of You and Your Loved Ones - Perry Stone - Google Books


Also Perry stone , the author has many free videos online. here is a you tube video advertising the book that you mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG8gAkDItPc


There are dozens of you tube Perry Stone videos. If you want a taste of his style and the general feel of him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0