Angels

[mindlight]

The bible speaks of angels and demons being persons, though. You say angels are apprehensions of the divine... then what are demons apprehensions of. And how can Jesus have a conversation with one (satan) if he's not a person? How could Michael argue with Satan if Satan and Michael were not persons?

Exactly

 

[heron]

"angel" -188 verses

"angels" 89 verses


There's a passage in one of Enoch's writings that he visited the [third?] heaven and asked why God wouldn't release the fallen angels.
If you look at the passage that mentions blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Mr 3:29 Jesus is describing demons, then says that all sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, then talks about those who have evil deeds without beginning and end.

Based on this and other verses on demons and fallen angels, I think that they do have a choice and are somehow more firm on their choice than humans.

 

[Epiphoskei]

There's a passage in one of Enoch's writings that he visited the [third?] heaven and asked why God wouldn't release the fallen angels.
If you look at the passage that mentions blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Mr 3:29 Jesus is describing demons, then says that all sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, then talks about those who have evil deeds without beginning and end.

Based on this and other verses on demons and fallen angels, I think that they do have a choice and are somehow more firm on their choice than humans.

Possibly this is part of the explanation. Certainly there are no demons who desire forgiveness. But we also need to remember, God doesn't just forgive. He arranged for a blood payment to be made on our behalfs, but without it, he would not be justified in the overlooking of sins. And the atonement was God who took on man, not angelicness. The fact that Christ died a human's death and saves humans through it seems to indicate that the atonement is only for humans.

 

[InkBlott]

I'm not entirely sure that angels should necessarily be regarded as persons. They seem to be more...I don't know...representations of revelations, of states of apprehension of the Divine, of shifts in thinking about God in relation to humanity.

The bible speaks of angels and demons being persons, though. You say angels are apprehensions of the divine... then what are demons apprehensions of. And how can Jesus have a conversation with one (satan) if he's not a person? How could Michael argue with Satan if Satan and Michael were not persons?

Exactly

I actually said that angels seem more like representations of...states of apprehension. I know it may seem like a small difference, but I chose that word rather deliberately. I don't see angels as apprehensions of the Divine per se, but as something more along the line of pictures-drawn of what it's like to have a sudden, shattering apprehension of the Divine.

I'll give you an example. Read the first chapter of Ezekiel. He describes the four living creatures as having the faces of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. Beyond that point, his descriptions become so outre, so purely other, that it is virtually impossible to envision them as you read. He uses forces of nature, impossible physics, and non-living elements to describe these beings, stretching language...

The thing that makes the greatest sense to me is to see these creatures as representations/pictures-drawn of Ezekiel's first overwhelming, conscious realization that he has had an unutterable, ego dissolving, mystical revelation regarding the Divine. If the creatures were logical, understandable, they would be utterly wrong. As they are, they aren't exactly right. Nothing is. But at least they aren't utterly wrong...

The apprehension itself...? There's nothing to say about it. If you can talk about it, it was somethng else.

You do have something to do afterwards. That much is clear. And that can be talked about.

What are demon's apprehensions of? Demons aren't apprehensions. If anything, they're nasty little knots of adversarial options, none of which are real.

As for Jesus, he repudiated the Adversarial Voice altogether. It asked the wrong questions. Why answer?

I have no idea what Jude was talking about.

 

[mindlight]

I actually said that angels seem more like representations of...states of apprehension. I know it may seem like a small difference, but I chose that word rather deliberately. I don't see angels as apprehensions of the Divine per se, but as something more along the line of pictures-drawn of what it's like to have a sudden, shattering apprehension of the Divine.

I'll give you an example. Read the first chapter of Ezekiel. He describes the four living creatures as having the faces of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. Beyond that point, his descriptions become so outre, so purely other, that it is virtually impossible to envision them as you read. He uses forces of nature, impossible physics, and non-living elements to describe these beings, stretching language...

The thing that makes the greatest sense to me is to see these creatures as representations/pictures-drawn of Ezekiel's first overwhelming, conscious realization that he has had an unutterable, ego dissolving, mystical revelation regarding the Divine. If the creatures were logical, understandable, they would be utterly wrong. As they are, they aren't exactly right. Nothing is. But at least they aren't utterly wrong...

The apprehension itself...? There's nothing to say about it. If you can talk about it, it was somethng else.

You do have something to do afterwards. That much is clear. And that can be talked about.

What are demon's apprehensions of? Demons aren't apprehensions. If anything, they're nasty little knots of adversarial options, none of which are real.

As for Jesus, he repudiated the Adversarial Voice altogether. It asked the wrong questions. Why answer?

I have no idea what Jude was talking about.

What you appear to be saying effectively is that angels do not exist as objective phenomena in their own right. You see them as existential projections as man copes with ego shattering experiences of the divine.

It is this position that cannot be supported by scripture.

Jude is talking about a real conversation between two persons ie the Archangel Michael and the Devil

 

[mindlight]

"angel" -188 verses

"angels" 89 verses


There's a passage in one of Enoch's writings that he visited the [third?] heaven and asked why God wouldn't release the fallen angels.
If you look at the passage that mentions blaspheming the Holy Spirit, Mr 3:29 Jesus is describing demons, then says that all sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, then talks about those who have evil deeds without beginning and end.

Based on this and other verses on demons and fallen angels, I think that they do have a choice and are somehow more firm on their choice than humans.

Thats helpful thank you

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I have some questions about angels.

1) Do angels have personality like human beings or it a different kind of personality. Are they more like puppets or do they make conscious choices to obey God?

Not alot of evidence scripturally on their personalities. They make choices as some have fallen away.

2) Humans have the incarnation to prove that they are special in the eyes of God and the experience and fact of redemption. What are the special characteristics of an angels relationship with God?

They are totally different creatures than us, and since they serve God "face-to-face" so to speak, that should speak for itself.

3) Two angels are named in the Bible. Why aren't more named. What do people think about the non biblical revelations and traditions about other angels names like Raphael for instance?

There are 3 angels named. Interesting how 1/3 fell also eh?

4) Why are fallen angels irredeemable? How do they continue to have power at all if they are out of relationship with God? Are they merely deceptive shadows or do they still have substance of some sort?

I haven't found alot of evidence to answer that, but on that note you could ask the same about satan.

Angels come in different forms, some believe they are bodiless and come in some form of light display. However there are references that they have (or can have) bodies. The genesis account of the destruction of sodom and gomorrah is a good example of that, the men of the city thought the angels were men.

5) Why are some fallen angels bound and why are some allowed to roam free?

I can't give an educated answer

6) Could an angel lose in combat with a demon. If it did lose what would happen to it. Would God simply restore it?

depends on if he has his talisman of restoration equipped, and assuming the demon didn't apply a "nullify magic" spell on him.

Just kidding, its hard for me to speculate on this.

7) Do people have experiences of angels that they would like to relate?

I've felt a spiritual presence near me at times, especially during alot of distress. Don't know if it was an angel or not, but it felt like warmth on my shoulder and gave me comfort instantly.

 

[InkBlott]

What you appear to be saying effectively is that angels do not exist as objective phenomena in their own right. You see them as existential projections as man copes with ego shattering experiences of the divine.

Although I've portrayed them as phenomena rather than as persons and noted the fact that their appearances are generally tied to a specific type of experience, I've been rather careful to avoid asserting that their appearances aren't objective or that they are purely projections.

Personally, I'd rather let those sorts of question rest for a while. (If I did want to debate them, this would probably not be the appropriate forum.)

I am quite interested in the question as to whether they are portrayed strictly as persons in the scriptures or if something else even more...involving and intimate in regards to the Divine is happening.

It is this position that cannot be supported by scripture.

I think what can be supported by Ezekiel's story is the possibility that the things he saw were not persons in a way that satisfies any definition of the word. His descriptions are so rich with symbolism, so unbounded by any sense of personhood (calling upon numerous inorganic metaphors, including extra dimensions turning those crazy Tesseract-like wheels), that the angels themselves can be read as portrayals, or taken in as portraits, of his revelation attempting to take a rational shape.

Looking at it that way keeps Ezekiel very, very close to his apprehension of the Divine. If the angels are persons, Ezekiel is immediately removed a distance, and the whole thing becomes a pageant that he watches.

Jude is talking about a real conversation between two persons ie the Archangel Michael and the Devil

That little tidbit in Jude contradicts the story told in Deuteronomy. This leads me to believe that it refers to a tradition unknown or unsupported by the Deuteronomist, but popular enough for Jude to seize upon it as an illustration for his polemic. Beyond that, it doesn't really tell us much, as he was hardly engaged in bringing out subtle points of theology. I certainly don't put it up against Ezekiel's mind-bending firsthand account. The two are worlds apart.

____

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as the significance of the question as to whether angels are persons?

 

[mindlight]

Although I've portrayed them as phenomena rather than as persons and noted the fact that their appearances are generally tied to a specific type of experience, I've been rather careful to avoid asserting that their appearances aren't objective or that they are purely projections.

Personally, I'd rather let those sorts of question rest for a while. (If I did want to debate them, this would probably not be the appropriate forum.)

I am quite interested in the question as to whether they are portrayed strictly as persons in the scriptures or if something else even more...involving and intimate in regards to the Divine is happening.

i think you are you confusing different issues here. An angel is such an involving and intimate revelation of the Divine only because they stand in the very presence of God and enjoy a relationship of real time quality rather than the glimpse of glory model that we live with. That they glorify God and reveal his purpose as they minister to us is one thing. But they are also beings with their own relationships with God is also interesting as it is the quality of that relationship that overflows into their ministry

I think what can be supported by Ezekiel's story is the possibility that the things he saw were not persons in a way that satisfies any definition of the word. His descriptions are so rich with symbolism, so unbounded by any sense of personhood (calling upon numerous inorganic metaphors, including extra dimensions turning those crazy Tesseract-like wheels), that the angels themselves can be read as portrayals, or taken in as portraits, of his revelation attempting to take a rational shape.

Looking at it that way keeps Ezekiel very, very close to his apprehension of the Divine. If the angels are persons, Ezekiel is immediately removed a distance, and the whole thing becomes a pageant that he watches.

You chose the Ezekial vision as your own text on angels. It is unclear if these were angels or other higher beings in this vision and as you say what was seen was so other as to practically but not completely inexpressible. There are other texts which are clearer texts to debate the personality and nature of angels.

That little tidbit in Jude contradicts the story told in Deuteronomy.

How does the account of Moses death and then later in Jude the account about Michael and the devil disputing ownership of Moses body contradict each other ?

This leads me to believe that it refers to a tradition unknown or unsupported by the Deuteronomist, but popular enough for Jude to seize upon it as an illustration for his polemic.

The "Assumption of Moses" perhaps?

Beyond that, it doesn't really tell us much, as he was hardly engaged in bringing out subtle points of theology. I certainly don't put it up against Ezekiel's mind-bending firsthand account. The two are worlds apart.

The Jude account definitely involves angels while that in Ezekial may not - so which is more relevant for this discussion?

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as the significance of the question as to whether angels are persons?

Personality in the Trinitarian nature of God is one notion of personality and worthy of contemplation. Personality in human beings is another. Personality in angels reveals beings who can know and enjoy relationship with God but who are not human. These creatures clearly have an enormous impact on the Biblical story and figure in many of its most important places. Yet Christians today particularly today seem to think that it is somehow dangerous and speculative theology to even discuss them. There is something very unbiblical in this understanding. In seeking an understanding of angels I am seeking an understanding of the God who receives their worship as Creator not only of the human world of the scriptures but the angelic world that is revealed there. In seeking to understand the personal relationship of an angel with God I receive clues as to the nature of my own eventual eschatological destiny (as we will be like the angels). Angels guard me and pray for me and guide me and my nation according to scripture yet I am largely ignorant of and blind to their activities. Such blindness to the unseen world is a blindness to a crucial dimension of the Biblical revelation. People in other cultures seem more aware of these things. People in my own culture have more and more fanciful views about aliens and spirit guides and so I want a firm handle on the truth. Understanding the firm and unswerving devotion in an angels personality to the Lord God is an edifying encouragement to Christian faith yet hardly anything is being said about angels today.

 

[heron]

7) Do people have experiences of angels that they would like to relate?

I've felt a spiritual presence near me at times, especially during alot of distress. Don't know if it was an angel or not, but it felt like warmth on my shoulder and gave me comfort instantly.

I know a lot of people who feel this type of invisible communication.
Friends who have seen angels in angelic form describe them as huge-- starting at 9 feet high, without wings. Other friends have described unusual incidents where they wondered about a shape-shifting capacity, appearing as a familiar human... but that is unexplained. Just universally familiar.

OrthodoxyUSA, thanks for that great list!!

 

[InkBlott]

i think you are you confusing different issues here. An angel is such an involving and intimate revelation of the Divine only because they stand in the very presence of God and enjoy a relationship of real time quality rather than the glimpse of glory model that we live with. That they glorify God and reveal his purpose as they minister to us is one thing. But they are also beings with their own relationships with God is also interesting as it is the quality of that relationship that overflows into their ministry

I'm not sure what issues you feel I'm confusing. Can you be more specific?

I think you've done a better job than I did of bringing out one of my concerns. By focusing on angels as persons, we place the humans in these stories at a remove from the experience of the Divine. Intimacy and involvement with the Divine then becomes the purview of the angels and the glimpse of glory becomes a glimpse of angels.

A passage that turns that idea on its head, so to speak, is Matt 18:10. Jesus answers his disciples' question as to who is greatest in the kingdom by drawing a little child to himself and saying, among other things, that "their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." He seems to be using the word "angels" to express something about children themselves: how children relate to the Divine. It would seem they have no need of shattering revelations. But we adults, apparently, sometimes do.

You chose the Ezekial vision as your own text on angels. It is unclear if these were angels or other higher beings in this vision and as you say what was seen was so other as to practically but not completely inexpressible. There are other texts which are clearer texts to debate the personality and nature of angels.

I chose Ezekiel as the best text to illustrate my thoughts on the question at hand because his firsthand account strikes me as genuine and probably the least polished of all the angel encounters in the Bible. Uncut, unedited, uncensored, so to speak. So, yes, there are definitely clearer texts, but I'm not entirely convinced that they are richer in regards to revealing the nature of angels.

How does the account of Moses death and then later in Jude the account about Michael and the devil disputing ownership of Moses body contradict each other?

In the Deuteronomy text, the Lord buried Moses' body and no one knows where. In the Jude text, we find that Michael and the devil fought over Moses' body. I'm sure, if we bent over backwards to harmonize them, we could, but my days of bending over backward to harmonize texts are over.

The "Assumption of Moses" perhaps?

Possibly. Or Jude and the Assumption of Moses might draw on the same source. Hard to say.

The Jude account definitely involves angels while that in Ezekial may not - so which is more relevant for this discussion?

Ezekiel refers to the lion/ox/human/eagle creatures as cherubim in chapter 10. What that tells us in relation to whether angels are persons, I'm not sure...

As for Jude, I'm not sure about Jude at all. The Michael/devil/Moses reference actually calls its authority into all the deeper question for me. I know that puts me at odds with a lot of the participants here in GA, and I apologize for that; but I can't even pretend to find it authoritative on the subject.

Personality in the Trinitarian nature of God is one notion of personality and worthy of contemplation. Personality in human beings is another. Personality in angels reveals beings who can know and enjoy relationship with God but who are not human. These creatures clearly have an enormous impact on the Biblical story and figure in many of its most important places. Yet Christians today particularly today seem to think that it is somehow dangerous and speculative theology to even discuss them. There is something very unbiblical in this understanding. In seeking an understanding of angels I am seeking an understanding of the God who receives their worship as Creator not only of the human world of the scriptures but the angelic world that is revealed there. In seeking to understand the personal relationship of an angel with God I receive clues as to the nature of my own eventual eschatological destiny (as we will be like the angels). Angels guard me and pray for me and guide me and my nation according to scripture yet I am largely ignorant of and blind to their activities. Such blindness to the unseen world is a blindness to a crucial dimension of the Biblical revelation. People in other cultures seem more aware of these things. People in my own culture have more and more fanciful views about aliens and spirit guides and so I want a firm handle on the truth. Understanding the firm and unswerving devotion in an angels personality to the Lord God is an edifying encouragement to Christian faith yet hardly anything is being said about angels today.

What you've said here is as good as answer as I can imagine anyone making. If you are viewing angels as "clues as to the nature of [your] own eventual eschatological destiny" then what do I have to argue with you? Whichever one of us is right or wrong about the personhood of angels, we are longing for the same thing in regards to angel encounters, pictures of our own intimacy with the Divine and resultant radical transformations.

The particulars of our debates pale...

But I am curious what you would consider the defintion of "person."

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Friends who have seen angels in angelic form describe them as huge-- starting at 9 feet high, without wings.

Good thing I've never been approached by one when they are in 'freak me out' mode

 

[mindlight]

I know a lot of people who feel this type of invisible communication.
Friends who have seen angels in angelic form describe them as huge-- starting at 9 feet high, without wings. Other friends have described unusual incidents where they wondered about a shape-shifting capacity, appearing as a familiar human... but that is unexplained. Just universally familiar.

OrthodoxyUSA, thanks for that great list!!

Beings who stand in the presence of God will know communication on so many levels as to make mere words seem shallow, there is also the power of God which they experience all the time. For an angel I suppose there are no artificial constraints on such openness to God. That angels often appear in dreams points to the fact that they walk and talk in all the dimensions experienced by the human soul - physical, mental and spiritual.

The accounts in the Bible do not seem to paint them as 9 feet high although they clearly are impressive. The impact of the angel visions on Daniel were a case in point. If one angel can wipe out all the first born of Egypt in a single night or another 185000 Assyrians what does it matter how tall they are compared to men. An unnamed angel binds the devil in hell. They are beings whose relationship with God gives them powers and responsibilities beyond the human.

However it also seems very often they have been mistaken for men or sometimes women.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not sure what issues you feel I'm confusing. Can you be more specific?

This Jungian psychology thing you seem to be articulating is that angels are in some sense attempts by the subconscious to articulate in archetypal form the inexpressible thoughts that are evoked by the experience of the divine. This to me contrasts with the fact that people can have real experiences of angels that are in a sense authentic and not merely the expression of mysterious psychological forces. Meeting an angel is a powerful event because the experience of the divine animates their entire existence but that presence of God does not distract from the reality of the angel- it affirms its whole reason for being.

I think you've done a better job than I did of bringing out one of my concerns. By focusing on angels as persons, we place the humans in these stories at a remove from the experience of the Divine. Intimacy and involvement with the Divine then becomes the purview of the angels and the glimpse of glory becomes a glimpse of angels.

And indeed just as the testimony of believers who possess personality can encourage other believers so also an angel who stands in the presence of God can bring an eternal gospel or life transforming message that will encourage and revolutionise a believers relationship with God. Marys life was transformed by the experience of Gabriel who stands in the presence of God and her response to the message he brought was something an angel could respect.

A passage that turns that idea on its head, so to speak, is Matt 18:10. Jesus answers his disciples' question as to who is greatest in the kingdom by drawing a little child to himself and saying, among other things, that "their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." He seems to be using the word "angels" to express something about children themselves: how children relate to the Divine. It would seem they have no need of shattering revelations. But we adults, apparently, sometimes do.

I think he was talking about their guardian angels and the passage is clearly talking about beings who have a higher quality relationship than humans enjoy.

"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

I chose Ezekiel as the best text to illustrate my thoughts on the question at hand because his firsthand account strikes me as genuine and probably the least polished of all the angel encounters in the Bible. Uncut, unedited, uncensored, so to speak. So, yes, there are definitely clearer texts, but I'm not entirely convinced that they are richer in regards to revealing the nature of angels.

We almost definitely disagree about the quality of the rest of scripture. The Ezekial 1 passage is extremely powerful but these creatures with the 4 different kinds of faces and a mix of animals and human in them and wings are not angels but cherubim according to the passage. Not just a different order of angel but a different kind of heavenly creature. They are interesting for the nature of their relationship with God but descriptions of their activities are rarer than that of angels. Worship and intimate proximity to the divine seem to very special characteristics but I think it would take a lot longer unravel this imagery and even begin to comprehend what is going on here.

In the Deuteronomy text, the Lord buried Moses' body and no one knows where. In the Jude text, we find that Michael and the devil fought over Moses' body. I'm sure, if we bent over backwards to harmonize them, we could, but my days of bending over backward to harmonize texts are over.

No human knew where the body was buried but the archangel Michael and devil did know. End of contradiction

Ezekiel refers to the lion/ox/human/eagle creatures as cherubim in chapter 10. What that tells us in relation to whether angels are persons, I'm not sure...

As for Jude, I'm not sure about Jude at all. The Michael/devil/Moses reference actually calls its authority into all the deeper question for me. I know that puts me at odds with a lot of the participants here in GA, and I apologize for that; but I can't even pretend to find it authoritative on the subject.

Ummmm....

What you've said here is as good as answer as I can imagine anyone making. If you are viewing angels as "clues as to the nature of [your] own eventual eschatological destiny" then what do I have to argue with you? Whichever one of us is right or wrong about the personhood of angels, we are longing for the same thing in regards to angel encounters, pictures of our own intimacy with the Divine and resultant radical transformations.

Yes - wow we do agree

The particulars of our debates pale...

Not completely - the devils in the detail afterall!

But I am curious what you would consider the defintion of "person."

Now this is a really good question and really the nub of this whole discussion.

I think freedom is an essential characteristic of personhood. Freedom to make rational choices and to love, hope and believe as ones chooses and to place ones whole life behind the decision one makes. By this definition angels and humans share personhood because both possess the possibility of rebellion. The angels who stand in Gods presence in many ways seem more free as the person they choose to be with is so much more open and real to them than to us. They see all the time what we occasionally glimpse. In that sense they are more fully the persons that they want to be than we are who like children see only in part the object of our devotion and our love.

Also the distinctives of personhood are the things that survive the test of Gods presence for eternity. Sins and many worldly gifts will not survive the realities of eternal life. So will we really need accountants and lawyers in heaven for instance! God may take pleasure in the words of poets, the warriors who serve him in th struggle against evil, the works of artists and musicians. The things that make us most truly the people that we are will grow towards eternity. In this sense angels are more realized as persons because what they are is fully exposed to continual test of fire of Gods presence. We by contrast have yet to become the people that we truly are weighed down as we are by the concerns of this life and the blindness of our humanity to the spiritual realm.