Was Adam an angel?

[Serapha]

Also, your premise that no created being can be as God is incorrect. There are ways in which created beings can be as God. See Genesis 3:5, 22, for starters. Further still, recent biblical scholarship is moving toward understanding the statement of Revelation 3:14 that Christ is 'the beginning of the creation of God' means that he is first first created. The latest edition of the standard Greek-English Lexicon in scholarship today states that this is the probable meaning of the passage. This, of course, puts a serious hole in your argument, if you don't mind my saying so.

Hi there!



Assuming you are referencing the King James which is the preferred translation for the CoJCoLDS's...


For starters... Genesis 3:5 is not a reference to "God" but to "gods"...

Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


I believe I need the rendering that identifies "us" to be "gods" that you specify. In other words, your source, please, that identifies this to be

"There are ways in which created beings can be as God."





Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

"that Christ is 'the beginning of the creation of God' means that he is first first created"

I must be using the "wrong" Lexicon... for mine states, "beginning, first, originagor, initiator. The word here does not refer to time, but to the source of creation (Thomas; s. cP; 1:18) (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, 1998, Rogers, Zondrervan Publishing House)

I believe you must be using a lexicon related to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?????


"The latest edition of the standard Greek-English Lexicon in scholarship today states that this is the probable meaning of the passage."

Could you cite your source?

~serapha~

 

[Svt4Him]

A Sermon Delivered By President Brigham Young, In The Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852.

My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner. One thing has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views. Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have; and is capable of showing forth His works to organized beings, as, for instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body. His son Jesus Christ has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and may properly be called God's minister to execute His will in immensity; being called to govern by His influence and power; but He is not a person of tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are. The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal. Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

...

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...Assuming you are referencing the King James which is the preferred translation for the CoJCoLDS's...

Aye, so the KJV is their official version of the Bible. But, this is the danger of making assumptions, isn't it? You assume that I was referring to the KJV. I was not. I was referring to the Thomas Nelson Edition of the ASV (American Standard Version).

For starters... Genesis 3:5 is not a reference to "God" but to "gods"...

Genesis 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:5 most likely refers to God. Most modern translations so render it as a singular in their main texts. The ASV translates: "for God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


I believe I need the rendering that identifies "us" to be "gods" that you specify. In other words, your source, please, that identifies this to be

"There are ways in which created beings can be as God."

First of all your citation of the verse answers itself. Here is the rendering of the ASV for that verse: "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever--"

This, in fact, is one way in which Adam and Eve became as God or like God, in knowing good and evil. There are other ways as well. A careful reading of the entire Bible without external aids and theological prejudices will reveal them.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

"that Christ is 'the beginning of the creation of God' means that he is first first created"

I must be using the "wrong" Lexicon... for mine states, "beginning, first, originagor, initiator. The word here does not refer to time, but to the source of creation (Thomas; s. cP; 1:18) (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, 1998, Rogers, Zondrervan Publishing House)

I believe you must be using a lexicon related to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures?????

You probably are using the "wrong" lexicon. It appears that yours is one of those biased 'dealies' steeped with Evangelical theological interpretation rather than directly referring to the usage of the words in ancient times. Time and further quotations from your lexicon will reveal these biases to us all.

The standard Greek-English Lexicon contains this reference to this verse:

...Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning='first created' is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Arch of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).... (page 138b)
​

My dictionary defines probable as meaning:

probable (Prob"a*ble), a. [L. probabilis, fr. probare to try, approve, prove: cf. F. probable. See Prove, and cf. Provable.] 1. Capable of being proved. [Obs.] 2. Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely. (Webster's Dictionary)
​

So, what we have is that there is more evidence supporting such a supposition than against it but leaving room for doubt, according to the second definition at any rate. The first, though obsolete in modern speech, is of interest. What makes this more interesting is that this use of the word probable is an upgrade in evidence from the second edition. And, no, I am not using a lexicon related to the NWT. Again, you make assumptions based upon lack of knowledge. By the way, the JWs do not even have a Greek-English lexicon of their own.

"The latest edition of the standard Greek-English Lexicon in scholarship today states that this is the probable meaning of the passage."

Could you cite your source?

I thought you'd never ask! The standard Greek-English Lexicon to which I refer is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition. This Lexicon is the standard in Greek NT scholarship, and is a required text at many Universities teaching Greek the world over. What is interesting is that this interpretation is so likely that an ancient scribe changed 'the beginning of the creation of God' to 'the beginning of the church of God' in Codex Sinaiticus to avoid the linguistically probable meaning!

 

[Serapha]

Aye, so the KJV is their official version of the Bible. But, this is the danger of making assumptions, isn't it? You assume that I was referring to the KJV. I was not. I was referring to the Thomas Nelson Edition of the ASV (American Standard Version).


And, as you have done.... taking it to the personal level...It is a pity that you don't post your comments in their entirity in your intitial postings. It would simplify the questions and responses... but then that wouldn't give you the "power" you are seeking. BTW... I don't have to address the information in threads anymiore... a moderator on this forum said that posting personal comments and deviating from the thread was not a violation of the forum rules... so I don't really have to address any of your "self-righteous" concerns... but I will.



Genesis 3:5 most likely refers to God. Most modern translations so render it as a singular in their main texts. The ASV translates: "for God doth know that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

I do note that you used the term "most likely". Golly, I thought from your braggardly conduct thus far and the fact that you used the best Lexicon known in the human realm, that you at least be able to give a definite reply.



[/color]

First of all your citation of the verse answers itself. Here is the rendering of the ASV for that verse: "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever--"

This, in fact, is one way in which Adam and Eve became as God or like God, in knowing good and evil. There are other ways as well. A careful reading of the entire Bible without external aids and theological prejudices will reveal them.


I noted that you disregarded any reference to the doctrine of the trinity.... it's hard to accept, I know, that the doctrine of the trinity is in that verse, and if you are using a Lexicon that doesn't support the doctrine of the trinity, then you aren't using "the best".


You probably are using the "wrong" lexicon. It appears that yours is one of those biased 'dealies' steeped with Evangelical theological interpretation rather than directly referring to the usage of the words in ancient times. Time and further quotations from your lexicon will reveal these biases to us all.


I will probably continue to use that "biased" version while you continue to use your biased version. I will, however, retain my own personal comments until you, once again, begin using this forum for your personal and demeaning comments , and then, I will reply as I have here... personally and with unkindness..... again... supported by a moderator on this forum .... for we don't have to address issued...not when we can address people.







The standard Greek-English Lexicon contains this reference to this verse:

...Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning='first created' is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Arch of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).... (page 138b)




​

My dictionary defines probable as meaning:

probable (Prob"a*ble), a. [L. probabilis, fr. probare to try, approve, prove: cf. F. probable. See Prove, and cf. Provable.] 1. Capable of being proved. [Obs.] 2. Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely. (Webster's Dictionary)




​

So, what we have is that there is more evidence supporting such a supposition than against it but leaving room for doubt, according to the second definition at any rate. The first, though obsolete in modern speech, is of interest. What makes this more interesting is that this use of the word probable is an upgrade in evidence from the second edition. And, no, I am not using a lexicon related to the NWT. Again, you make assumptions based upon lack of knowledge. By the way, the JWs do not even have a Greek-English lexicon of their own.



Thanks again, for the personal insult, i.e. "lack of knowledge"... I appreciate that you feel comfortable using such tactics on this forum... for that is the accepted format.... or I have been told such.




I thought you'd never ask! The standard Greek-English Lexicon to which I refer is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition. This Lexicon is the standard in Greek NT scholarship, and is a required text at many Universities teaching Greek the world over. What is interesting is that this interpretation is so likely that an ancient scribe changed 'the beginning of the creation of God' to 'the beginning of the church of God' in Codex Sinaiticus to avoid the linguistically probable meaning!

Hmmmmm.... I read three reviews of your prized possession which identified the shortcomings of the book as well as the good points. Perhaps you would like to cite what "universities" require this "prized possession" of yours? Are you aware of the shortcomings of your "prized possession" in relation to the Latin text?


I think I can get used to use the personal attack. It's a lot more fun to address people than to address issues.



~serapha~

 

[fatboys]

[/color]Hmmmmm.... I read three reviews of your prized possession which identified the shortcomings of the book as well as the good points. Perhaps you would like to cite what "universities" require this "prized possession" of yours? Are you aware of the shortcomings of your "prized possession" in relation to the Latin text?


I think I can get used to use the personal attack. It's a lot more fun to address people than to address issues.



~serapha~

FB: When you are making a statement which you believe is correct and it is not, then your going to get responses on your research and tactics. We all get things wrong and need to be corrected at times. It is not a personal attack, but on your research and interpretation. You do the same to me and others.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

And, as you have done.... taking it to the personal level...It is a pity that you don't post your comments in their entirity in your intitial postings. It would simplify the questions and responses... but then that wouldn't give you the "power" you are seeking....

Don't know what you are talking about. I'd be curious as to what 'power' you think I am seeking. Should I get out my tinfoil hat? (Yes, now I am getting personal).

I do note that you used the term "most likely". Golly, I thought from your braggardly conduct thus far and the fact that you used the best Lexicon known in the human realm, that you at least be able to give a definite reply.

You're kidding, right? If I could ask Moses himself, I'd be able to speak with certainty. There is little to which one can speak with any degree of certainty when it comes to religion or to science. My caution notwithstanding, the majority of scholars now believe that it originally referred to God himself rather than multiple gods, which is what explains the fact that scholars are using the singular in most modern translations these days. You want definite? Talk to Moses.

...I noted that you disregarded any reference to the doctrine of the trinity.... it's hard to accept, I know, that the doctrine of the trinity is in that verse, and if you are using a Lexicon that doesn't support the doctrine of the trinity, then you aren't using "the best". ...

Why should I make mention of the Trinity here? Show me a Jew who believes that the Hebrew of this passage supports the Trinity and you might give me pause for thought. All that the lexicon I use does is present the words as they are used by the sources within their context and applies no theological interpretation to the word. Any lexicon that does apply late theology is biased. Bias does not accurate make. Besides this, what on Earth has a Greek Lexicon to do with the Hebrew of Genesis? Just curious as to why you brought this up.

I will probably continue to use that "biased" version while you continue to use your biased version. I will, however, retain my own personal comments until you, once again, begin using this forum for your personal and demeaning comments...

But, my lexicon is not biased because it avoids theological stricture. It presents information but does not seek to place upon the material a theological position originating from the postmodern reformation.
As to making personal attacks, whatever floats your boat.

Thanks again, for the personal insult, i.e. "lack of knowledge"... I appreciate that you feel comfortable using such tactics on this forum... for that is the accepted format.... or I have been told such.

Yet there is nothing wrong with ignorance or with lack of knowledge. Don't take it personally. It was not intended as a personal insult. I am not afraid to admit ignorance to such things as Particle Physics. I am quite ignorant about most of what belongs to that discipline. And, I would not mind if someone referred to me as ignorant regarding such a thing. But, consider your remarks. You assumed that that I was using the KJV. That is an assumption based upon lack of knowledge regarding both myself and what version of the Bible I was using at the time. When I said what I did, it was a statement of fact. Then, you made an assumption that I was referring to a lexicon related to the JWs NWT. I wasn't. This also was an assumption made based upon lack of knowledge on several accounts. Plus, you demonstrated your ignorance concerning the Watchtower Society and its publications by suggesting that they had their own lexicon or that there was one related to them. Sorry, but that is a display of ignorance. What should I say? How should I have phrased what I said instead? Am I your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Hmmmmm.... I read three reviews of your prized possession which identified the shortcomings of the book as well as the good points. Perhaps you would like to cite what "universities" require this "prized possession" of yours? Are you aware of the shortcomings of your "prized possession" in relation to the Latin text?

Wow. I think your reviewers are pretty ignorant, then. I'd like to see the reviews. Every one of the ones I have read with substantial merit speak quite highly of this Lexicon I have cited. I can list a number of theological seminaries that list the Lexicon I cited as required reading for the courses in which it is used. Fuller Theological Seminary lists it as required reading. If I were so inclined, I could do your homework for you and give you a rather lengthy list of others that require the text. But, I'm not so inclined at the moment.

But, the worst thing of all, though, is that you talk about its shortcomings with respect to "the Latin text." Now that is a comment made in ignorance. It's a Greek-English Lexicon! What has Latin got to do with it?

I think I can get used to use the personal attack. It's a lot more fun to address people than to address issues.

I suppose that is what happens when people begin losing the arguments. They resort to personal attack. Oh well. As I said above, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Serapha]

I suppose that is what happens when people begin losing the arguments. They resort to personal attack. Oh well. As I said above, whatever floats your boat.

Since you started the personal comments in YOUR postings... you should know.... because YOU resorted to personal comments.....

And the "ignorant" comment concerning Latin.... the review read that the shortcoming of the Lexicon was that it was lacking because it did not have the Latin influence of work usage. THAT was the "critique" of your beloved "gospel".


Every mormon on this forum resorts to personal insults when they are "losing" the fight... every one of them....you included... go back an look at the postings....


I'm not taking personal insults from mormons any more. I have lower myself to your level... so like or move up.


~serapha~

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...And the "ignorant" comment concerning Latin.... the review read that the shortcoming of the Lexicon was that it was lacking because it did not have the Latin influence of work usage. THAT was the "critique" of your beloved "gospel"....

Now, here is the funny part of your ranting. The New Testament, as we now have it, was written in Greek, NOT Latin. Therefore, what on earth does Latin have to do wioth Greek? The Lexicon I cited is the standard GREEK-English Lexicon used at the Seminary and University levels. I think it would be pretty stupid to focus on Latin when the title of the work states that it is a Greek-English Lexicon. The only shortcoming, if shortcoming there be with this highly regarded lexicon, is that it does not address the Latin Fathers. But, that is because NONE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN LATIN! Can't you see how inane the negative reviews, which you keep referring to but never cite, are?

The lexicon is entitled A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. The preface states that it deals with the Greek New Testament and other literature related to the GREEK language. Once again, what has the Latin text of anything got to do with the GREEK New Testament? Nothing! That's the funny part of the whole thing. I could see it if the title was A Greek-English/Latin-English Lexicon of the New Testament and All Other Christian Literature. But, it's not, now is it?

Now, in keeping with the subject, the Mormons believe that Adam was an archangel. The Kabbalists held that Adam was some sort of higher being before his descent from a higher world into this lower world. And, the author of a text (now lost) cited by Origen states that Jacob (also called Israel) was an angel before being born on earth. So, some peoples from ancient times held the view that at least some persons on earth were angels or some form of higher divine beings or even sparks emanated from the Divine in a previous existence to this earth. Its not all that uncommon. Even the Gnostics of various stripes held some similar views.

 

[ah_muse]

God gave Adam something the angels do not possess and that is free will.

Although holy, angels could sometimes behave foolishly (Job 4:18), and even prove to be untrustworthy (Job 15:15). Is that NOT "free will", qualities that led to the "fall" of some angels, including Satan?

 

[ah_muse]

FB: Yes I am aware of who we teach Adam to be. ... From latter day revelations we learn that Adam is Michael, the same that is mentioned in Revelations.

This revelation came from ... ??? whom ??? where ??? why ???

The Bible teaches that Adam was made a little lower than "angels" (or "God") at his creation and "crowned with glory and honor" (Psalm 8:5).
He was commissioned as a vassal king to rule over God's creation. The words "subdue, " "rule, " "under his feet" (Gen 1:28; Psalm 8:6) suggest kingship over nature but not over his fellow man.
Adam and Eve's anticipation of being like God never materialized. Their state of existence was not enhanced but filled with misery and death. They had to leave the garden to experience what life would be outside God's perfect will.

The Bible teaches that Michael is: "One," or "the first, of the chief princes" or archangels, (Daniel 10:21) as the "prince" of Israel, and in ch. (Daniel 12:1) as "the great prince which standeth" in time conflict "for the children of thy people."

How does Adam fill the role of Michael?

 

[snerkel]

Hi there!

and who in charge of all the angels in heaven?

There are many examples of Jesus Christ appearing as an angel in the Old Testament. He is, in fact, the archangel who is over all of the angels. Is he a created being as the angels were created .... no. He is the archangel, Michael, whose name is "who is as God". No created being can be "who is as God", for there is only one who is as God, or is God, and that is Jesus Christ.

~serapha~

Appearing as an angel and actually being an angel are the same? Do you have Scripture to support your claim?

 

[fatboys]

Appearing as an angel and actually being an angel are the same? Do you have Scripture to support your claim?

FB: Where in the bible does it say that?

 

[snerkel]

FB: Where in the bible does it say that?

FB, read the post to which I was responding. I did not make the statement, I am requesting a reference from the other poster for their statement.

 

[fatboys]

FB, read the post to which I was responding. I did not make the statement, I am requesting a reference from the other poster for their statement.

FB: Oppss, I pushed the wrong one. Boy am I anti embarassed.

 

[Talyn]

Isn't it also taught that the archangel Gabriel is Noah?

 

[Potgut]

D&C 107: 54
54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

This is just sickening, BY basically claimed that God had intimate physical relations with his own spirit child Mary. Oh, that is so sickening I can't believe that anyone could read this and still believe that the Mormon god is the God of the Bible.

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Why should I make mention of the Trinity here? Show me a Jew who believes that the Hebrew of this passage supports the Trinity and you might give me pause for thought

Of course Jews don't believe in the trinity because they don't believe in Christ and Jesus is one person of the trinity. Jews do however believe in one God and one God only and the trinity believers do also.

Grace

 

[TheScottsMen]

Topical Study of the nature of Angels

Concept #1 - Angelic creations have spirit bodies



"And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; [2] And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night." (Gen 19:2-1)

"But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door." (Gen 19:10)

"And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite." (2 Samuel 24:16)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim. 3:16)

Concept #2 - Angels have been seen in full body many times

Nebuchadnezzar when he looked into the fire filled furnace say and angel with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan 3:24-25)

Elijah had an angel cook for him while he was fleeing Jezebel (1 KI19:5-7)

David after making God angry for numbering Israel sent an angel to administer judgment and David saw the Angel of the Lord standing between the earth and heaven with a sword in his hand. (1 Chron 21:16)

The Sodomites were attracted to the Angels which prove they had a human form (Gen 19:1-25)

Concept #3 - Angels have joyful worship

"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7)

"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; saying with a loud voice." (Rev 5:11)

Concept #4 - Angels have good desires (means they have a soul also)

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into" (1 Peter 1:12)

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." (Heb 6:10-11)

Concept #5 - Angels have evil desires (means they have a soul also)

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (Gen 6:2)

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"(2 Peter 2:4)

"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 6-7)

Concept #6 - Angels can be holy

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:" (Mat 25:31)

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."(Mark 8:38 )







Concept #7 - Angels are immortal

"And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: [35] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: [36] Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34)

Concept #8 - Some angels have sexual organs

"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."(Genesis 6:2)

"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. [7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7)

Concepts #9 - Angels have great strength and can fly

"And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." (2 Kings 19:35)

"And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!" (Rev 8:13)

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Rev 14:6)

Concept #10 - Angels never get tired

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (Rev. 4:8)

Concept #11 - Angels have intelligence

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. [36] But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."(Matthew 24:35-36 )



Concept #12 - Angels have languages of their own

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." (1 Cor. 13

 

[TheScottsMen]

The bible says that Jesus Christ who was human, was made a little lower then the angels for the suffering of death (Heb 2:9), thus mankind in general after the line of Jesus Christ (though we are not fully God as Christ was) share many characteristics with angels. Our natures are not that different but are only currently separated by a finite and infinite realm. Angels as mankind share many physical attributes such as, hands, feet, arms, eyes, and other organs of the body. Not only do we share physical features but like us angels are also triune, as in they have a spirit, soul and body (Rev 5:11, Isa 14:12-14, Gen 19:1). Angels like men are given free will and have the choice to be holy or evil. We know this to be a fact as the angel Lucifer was created perfect until sin was found in him. Lucifer had the choice to follow God and stay holy or become the adversary (Satan) and thus be transformed to the father of evil. Angels like mankind have sexual organs as we find in the book of Genesis it states that sons of God committed fornication with the daughters of men and the book of Jude compares the fallen angels as Sodom and Gomorrah. These heavenly creatures of God have their own language, are intelligent, have physical strength and never get tired. In closing, angels like mankind were given our attributes and characteristics for one main reason, to serve and worship God.

:1)