Are multiple types of beings called angels

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,13:05)

Hi David, Do you believe English is a furtherance of the revelation of God? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

English is a language EdJ.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,05:25)

Angels are spirit beings.

Except when they are men like prophets.

You deny this, but it is written in plain English for all to see.
Ed J you need to tell us why the translators got it wrong when they applied malak about 188 time for men.

Whereas we just believe it is written.

EdJ you have shown no proof that these translators were wrong, so the burden of proof is with you. Yet you expects us to prove your own view?

What's up with that? Did we not say before to do your own refuting.

And I repeat, you need to actually prove that the English translations are wrong about 188 times. Go to it EdJ. We are waiting to see the smoking gun.

[david]

Terriracci, you are an angel. If every day normal logic didn't close this discussion, then Terrarreccarica's message certainly did.

[Proclaimer]

OK, here is the conclusion that some would have us believe.

EDJ: Angels/Malak are heavenly beings but when it is used to describe a man, the word is kinda nullified by the fact that it was used to describe a man.
EDJ: The sword of the Spirit is the same thing as the spirit, meaning that the sword is kinda meaningless.
Gene: Free will doesn't exist, therefore if you believe in free will then you cannot choose otherwise.
Trinitarians: God is invisible except when he is visible.

Makes perfect sense guys. The forum has fulfilled its purpose. It will be closing down tomorrow, Thank you all.

[terraricca]

Quote (david @ July 02 2012,01:17)

Terriracci, you are an angel.  If every day normal logic didn't close this discussion, then Terrarreccarica's message certainly did.

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,00:00)

Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,23:54) Sorry it is a conflict because men have been called angels by John. Where?    Produce the goods.

Hi T8,

Please feel free to show us all your evidence.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ July 02 2012,09:09)

Quote (Ed J @ July 01 2012,00:00) Quote (t8 @ June 30 2012,23:54) Sorry it is a conflict because men have been called angels by John. Where?    Produce the goods. Hi T8, Please feel free to show us all your evidence. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

EDJ

ARE YOU BLIND,??? I posted all the scriptures

[Proclaimer]

188 or so scriptures. See Terricas post.
Your the one refuting them, so you are the one who needs to show evidence. Our evidence is the scriptures that Terrica posted, what is your evidence.

Please provide it.

[david]

Often, when we define the terms, we clear up misunderstandings.

“Are men ever called “angels” or given the description, “angel” in the bible?”–t8

And while that question if asked in Greek would have a different answer, since the question is asked in English, technically, the answer is “no.”

Men aren't called by the english word “angel” in English translated Bibles.

But in a Greek or Hebrew Bible, where the word “angel” is the same word as “messenger” obviously men are called “malak/angelos” (angel/messenger)

I think what is happening here is, we (t8, myself, everyone but Ed) is arguing that in the Bible (in original languages) “angel” and “messenger” are the same word, so right to say that Jesus (God's chief, primary, most important messenger) could very easily and rightly be called an “angelos” (angel/messenger). That statement would be true in Greek. But…

…we speak English. And, at some point, that word of malak/angelos, its meaning took a separate path of meaning two different things, as used in common English but perhaps not as used in the Bible.

This question really depends on what language you want to consider it in–the original languages or a translated language. When taken in English, the answer is “no” but when taken in the original languages, the answer is “yes.”

[Proclaimer]

I totally know where you are coming from david and agree with what you are saying. Nick and EdJ make a doctrine or teaching out of the way translators used 2 different words to translate the same word. Whereas, their teaching should not be different because a fallible translator decides for himself when one is called messenger and one is called angel due to making a distinction that scripture is not making directly.

However, I have to also say that even the English word angel is used of men in the bible.

John 20:11-13
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

Compared to this parallel account.

Luke 24:3-5
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them perhaps.
But John says angels and Luke says men when talking of the same thing.

So at least in this instance men are angels.

[terraricca]

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2012,21:04)

I totally know where you are coming from david and agree with what you are saying. Nick and EdJ make a doctrine or teaching out of the way translators used 2 different words to translate the same word. Whereas, their teaching should not be different because a fallible translator decides for himself when one is called messenger and one is called angel due to making a distinction that scripture is not making directly. However, I have to also say that even the English word angel is used of men in the bible. John 20:11-13 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Compared to this parallel account. Luke 24:3-5 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them perhaps. But John says angels and Luke says men when talking of the same thing. So at least in this instance men are angels.

t8

I also like to point out that in the old testament the angels always appears in a man form (most of the times )and are declare man and latter angel of the Lord

but I think edj find out that it was an English problem and so insisted ,this is intending to fill his ego,but he still did not take notice of my quote,but edj is the way he his arguing on a nut and for nuts

[Ed J]

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2012,14:04)

I totally know where you are coming from david and agree with what you are saying. Nick and EdJ make a doctrine or teaching out of the way translators used 2 different words to translate the same word. Whereas, their teaching should not be different because a fallible translator decides for himself when one is called messenger and one is called angel due to making a distinction that scripture is not making directly. However, I have to also say that even the English word angel is used of men in the bible. John 20:11-13 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Compared to this parallel account. Luke 24:3-5 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them perhaps. But John says angels and Luke says men when talking of the same thing. So at least in this instance men are angels.

Hi T8,

Do you believe those “TWO” were…

1. Angels
2. Men
3. Resurrected men

                                                    …which do you believe?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ July 03 2012,05:21)

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2012,14:04) I totally know where you are coming from david and agree with what you are saying. Nick and EdJ make a doctrine or teaching out of the way translators used 2 different words to translate the same word. Whereas, their teaching should not be different because a fallible translator decides for himself when one is called messenger and one is called angel due to making a distinction that scripture is not making directly. However, I have to also say that even the English word angel is used of men in the bible. John 20:11-13 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Compared to this parallel account. Luke 24:3-5 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them perhaps. But John says angels and Luke says men when talking of the same thing. So at least in this instance men are angels. Hi T8, Do you believe those “TWO” were… 1. Angels 2. Men 3. Resurrected men                                                     …which do you believe? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

edj

now we do not go with grammar but with faith based on the grammar right

[mikeboll64]

David has hit the nail on the head.  If indeed the messenger in question is a human messenger, then “angel” is not an appropriate title for him.  In the parallel accounts t8 is showing, it seems evident, but not completely sure, that it is SPIRIT messengers of God who are meant.  The account in Matthew 28 sheds more light on the subject:

Matthew 28
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

The messenger mentioned here is said to have come down from heaven.  Add that to the fact he looked like lightning, I personally conclude that we are talking about spirit messengers of God at the tomb.

But as Pierre has pointed out, those who we know were spirit messengers of God have been described as “men” in many scriptures – including in Luke's account of the empty tomb (most likely).

So if the question was, Are angels ever called men in scripture?, the answer would be “YES”.  But in my humble opinion, the only time a man is called an angel in English translations is when the translator assumed it was a spirit messenger being discussed.

This is the case in the first part of Revelation, where most English translations say, “To the ANGEL of the church in ……….  write this……”  But I can't imagine John having to write things down for angels, and so I think church leaders or elders are meant.  But if the translators who rendered it as “angels” agreed with me that human messengers are meant in those 7 verses, they would have never put “angel” in the first place……….they would have instead used “messenger”.

So are human beings intentionally called “angels” by English translators?  I don't think so.  I think when we read the word “angel” in English Bibles, we are reading that word because the translator was convinced it was a spirit messenger being discussed.

But the reason I was disputing with Nick and Ed in the first place was Jesus.  And I think it should be clear that if spirit messengers of God are called “angels”, and Jesus is most definitely a spirit messenger of God, then Jesus is an angel.

peace,
mike

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ July 03 2012,01:21)

Hi T8, Do you believe those “TWO” were… 1. Angels 2. Men 3. Resurrected men                                                     …which do you believe? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I personally think it is resurrected men who are called angels as testified in this scripture.
I doubt that it is men still in their adam suits given the description of white robes and dazzling appearance.

[Proclaimer]

The conclusion is that both men and heavenly beings are called malak/angels/messengers in the Old Testament possibily due to the fact that God sent angels and men to be his mouth piece to the people.

In the New Testament, the Greek word for malak is angelos. However unlike the Hebrew word the Greek word is mostly used of Heavenly beings. Does anyone want to say why?

• Is it because the Hebrew word malak is not an exact fit for the Greek word angelos.
• Is it because Jesus is the messenger and we are simply his arms and legs
• Is it because the word angel has changed meaning from messenger to heavenly beings in general.
• Is it because the New Testament has specific words that are used instead of angelos/messenger such as apostles, prophets, teachers, elders, evangelists, thereby rendering the word angelos for men as less useful or specific?

Or what?

[Proclaimer]

Here is another question.

Do angels refer to each other as angels?
Or do they use other words like Seraph, Cherub, Archangel…

This would be telling as to whether angels is not a race, but an office instead.

Also, as I pointed out once before in this thread, sometimes words change meaning.

It is actually possible that the word angel/messenger eventually came to mean heavenly being because of it's heavy usage for those beings.

A bit like a young woman shall conceive is translated to us as a virgin who shall conceive.

[david]

Quote (t8 @ July 02 2012,14:04)

I totally know where you are coming from david and agree with what you are saying. Nick and EdJ make a doctrine or teaching out of the way translators used 2 different words to translate the same word. Whereas, their teaching should not be different because a fallible translator decides for himself when one is called messenger and one is called angel due to making a distinction that scripture is not making directly. However, I have to also say that even the English word angel is used of men in the bible. John 20:11-13 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Compared to this parallel account. Luke 24:3-5 3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? Remember the two men that appeared with Jesus in heavenly glory. Well it could have been them perhaps. But John says angels and Luke says men when talking of the same thing. So at least in this instance men are angels.

The question was of “men” being called “angels.”

I look at that scripture and think of angels being called “men.” Of course, when angels appear, it is often in the form of men. I do not think that these were just ordinary men, whom were called “angels.” Is that what you are saying?

Anyway, if you think these are “men” could that term for angelos be translated as “messengers”? I think it's clear they are angels though. So, again, we have angels being called men, but not men being called angels, I think.

[Proclaimer]

Hi david.

It could well be heavenly angels that are called men.
However, Moses and Elijah did appear with Jesus in glory before some of the disciples.
The two men could have  been the same because there were 2 and they had dazzling appearance.
It seems a bit coincidental to me because the description matches.
However, it would equally match 2 angels too.
So I accept that it could also have been heavenly angels as opposed to resurrected men.

[mikeboll64]

How about in Acts 1:10? Men or angels?

I think angels in the account of the tomb and in 1:10 – but that could be because that's the first thing that came to mind the first time I read those passages, and now it's stuck there.

[Author]

Posts