Posted on 01/25/2015 1:52:55 PM PST by NYer
Whenever man tried to worship an angel, he was told explicitly by the angel to not do that. Except, when it was the AoL.
ECF disagreeing with each other PING
I think you are correct. People can agree to disagree but it does appear that in the Old Testament there are ‘angles’ (basic messengers and ministering spirits) and then there is “A Angle’ that’s different from the average angle in certain situations
St. Louis de Montfort referred to Jesus as “The Incarnate Wisdom!”
========
Angels (ἄγγελοι)
The exact meaning of the term here is uncertain. The following are the principal interpretations:
1. The officials known as angels or messengers of the synagogue, transferred to the Christian Church. These were mere clerks or readers; so that their position does not answer to that of the angels presiding over the churches. There is, besides, no trace of the transfer of that office to the Christian Church.
2. Angels proper Heavenly guardians of the churches. This is urged on the ground that the word is constantly used in Revelation of a heavenly being; by reference to the angels of the little ones (Mat_18:10), and to Peter's angel (Act_12:15). It is urged that, if an individual may have a guardian angel, so may a Church. Reference is also made to the tutelar national angels of Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1.
But why should the seer be instructed to write to heavenly messengers, with exhortations to repentance and fidelity, and describing them as "rich," "poor," "lukewarm," etc. (Rev_2:4; Rev_3:1, Rev_3:16)?
3. The angels are a personification of the churches themselves: the Church being spoken of as if concentrated in its angel or messenger. But in Rev_1:20, they are explicitly distinguished from the golden candlesticks, the churches.
4. The rulers ard teachers of the congregation. These are compared by Daniel (Dan_12:3) to stars. See Mal_2:7, where the priest is called the messenger (angel) of the Lord; and Mal_3:1, where the same word is used of the prophet. See also Hag_1:13. Under this interpretation two views are possible.
...(a) The angels are Bishops; the word ἄγγελος sometimes occurring in that sense (as in Jerome and Socrates). This raises the question of the existence of episcopacy towards the close of the first century.
...(b) The word is used of the ministry collectively; the whole board of officers, including both presbyters and deacons, who represented and were responsible for the moral condition of the churches. See Act_20:17, Act_20:28; 1Pe_5:1-5.
Dr. Schaff says: "This phraseology of the Apocalypse already looks towards the idea of episcopacy in its primitive form, that is, to a monarchical concentration of governmental form in one person, bearing a patriarchal relation to the congregation, and responsible in an eminent sense for the spiritual condition of the whole. . . . But even in this case we must insist on an important distinction between the 'angels' of the Book of Revelation and the later diocesan Bishops. For aside from the very limited extent of their charges, as compared with the large territory of most Greek, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Bishops, these angels stood below the Apostles and their legates, and were not yet invested with the great power (particularly the right to confirm and ordain) which fell to the later Bishops after the death of the Apostles. . . . The angels, accordingly, if we are to understand by them single individuals, must be considered as forming the transition from the presbyters of the apostolic age to the Bishops of the second century" ("History of the Apostolic Church").
Say it ain’t so.....
“Yes, he might have appeared as an angel.”
Or the writers perceived him as such. Either way, I agree, “don’t put limits on God.”
Genesis does not identify them as angels but as men.
Looking up, he saw three men standing near him.
Gen 18:2
Moving further on to Gen 18:9-12, the 3 men inquire about Sarah, Abraham's wife. One of them goes so far as to say he will return next year when Sarah will have a son. Meanwhile, Sarah has been listening and begins to laugh (because she is advanced in years). In Gen 18:13, it reads: "But the LORD said to Abraham:" If you move forward to Gen. 19:24 the text says that the LORD rains down fire and brimstone from the LORD in heaven. This seems to support the Trinity or at the very least a multiplicity in the Godhead.
Gen 16 has a better account of the angel of the Lord.
Context.
The revelation of God to our minds and spirits (if we have His Spirit in us, that is) lets us know they were angels, not ordinary men. Angels apparently have an appearance similar to “men” in some cases. But, continue to go on a pointless rabbit trail if you like. In the end, all knowledge will be revealed, and we will see that this is a meaningless discussion to our purposes here and now. I shouldn’t have made my first one-word comment of “No” on a catholic thread anyway. That was my pointless mistake.
Context? What are you talking about? I said I was leaving this thread, but I said I was making one more comment. Not hard to understand the context there. And, as you can see, I came back AGAIN, when I said I wouldn’t.
Not the context of your comment, the context of the scripture in question. The AOTL in Gen 16 isn't a messenger in the context of bringing a message, He is stating the message, it originated with Him.
It’s an angel of the Lord. He’s speaking for God. I don’t know what else to tell you.
He is speaking for Himself. He doesn’t intro anything He says like a herald would. He speaks in the first person. Show me an angel in the NT who spoke in a similar fashion.
Divine communication with mankind, in either direction, is done Through Him, With Him, In Him.
Not being a theologian and familiar with certain terminology, you may want to put that in layman’s terms but pray first.
No need to read more into Scripture tan what He provides. IMHO, the Angel of the Lord probably was the same person as the Son, but if God had wanted to communicate that to us in Scripture, He would certainly have so presented it.
IMHO, those who study Scripture through faith in Christ, are given the proper understanding when they read the passage by the work of God the Holy Spirit in our human spirit, thereby further sanctifying our souls.
The is danger, however, in advancing the doctrines academically, independent of faith in Him.
Show you? What is your intention here? Are you desperately trying to say that an angel of the Lord is NOT an angel of the Lord? I don't get your persistence. As I said in the beginning, you CAN OVER-THINK these things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.