Do Angels Have An Earthly Ministry Today?

[agua]

let me ask you this question.
Can you show me any example of where the Lord God created a male of a species and did not also provide/create a female compliment?

Adam, we are told was lonely and needed a companion.. I think it strange that this account/explanation is even in the Bible, until I realize that it is there to show that God is aware that the males He creates need female compliments...compliments of their own kind.

Angels....Hebrew has no neuter gender so referring to an angel as 'he/him' does not confer sexuality. The Greek also, Aggelos:- noun masculine.
So would the lord as He has revealed Himself to us theoughScripture create a race of well endowed beings with no compliment of their kind?

The interesting thing with Angels is they're always refered to as male for some reason and the accounts in Gen 6, 1 Peter 3, 2 Peter 4, and Jude indicate that they are able to assume human form. Now this doesn't imply that while they're in the spiritual form that that have human appendages but we know from other instance when they assumed human form that they ate and drank like when the Angels that accompanied Jesus when He spoke to Abraham in Mamre etc. Now if Angels who assume human form can eat and drink I think it's logical top assume they also have a stomach, digestuive tract, elimination system, etc don't you think ?

So the indication is that these male critters ( Angels ) were created with no female component and were nevere intended to have one. Their ministry was to serve both Yahweh and us and during this service they have been known to assume human form. During this transition to human form is when they also have human abilities, not when they're in heavenly form.

So yes Yahweh did create a being of one gender. male, with no accompanying female companion and this shouldn't be seen as unusual really because we know Yahweh is also male with no physical female compliments. We also know that Yahweh fully assumed human form and functioned as a human. ( even though He didn't fornicate 0f course )

 

[agua]

To a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy and false teaching. I will give one such example:

Enoch 40:1-10.........
1 "And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude 2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things.
3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory.
4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.
5 And the second voice I heard blessing
6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits.
7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

Now the TRUTH!!! The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That is totally blasphemy! That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.

We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel... "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone.

Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise. 1st John 2:22 clearly indicts all Christ-deniers as LIARS, guilty before God.

I only post this so that those reading our words but not making comments will know and understand that the Book of Enoch is NOT to be accepted.
It is clear that someone copied from the Bible and wrote this stuff. The same type of mumbo-jumbo can be readily observed in the Qur'an.

My point is that the Devil is working relentlessly to corrupt God's Word, as he has been doing since the Garden of Eden, when he caused Eve to doubt God's Word. Satan is so shrewd that he even tried to confuse our Lord by misinterpreting the Scriptures in Matthew 4:1-10. In these apostate times, the Word of God is under attack like never before. The reason why is simple... if Satan can pervert the Word of God into a lie, then he can control the masses!

It's true the Bible never mentions any Angels by name aside from Michael and Gabriel you're spot on there. This doesn't imply that other Angels don't have names though imo. Notice this angel named Phanuel set over " the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life," isn't said to be a mediator nor an instigator of these things. We can see a parallel with this function in the Bible where we;re told that Angels are ministers to those who will inherit salvation in Heb 1 so this isn't an unusual or blasphemous concept.

Heb 1:14 KJV Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

I see no reason to throw around blasphemy or unbiblical claims on this subject but if you must feel free I suppose. Personally I find this a very relevant and interesting subject for all Christians who wish to enter the spiritual battle.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

My first use of the word 'apple' was when I was given a piece of fruit to eat.
My second use of the word apple was to describe a computer wannabe.
Just because I ate the first apple, I'm in no hurry to eat the second one.

Have you ever wondered why Apple's logo has a bite taken out of it? Perhaps it is subconscious tempting to acquire knowledge through their product, the same way satan tempted Eve to desire knowledge? ...just wondering... I have no bias against knowledge!

 

[calvin]

Have you ever wondered why Apple's logo has a bite taken out of it? Perhaps it is subconscious tempting to acquire knowledge through their product, the same way satan tempted Eve to desire knowledge? ...just wondering... I have no bias against knowledge!

I always thought the missing byte referred to the OS.

 

[boltardy]

Have you ever wondered why Apple's logo has a bite taken out of it? Perhaps it is subconscious tempting to acquire knowledge through their product, the same way satan tempted Eve to desire knowledge? ...just wondering... I have no bias against knowledge!

According to Wikipedia, the bite was to prevent confusion with a cherry. I'll point you to the article Wikipedia references for that.:

http://creativebits.org/interview/interview_rob_janoff_designer_apple_logo

and give you a short extract:

Anyway, when I explain the real reason why I did the bite it's kind of a let down. But I'll tell you. I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple not a cherry.​

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

According to Wikipedia, the bite was to prevent confusion with a cherry. I'll point you to the article Wikipedia references for that.:

http://creativebits.org/interview/interview_rob_janoff_designer_apple_logo

and give you a short extract:

Anyway, when I explain the real reason why I did the bite it's kind of a let down. But I'll tell you. I designed it with a bite for scale, so people get that it was an apple not a cherry.​

ha ha! More wikipedia! Grrrrr...

 

[calvin]

The book of Enoch claims the giants were 300 cubits high Ch7 v12 (I think). if a cubit were to be as little as 16" (cubits vary) that would mean these giants were 400ft high (just under 122 meters). I for one would not trust the words of any book making such a claim.
My physics is getting a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that a pump can't lift a fluid higher than 34ft. Any being higher than that would have serious blood flow issues unless the body had multiple hearts and multiple blood reservoirs or some other way of overcoming the effects of atmospheric pressure.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I always thought the missing byte referred to the OS.

I could understand that conclusion if the OS were Windows... But I think Apple is a very good product.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

The book of Enoch claims the giants were 300 cubits high Ch7 v12 (I think). if a cubit were to be as little as 16" (cubits vary) that would mean these giants were 400ft high (just under 122 meters). I for one would not trust the words of any book making such a claim.
My physics is getting a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that a pump can't lift a fluid higher than 34ft. Any being higher than that would have serious blood flow issues unless the body had multiple hearts and multiple blood reservoirs or some other way of overcoming the effects of atmospheric pressure.

Is it possible the atmospheric pressure was different before the flood?

 

[calvin]

I could understand that conclusion if the OS were Windows... But I think Apple is a very good product.

Actually I agree with you. I think my prejudice comes from the comical appearance of the earlier desktops.

 

[calvin]

Is it possible the atmospheric pressure was different before the flood?

Hardly likely. Air pressure would be governed by the height of the atmosphere ( currently about 200 miles) and the mass of the planet. I can't see the Lord creating a variable sized planet just to cater to the needs of illicit hybrids. Also, we little people would not prosper in an atmospheric pressure so large that it would support a 400+ column of fluid. I can't get my head around the math this morning, but at a crude guess I'd suggest the Air pressure would need to be at least 12x what we have today. That being the case out hearts and arteries would not be able to push blood around our bodies (nor could the other animals survive that pressure either)
Such a high air pressure would have a very large impact on rain fall as evaporation from the ocean would be reduced, hence rain would be virtually unknown.
Despite some theories that there was no rain before the flood, the rivers that flowed, needed rain or else they would not have been rivers

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Hardly likely. Air pressure would be governed by the height of the atmosphere ( currently about 200 miles) and the mass of the planet. I can't see the Lord creating a variable sized planet just to cater to the needs of illicit hybrids. Also, we little people would not prosper in an atmospheric pressure so large that it would support a 400+ column of fluid. I can't get my head around the math this morning, but at a crude guess I'd suggest the Air pressure would need to be at least 12x what we have today. That being the case out hearts and arteries would not be able to push blood around our bodies (nor could the other animals survive that pressure either)
Such a high air pressure would have a very large impact on rain fall as evaporation from the ocean would be reduced, hence rain would be virtually unknown.
Despite some theories that there was no rain before the flood, the rivers that flowed, needed rain or else they would not have been rivers

Do you think the atmospheric pressure was different when the dinosaurs were on the earth? I think their size would require different pressure than today. And maybe that is why they are extinct today?

Sorry...this is definitely off-topic. Maybe I'll go make another thread. Would you be interested to join me there?

 

[calvin]

Good observation. Trees can transport sap up to over 34ft (454 ft for a Douglas fir), but that is by capillary action not pumping as such.
As for Dinosaurs, some Dinosaurs were very long, rather than high and not all that high unless they raised their necks up high to reach some high branches. Good question though.

 

[Big Moose]

let me ask you this question.
Can you show me any example of where the Lord God created a male of a species and did not also provide/create a female compliment?

Adam, we are told was lonely and needed a companion.. I think it strange that this account/explanation is even in the Bible, until I realize that it is there to show that God is aware that the males He creates need female compliments...compliments of their own kind.

Angels....Hebrew has no neuter gender so referring to an angel as 'he/him' does not confer sexuality. The Greek also, Aggelos:- noun masculine.
So would the lord as He has revealed Himself to us theoughScripture create a race of well endowed beings with no compliment of their kind?

Still have the problem that "sons of God" in OT did, in fact, refer to the angels, so it is still a possibility. Also the reading of Genesis 6 cannot be explained away:

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

"when men began to multiply on the face of the earth"--"men" here meaning mankind, and daughters were born to them--what was wrong with "sons of God" that they didn't have daughters, and why weren't the "sons of God" multiplying on the face of the earth? This is what tells you "men" meant all mankind with the context.
"that they were beautiful"--What was wrong with the beauty of the daughters of the "sons of God"????? More context which tells you "sons of God" were not men from the line of Seth.
"they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"-- Plain old average men just took wives or married all of whom they chose. Sounds to me like very, very powerful men to be able to do that, what with dealing with fathers and brothers. Sounds to me like there was something special about them. Hmmmmmmmmm

Then:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

"when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them"-- if "sons of God" were normal men, then it would be silly to say they bore children.........of course they would bear children. Ah, but if angels in human form, then you WOULD remark about them making children with daughters of men, because that IS significant. While I'm at it, what is this "daughters of men" business? Why not just say women? God uses that term elsewhere. It is obvious that it was distinguishing these daughters of mankind from these randy, as you say, angels...leaving their estate.

 

[agua]

I always thought the missing byte referred to the OS.

Can I ask why you don't like Apple. I've never used it but some people say it's the best thing ever and some people really hate it. One reason of heard for hating it is that it locks you into a system that forces you to pay for add ons etc.

The book of Enoch claims the giants were 300 cubits high Ch7 v12 (I think). if a cubit were to be as little as 16" (cubits vary) that would mean these giants were 400ft high (just under 122 meters). I for one would not trust the words of any book making such a claim.
My physics is getting a bit rusty, but I seem to recall that a pump can't lift a fluid higher than 34ft. Any being higher than that would have serious blood flow issues unless the body had multiple hearts and multiple blood reservoirs or some other way of overcoming the effects of atmospheric pressure.

Yes this does seem rediculous for sure. ( although I don't dismiss it out of hand ) I think the biggest giant in the Bible ( whose size is mentioned ) was ol King Og the Rephaim and he was just under 9 cubits ( 12 feet ? ). Even this seems extravagant. I still wouldn't dismiss the Book's accounts of Angel fornication though because they seem to link very well with the Bible and early human beliefs/accounts.

 

[calvin]

Still have the problem that "sons of God" in OT did, in fact, refer to the angels, so it is still a possibility. Also the reading of cannot be explained away:

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

"when men began to multiply on the face of the earth"--"men" here meaning mankind, and daughters were born to them--what was wrong with "sons of God" that they didn't have daughters, and why weren't the "sons of God" multiplying on the face of the earth? This is what tells you "men" meant all mankind with the context.
"that they were beautiful"--What was wrong with the beauty of the daughters of the "sons of God"????? More context which tells you "sons of God" were not men from the line of Seth.
"they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"-- Plain old average men just took wives or married all of whom they chose. Sounds to me like very, very powerful men to be able to do that, what with dealing with fathers and brothers. Sounds to me like there was something special about them. Hmmmmmmmmm

Yes they were 'sons of God' with the implication that they were led by God since they called on His name. angels sinning by leaving their place can not be called 'sons of God', even though they once were.

Then:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Yes giantism is not new, though giants like Goliath of Gath are most uncommon these days.
To assume that these giants were from the union of angels and women would require that the angels had the genes for giantism, but when God created living things, we are told that they would reproduce after their kind. We see this today still. a monkey and a human can not interbreed, neither can a cat and a dog.

"when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them"-- if "sons of God" were normal men, then it would be silly to say they bore children.........of course they would bear children. Ah, but if angels in human form, then you WOULD remark about them making children with daughters of men, because that IS significant.

No, not definite enough...I agree that it is strange to say it that way but it proves nothing. V1 says man (or men kjv) and that daughters were born to them then V2 says the sons of God took these same daughters as wives.
Now the way I read V4, the Nephilim were not these mighty men of old and the giants were not the offspring of the sons of God, because these Nephilim and the giants are said to already be there when the sons of God were procreating with women. There seems to be some detail missing from the narrative, unless 'those days' refer to when God decreed 120 years for mankind.

While I'm at it, what is this "daughters of men" business? Why not just say women? God uses that term elsewhere. It is obvious that it was distinguishing these daughters of mankind from these randy, as you say, angels...leaving their estate.

No, I don't see that it is obvious at all. Please consider what is in v4.
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
We are told that the Nephilim predate the time when the 'sons of God' came into the daughters of men.
We are told that they (?) were the mighty men of old, the men of renown. Who were they? the Nephilim? the 'sons of God'? The Nephilim were already there when this breeding took place.
If the son's of God were the ones calling on the Lord, then that they would have victory over those who were in rebellion seems quite possible. The Bible tells over and over again that if the Lord is on our side the enemy can not prevail.


There are several other objections to the sons of God being angels (in the gen 6 affair).
The creation account makes it clear that like kind begets like kind. Jesus taught from this principle as well.
A human male is apt to find women attractive sexually speaking, whereas he is not likely to find a baboon or any other animal sexually attractive. Why then can an angel be expected to find a lower life form such as a human female attractive?\
Romans ch1 makes it clear that we can learn the Lord's M.O. from nature.
An angelic defilement of God's creation could only take place with God's sanction. Consider Satan's role in the testing oj Job. Satan could only operate against Job within certain and definite limits.
I can believe that angels can rebel, but they can't pull of a job without the Lord knowing of their intentions and they can't go beyond the boundaries set for them. Either the Lord is Lord or the angels rule.
BTW, I do not think that the sons of Seth are the good guys either. Never have never will. Sin was a stowaway on the Ark in the Noah's luggage.
EOR

 

[Major]

Is it possible the atmospheric pressure was different before the flood?

Yes...it was more dense because of the increased oxygen hence making calvin's thought more plausible.

 

[Major]

It's true the Bible never mentions any Angels by name aside from Michael and Gabriel you're spot on there. This doesn't imply that other Angels don't have names though imo. Notice this angel named Phanuel set over " the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life," isn't said to be a mediator nor an instigator of these things. We can see a parallel with this function in the Bible where we;re told that Angels are ministers to those who will inherit salvation in Heb 1 so this isn't an unusual or blasphemous concept.

Heb 1:14 KJV Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

I see no reason to throw around blasphemy or unbiblical claims on this subject but if you must feel free I suppose. Personally I find this a very relevant and interesting subject for all Christians who wish to enter the spiritual battle.

You may see no need for the truth to be told but many others do. I feel that the truth of God's Word is always more important than the opinions of men.
Here's another example as found in chapter 48:1-3...

1 "And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."

Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? You do not have to have a Doctor's degree to see that this is an attack on the deity of Jesus.

Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8..........
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.

 

[Major]

Still have the problem that "sons of God" in OT did, in fact, refer to the angels, so it is still a possibility. Also the reading of Genesis 6 cannot be explained away:

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

"when men began to multiply on the face of the earth"--"men" here meaning mankind, and daughters were born to them--what was wrong with "sons of God" that they didn't have daughters, and why weren't the "sons of God" multiplying on the face of the earth? This is what tells you "men" meant all mankind with the context.
"that they were beautiful"--What was wrong with the beauty of the daughters of the "sons of God"????? More context which tells you "sons of God" were not men from the line of Seth.
"they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose"-- Plain old average men just took wives or married all of whom they chose. Sounds to me like very, very powerful men to be able to do that, what with dealing with fathers and brothers. Sounds to me like there was something special about them. Hmmmmmmmmm

Then:4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

"when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them"-- if "sons of God" were normal men, then it would be silly to say they bore children.........of course they would bear children. Ah, but if angels in human form, then you WOULD remark about them making children with daughters of men, because that IS significant. While I'm at it, what is this "daughters of men" business? Why not just say women? God uses that term elsewhere. It is obvious that it was distinguishing these daughters of mankind from these randy, as you say, angels...leaving their estate.

Moose.........Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:30 that angels are "ASEXUAL".

For fallen angels to have the ability to reproduce we would have to remove the Words of Jesus from the Bible so that fact alone rules out fallen angels being the "sons of God" and mated with the "daughters of men".

Therefore the "sons of God" must refer to the Godly line of humans from Seth which intermarried with the human "daughters of men". The result of these spiritually mixed marriages then brought the judgment of God on the primeval world.

GIANTS (Hebrew...Nephilim) = princes, men with a name, well known or had a reputation.

 

[Big Moose]

Moose.........Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:30 that angels are "ASEXUAL".

For fallen angels to have the ability to reproduce we would have to remove the Words of Jesus from the Bible so that fact alone rules out fallen angels being the "sons of God" and mated with the "daughters of men".

Therefore the "sons of God" must refer to the Godly line of humans from Seth which intermarried with the human "daughters of men". The result of these spiritually mixed marriages then brought the judgment of God on the primeval world.

GIANTS (Hebrew...Nephilim) = princes, men with a name, well known or had a reputation.

Yes, let's look at Matthew 22.
28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Jesus is asked by the Sadducees about the resurrection and how marriage HERE ON EARTH pertains to when those PEOPLE FROM EARTH go to heaven or are resurrected.
He says they don't marry, not that they are asexual. So the angels likewise do not marry in heaven. If angels are asexual, how is it they were men with Abraham? How is it that violent homosexual men wanted to have sex with them in Sodom? Obviously they have the body parts when they take human form. If they can eat with Abraham, then their body parts worked like ours also.
I know of no place in the Bible that alludes to lack of male or female identity when we go to heaven. We do get new bodies, but that is it.
Even if we are asexual in heaven, it stands to reason that while on earth we are male and female and change when we pass into heaven. Why would it be different for going the other way? Jesus was male as a human. In Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Jesus, in pre-incarnate form (Lord God), walked in the garden making sound, and had a presence which Adam and Eve hid from.
Jesus called the omni-everything God of heaven, Father. Not Indeterminate Parental Unit. Nor generic "Maker" or "Creator".
Jacob wrestled with the Lord, who took the form of what? A man. Jesus was apparently not a good wrestler, since He could not make Jacob give up.

Question may be, "Why would God allow this?". Why does He allow bad things to happen? I think we know why. We need challenged to become more than we are. Growth will not take place without shtuff happening.