Do Angels Have An Earthly Ministry Today?

[Major]

yes there can be "not always" but surely there is also "always" clear as day instructions/doctrine....

Colossians 2 New King James Version (NKJV)
Not Philosophy but Christ
2 For I want you to know what a great conflict I have for you and those in Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and[a] of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. 5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.
6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it[b] with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Not Legalism but Christ
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not[d] seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.
20 Therefore,[e] if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Good stuff !

 

[Major]

Do you believe this to be realistic? The problem of course being that the word of God is not always as self-evident as it may seem. And anytime someone steps forward to "translate", what he does instead is infuse his own interpretation.

Which is exactly why it is important for each believer to know the Bible. Then when anyone brings doctrine or teaching which is different than what the Bible declares, they are to be considered as false prophets just as Paul and Jesus explained to us.

Galatians 1:8....
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"

Matthew 7:15-23...... (ESV)
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

Absolutely agreed that what we often get from man's translation is infused with his own interpretation...which is why I only recognize Jesus as the Head of the church. Do I believe it realistic to recognize Him as the Head? Again, absolutely! He has equipped each of us with what we need to follow Him.

Being imperfect humans, of course we make mistakes and come to different conclusions (sometimes based on our own selfishness). Hopefully, as we study and honestly seek the truth, we will come to more accurate conclusions. But when we rely on another human to interpret for us and we neglect to read and rely on the Scriptures on our own, then not only are we limiting our spiritual growth through our own filter but also through that human's filter, which I believe makes our walk with Him far more difficult.

Is there value in reading man's translations? Yes...if we read with the understanding that we will eat the meat and spit out the bones! Ultimately, God will finish what He has started in us and the Holy Spirit will bring us into all understanding.

I do not think it is possible to have a "pure" church containing only "pure" Biblical teachings simply because no one can agree what those are. Everyone all the way down the line had their own understanding of it. It's a nice idea, removing all those pesky pan-made additions and interpretations, but can you imagine the nightmare involved in sorting out what one person thinks is a pure scriptural idea and another thinks is not?

I agree you should not rely strictly on another human being's interpretation, especially if you think they're wrong. But what then do you end up with? An interpretation that is entirely YOUR OWN and might be equally flawed. There is ABSOLUTELY no way to escape the human element of it.

 

[agua]

Acts 5:19 states that it was the "angel of the Lord". If we accept the doctrine of First Mention then that would be Christ Himself as the First mention of "the angle of the Lord" begins in Exodus with the Lord speaking out of the bush to Moses.

In Acts 8:29.......
"And the SPIRIT said unto Philip.............."!

Acts 10:3....
"He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming to him...........".

This is iffy and not to be nit picking anything but this event was a vision. An Angel actually did not come to him but was impressed upon him by God to go and spread the gospel.

Acts 12>21-23.......
On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, the angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died. "

Again we see that it was God in Christ.

Acts 27:23
"For there stood by me this night the angel of God whose I am and whom I serve."

I would not argue the thought but......Is it also possible that this was Christ????

Yeah I agree that they could possibly be Jesus but I'd like to check a couple of things.

This doctrine of first mention is a bit dicey imo and to check if it can be used consistantly can you tell me if Sons of God are angels or men ?
Also to check if a vision means it isn't tangible ( the Angel wasn't really there ) I'd like to ask if you believe Elijah and Moses were with Jesus in Matt 17:9.

And YES, it seems to me that the Restrainer in 2 Thess. must be the Holy Spirit. Who else can hold back evil????

I've heard several explanations of Who the Restrainer is; it relies on a pre-trib rapture for Him to be the Holy Spirit right ? Evil is only quelled atm ( not completely held back ) and we have instances where Angels have done this previously and will do this again. Michael and His Angels will defeat satan in battle and Daniel wrote that Michael is the defender of Yahweh's people. I'm not convinced the Restrainer is Michael but since I am convinced of a post=trib rapture I can't accept the Holy Spirit is atm.

Absolutely agreed that what we often get from man's translation is infused with his own interpretation...which is why I only recognize Jesus as the Head of the church. Do I believe it realistic to recognize Him as the Head? Again, absolutely! He has equipped each of us with what we need to follow Him.

Being imperfect humans, of course we make mistakes and come to different conclusions (sometimes based on our own selfishness). Hopefully, as we study and honestly seek the truth, we will come to more accurate conclusions. But when we rely on another human to interpret for us and we neglect to read and rely on the Scriptures on our own, then not only are we limiting our spiritual growth through our own filter but also through that human's filter, which I believe makes our walk with Him far more difficult.

Is there value in reading man's translations? Yes...if we read with the understanding that we will eat the meat and spit out the bones! Ultimately, God will finish what He has started in us and the Holy Spirit will bring us into all understanding.

But when we rely on another human to interpret for us and we neglect to read and rely on the Scriptures on our own, then not only are we limiting our spiritual growth through our own filter but also through that human's filter, which I believe makes our walk with Him far more difficult.

Unfortunately when we only accept our personal understabding of scripture we can fall into the same trap. Yahweh appoints Pastors/Teachers etc to care for the Congregation but we have trouble knowing who they are I think.

 

[calvin]

Yeah I agree that they could possibly be Jesus but I'd like to check a couple of things.

This doctrine of first mention is a bit dicey imo and to check if it can be used consistantly can you tell me if Sons of God are angels or men ?
<<Snip>>

Yeah the doctrine of first mention leads straight to the 'gap theory' of Gen 1:1,2.

I think mostly it is best to use latter mention to find the meaning of previous mentions.
Take the 'sons of God' for example.
Taking the first mention in Gen 6 many immediately think of randy angels. This idea that 'sons of God' refer to angels is reinforced in their minds by Job 1 and 2.
But when we seek instruction from the New Testament, we learn that 'sons of God' refer to those who are led by the Holy Spirit.
Rom 8:14. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:19. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. (that one alone pretty well knocks the idea of randy angels in Gen 6 out of the ring)
Job 1:6. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
These sons of God are obviously not fallen angels held in chains under gloomy darkness. Angels, yes..fallen, no.
Jud 1:6. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

'sons of God' obviously refers to those led by the Holy Spirit and that definitely excludes any angels or men who are in rebellion against God. IMNSHO.
Jesus plainly told the scribes and pharisees

Joh 8:42. Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

There the contrast lies, sons of God obey God,. those who rebel against and disobey God are sons of the devil.
Sorry for the rant, I get a bit passionate about this subject

 

[Big Moose]

Yeah the doctrine of first mention leads straight to the 'gap theory' of Gen 1:1,2.

I think mostly it is best to use latter mention to find the meaning of previous mentions.
Take the 'sons of God' for example.
Taking the first mention in Gen 6 many immediately think of randy angels. This idea that 'sons of God' refer to angels is reinforced in their minds by Job 1 and 2.
But when we seek instruction from the New Testament, we learn that 'sons of God' refer to those who are led by the Holy Spirit.
Rom 8:14. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:19. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. (that one alone pretty well knocks the idea of randy angels in Gen 6 out of the ring)
Job 1:6. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
These sons of God are obviously not fallen angels held in chains under gloomy darkness. Angels, yes..fallen, no.
Jud 1:6. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

'sons of God' obviously refers to those led by the Holy Spirit and that definitely excludes any angels or men who are in rebellion against God. IMNSHO.
Jesus plainly told the scribes and pharisees There the contrast lies, sons of God obey God,. those who rebel against and disobey God are sons of the devil.
Sorry for the rant, I get a bit passionate about this subject

Sorry Calvin, but you missed Job 38:7
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
In context, "sons of God" are clearly angels in this verse, which means you have to at least allow that may be the meaning elsewhere in the OT. I agree in the NT 'sons of God' are the saints here on earth. Also take into account that Jewish scholars consider 'sons of God' in the OT to be angels.
Jude 1:6 is referencing Gen 6, IMHO.

 

[agua]

Yeah the doctrine of first mention leads straight to the 'gap theory' of Gen 1:1,2.

I think mostly it is best to use latter mention to find the meaning of previous mentions.
Take the 'sons of God' for example.
Taking the first mention in Gen 6 many immediately think of randy angels. This idea that 'sons of God' refer to angels is reinforced in their minds by Job 1 and 2.
But when we seek instruction from the New Testament, we learn that 'sons of God' refer to those who are led by the Holy Spirit.
Rom 8:14. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:19. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. (that one alone pretty well knocks the idea of randy angels in Gen 6 out of the ring)
Job 1:6. Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
These sons of God are obviously not fallen angels held in chains under gloomy darkness. Angels, yes..fallen, no.
Jud 1:6. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—

'sons of God' obviously refers to those led by the Holy Spirit and that definitely excludes any angels or men who are in rebellion against God. IMNSHO.
Jesus plainly told the scribes and pharisees There the contrast lies, sons of God obey God,. those who rebel against and disobey God are sons of the devil.
Sorry for the rant, I get a bit passionate about this subject

Hi Calvin I disagree that Sons of God necessarily refers to the good guys although it definately does when refering to men imo. I'm not going to debate the Nephilim watsy though because people get wildly passionate on the subject but I will say that the "house" the Angels who sinned left in Jude 1:6 ( oikētērion ) is also used to describe the "house" we will inherit at the resurrection in 2 Cor 5:2. ie. spiritual body. Notice also the Angels who sinned mentioned in Jude are still called Angels so it could also follow that the Sons of God in Job could also be good or bad guys/ Angels.

 

[Big Moose]

Also, in the NT, we can become sons of God, heirs and adopted sons as the result of our relationship with Christ. In the OT, I don't know of any such references calling Abe, Moses, David, Daniel or others , except Adam.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I do not think it is possible to have a "pure" church containing only "pure" Biblical teachings simply because no one can agree what those are. Everyone all the way down the line had their own understanding of it. It's a nice idea, removing all those pesky pan-made additions and interpretations, but can you imagine the nightmare involved in sorting out what one person thinks is a pure scriptural idea and another thinks is not?

I agree you should not rely strictly on another human being's interpretation, especially if you think they're wrong. But what then do you end up with? An interpretation that is entirely YOUR OWN and might be equally flawed. There is ABSOLUTELY no way to escape the human element of it.

Hmmm, I think you missed my point, PeaceLikeaRiver.... Let me rephrase, please.

When I end up with an interpretation, it is not merely my own/made on my own. The Holy Spirit is faithful to show/reveal the truth to sincere truth seekers, don't you agree? If I make a mistake, I am confident He will show it to me, in His time. My own stubbornness may impede that process; and I am certainly known to be a knuckle-head at times...but at the same time, He is bringing me to maturity (often painfully). On the other hand, if I accept someone else's interpretation (which may be just as flawed as my own, them being human as well)...well, now I have to wade through TWO possibly flawed interpretations before I arrive at the truth. I do both read the Bible and consider the writings or sermons of well-known Christians. However, I always refer to the Bible as my authority to compare what they are saying with it.

I agree the body of Christ looks like a nightmare today. But I also believe that within every single building where Jesus Christ is worshiped, there attend sincere truth-seekers who are being called to higher standards and to get ready for the Bridegroom's arrival. It may take time for them to come to the point where they recognize being called and to what they're being called, but the fact that they are seeking will surely be rewarded with the truth. So, in the meantime, do you agree that not EVERYONE who attends services are truly His sheep? But there are some...there are some...
I suspect the reason churches look like nightmares so often is due to the wolves who have crept in unawares.

 

[agua]

Hmmm, I think you missed my point, PeaceLikeaRiver.... Let me rephrase, please.

When I end up with an interpretation, it is not merely my own/made on my own. The Holy Spirit is faithful to show/reveal the truth to sincere truth seekers, don't you agree? If I make a mistake, I am confident He will show it to me, in His time. My own stubbornness may impede that process; and I am certainly known to be a knuckle-head at times...but at the same time, He is bringing me to maturity (often painfully). On the other hand, if I accept someone else's interpretation (which may be just as flawed as my own, them being human as well)...well, now I have to wade through TWO possibly flawed interpretations before I arrive at the truth. I do both read the Bible and consider the writings or sermons of well-known Christians. However, I always refer to the Bible as my authority to compare what they are saying with it.

I agree the body of Christ looks like a nightmare today. But I also believe that within every single building where Jesus Christ is worshiped, there attend sincere truth-seekers who are being called to higher standards and to get ready for the Bridegroom's arrival. It may take time for them to come to the point where they recognize being called and to what they're being called, but the fact that they are seeking will surely be rewarded with the truth. So, in the meantime, do you agree that not EVERYONE who attends services are truly His sheep? But there are some...there are some...
I suspect the reason churches look like nightmares so often is due to the wolves who have crept in unawares.

He is bringing me to maturity (often painfully). On the other hand, if I accept someone else's interpretation (which may be just as flawed as my own, them being human as well)...well, now I have to wade through TWO possibly flawed interpretations before I arrive at the truth.

There're some doctrines/interpretations that it's best not to be too dogmatic on imo. For instance I know of 5 ( maybe 6 ) interpretations of 1 Peter 3: 18 - 20 but have narrowed it down to 2 most likely imo. Until Jesus returns I doubt any human will have perfect doctrine.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

If you read up on angels a little bit you also see that they're not specific to Christian belief, there are other faiths that have angels and they seem also to figure in pagan circles.

There are evil angels who do appear to people of other faiths. Most generally they appear to wreak havoc.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

There're some doctrines/interpretations that it's best not to be too dogmatic on imo. For instance I know of 5 ( maybe 6 ) interpretations of 1 Peter 3: 18 - 20 but have narrowed it down to 2 most likely imo. Until Jesus returns I doubt any human will have perfect doctrine.

Those verses deserve their own thread and I imagine it would be just as long or longer than this one! LOL

 

[calvin]

Sorry Calvin, but you missed Job 38:7
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
In context, "sons of God" are clearly angels in this verse, which means you have to at least allow that may be the meaning elsewhere in the OT. I agree in the NT 'sons of God' are the saints here on earth. Also take into account that Jewish scholars consider 'sons of God' in the OT to be angels.
Jude 1:6 is referencing Gen 6, IMHO.

NO, I did not miss it, I just didn't think it germane to my argument.
Certainly in Job sons of God are angels, but it is too big a stretch to fit them into Genesis.
I gave good and reasonable evidence that these Genesis ones were not angels, even citing Jesus' teachings on sonship, which really spans back to Satan's beginnings, or predates the New Testament.. I note the Jewish scholars of His day disagreed with Him also.

Well would you agree at least that those referred to in Gen 4:26b, would qualify as sons of God, being led to call on His name based on Rom 8:14. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
If you can agree to that then at least it is established that some human beings are referred to as sons of God in Genesis, therefore angels need not be being mentioned at all. We do know that sons of God, human ones do marry the daughters of men and do make babies with them.

 

[calvin]

Hi Calvin I disagree that Sons of God necessarily refers to the good guys although it definately does when refering to men imo. I'm not going to debate the Nephilim watsy though because people get wildly passionate on the subject but I will say that the "house" the Angels who sinned left in Jude 1:6 ( oikētērion ) is also used to describe the "house" we will inherit at the resurrection in 2 Cor 5:2. ie. spiritual body. Notice also the Angels who sinned mentioned in Jude are still called Angels so it could also follow that the Sons of God in Job could also be good or bad guys/ Angels.

Yes, I suppose it would depend on when Job was written about and when the angels that sinned, sinned. But notice that the angels that sinned spoken of by Peter and Jude are not called 'sons of God' who sinned.

 

[calvin]

Hi Calvin I disagree that Sons of God necessarily refers to the good guys although it definately does when refering to men imo. I'm not going to debate the Nephilim watsy though because people get wildly passionate on the subject but I will say that the "house" the Angels who sinned left in Jude 1:6 ( oikētērion ) is also used to describe the "house" we will inherit at the resurrection in 2 Cor 5:2. ie. spiritual body. Notice also the Angels who sinned mentioned in Jude are still called Angels so it could also follow that the Sons of God in Job could also be good or bad guys/ Angels.

I don't think that is specific enough, but maybe it is. Here is an extraction from BDAG with full credits.

οἰκητήριον, ου, τό (οἰκητήρ = οἰκητή ‘inhabitant’, cp. οἰκήτωρ; Eur., Democr.+; Cebes 17, 3 εὐδαιμόνων οἰκ.; Plut., Mor. 60b; UPZ 17a, 23 [127 b.c.]; BGU 1167, 33 [12b.c.]; POxy 235, 14 astrological term ‘house [of Kronos=Saturn]’ w. οἶκος lines 15 and 16; POxy 281, 11; ins in GPlaumann, Ptolemais 1910 p. 35 [76/75 b.c.]; 2 Macc 11:2; En 27:2; TestSol; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 153; Tat. 13, 2) a place for living, dwelling, habitation, of angels (Ps.-Aristot., De Mundo 2, 2 heaven as the οἰκητήριον θεοῦ or 3, 4 τῶν ἄνω θεῶν) ἀπολιπεῖν τὸ ἴδιον οἰκ. abandon one’s own dwelling Jd 6 (cp. POxy 235 above; ἴδιον οἰκ. as Cornutus 24 p. 45, 21; for the subject matter cp. En 15:3ff; Jos., Ant. 1, 73).—The glorified body of a transfigured Christian, dwelling (alternating w. οἰκία, οἰκοδομή vs. 1) 2 Cor 5:2 (s. on σκῆνος and the lit. on γυμνός 1b).—DELG s.v. οἶκο C. M-M. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago

The word has a few different applications depending on not only context but the grammatical construction of the sentence.
As you can see it can refer to a house in astrological terms, the dwelling place of angels and or as well as the house/dwelling of God, or as the glorified resurrection body.
In my opinion we can't infer one meaning only.

 

[Major]

Yeah I agree that they could possibly be Jesus but I'd like to check a couple of things.

This doctrine of first mention is a bit dicey imo and to check if it can be used consistantly can you tell me if Sons of God are angels or men ?
Also to check if a vision means it isn't tangible ( the Angel wasn't really there ) I'd like to ask if you believe Elijah and Moses were with Jesus in Matt 17:9.



I've heard several explanations of Who the Restrainer is; it relies on a pre-trib rapture for Him to be the Holy Spirit right ? Evil is only quelled atm ( not completely held back ) and we have instances where Angels have done this previously and will do this again. Michael and His Angels will defeat satan in battle and Daniel wrote that Michael is the defender of Yahweh's people. I'm not convinced the Restrainer is Michael but since I am convinced of a post=trib rapture I can't accept the Holy Spirit is atm.





Unfortunately when we only accept our personal understabding of scripture we can fall into the same trap. Yahweh appoints Pastors/Teachers etc to care for the Congregation but we have trouble knowing who they are I think.

"Sons of God" and "The angel of the Lord" are two different things.

The "sons of God" in Job are angels since their location is in heaven before God.
The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men since their location is on the earth.

The Law of First Mention is simply a theological way of understanding a word or phrase. It generally understood that what a phrase or word meant the 1st time it was used, applies to the rest of the times you see it in Scripture.

The idea of the Restrainer being angels is not theologically sound IMO. If you think that then you are actually rejecting the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit as was defined by the Lord Jesus to HIs disciples. That is of course your choice to think as you will I am just saying that it is not actually Biblical.

 

[Major]

Oky doky. There were Angels ministering in the NT remember how Jesus was comforted after His tempations ? Ok this was before the Ascension so maybe how about the Angel who freed the Apostles when the Sadducees tossed them in prison in acts 5. Ok this may have been Jesus Himself.

How about the Angel/Spirit that directed Phillip to the Ethiopian Eunuch. ( Could be Jesus again maybe ) There's the Angel who spoke to Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Angel who freed Peter from prison in Acts 12 ( even nudging him to get up ) The Angel who killed Herod didn't seem to be minsitering but the Angel who visited Paul during his voyage to Rome in Acts 27 was a real help. You can see I think Angels are well in the mix down here atm and the Spiritual war is fierce imo.

I've heard of the restrainer being the Holy Spirit before so I suppose the return of Angels during the Tribulation period fits well with that.

See comment #114.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

NO, I did not miss it, I just didn't think it germane to my argument.
Certainly in Job sons of God are angels, but it is too big a stretch to fit them into Genesis.
I gave good and reasonable evidence that these Genesis ones were not angels, even citing Jesus' teachings on sonship, which really spans back to Satan's beginnings, or predates the New Testament.. I note the Jewish scholars of His day disagreed with Him also.

Well would you agree at least that those referred to in Gen 4:26b, would qualify as sons of God, being led to call on His name based on Rom 8:14. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
If you can agree to that then at least it is established that some human beings are referred to as sons of God in Genesis, therefore angels need not be being mentioned at all. We do know that sons of God, human ones do marry the daughters of men and do make babies with them.

But the babies do not become giants, like the offspring of the unions in Genesis 4.

 

[calvin]

You mean Gen 6? But babies these days don't live for centuries either, so...?

 

[agua]

"Sons of God" and "The angel of the Lord" are two different things.

The "sons of God" in Job are angels since their location is in heaven before God.
The "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men since their location is on the earth.

The Law of First Mention is simply a theological way of understanding a word or phrase. It generally understood that what a phrase or word meant the 1st time it was used, applies to the rest of the times you see it in Scripture.

The idea of the Restrainer being angels is not theologically sound IMO. If you think that then you are actually rejecting the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit as was defined by the Lord Jesus to HIs disciples. That is of course your choice to think as you will I am just saying that it is not actually Biblical.

So how does this law of first mention work with these Sons of God ? Also you didn't answer my question whether Moses and Elijah were actually with Jesus at the Transfiguration what do you think ?

I don't trust your authority on theology atm and can see good argument for Michael being the Restrainer. Can you show me the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit as defined by Jesus to His Disciples that discounts Michael being the Restrainer ? Like I said I'm not convinced Michael is the Restrainer but there're other inconsitencies that seem to suggest the Holy Spirit isn't.

BTW if you wish claim your theology is the authority here then we probably shouldn't be wasting our time in discussions. It's better to simply present your argument and let the reader decide its merit without claiming the high ground or attempting to discredit the opposing position by suggesting it isn't Biblical etc. What do you think ?