Conference yukon::christian_v7

>More examples of references to 'male' angels doesn't eliminate the silence
>about 'female' angels, Mike.
>
>The Bible is clear that there are 'male' angels.
>
>The Bible is *silent* on whether there are 'female' angels.
>
>Could you address that silence, please?

Paul, is God's Word holy, divinely-inspired, and infallible?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    The mods can move the replies out of the TV topic to here if they wish.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    How is this different than polytheism!
    
    The existence of many divine beings with one Divine being the ruler of
    them all!
    
                                   Patricia

>    How is this different than polytheism!
>    
>    The existence of many divine beings with one Divine being the ruler of
>    them all!

The difference is that it's not 'ruler,' it's 'creator.'  Polytheism says
there are lots of 'gods,' all on comparatively equal footing.  Infinitely
different from a theology in which there is one God with many creations, some
with capabilities greater than those of human beings.

Paul

Thanks, Mike, for starting a new topic, and thanks for the research in .0.

>Paul, is God's Word holy, divinely-inspired, and infallible?

Yes.  Why are you adding to it? (Again - not in heat but being deliberately
blunt).  You have still not answered the question:  On what basis do you make
the assertion that there CANNOT be 'female angels,' when the Bible NEVER
makes this assertion?  You keep pointing to examples of 'male' angels, but
this says nothing about the complete silence around the topic of 'female'
angels.

Your point 12:

    12. always masculine - Job 1:6, 38:7, Genesis 6:2

really should be "All explicit Biblical portrayals are masculine."  And the
opposite of that modified assertion is also true: "There are no explicit
feminine Biblical portrayals."

But the opposite of your statement, "never feminine," is NOT a Biblical
statement.

Mike, can I assert that Jesus *NEVER* said a word about (using an unsavory
example) incest?  Biblically, He never did.  There's not a word of Christ's
teaching about it.  So can I assert, from that absense, that He NEVER said
anything about it?

Of course not.  Don't do the same thing.  Stick to what the Bible says, and
don't say things that it doesn't say.

Paul

    OK, I guess I understand.  As long as there is one main creator God and
    a bunch of lessor divinities, we can call it Monotheism.
    
    If there are more than one God of the same rank, it is polytheism.
    
    So a Goddess religion with the Goddess giving birth to a bunch of
    lesser divinities would be Monotheistic?

>    How is this different than polytheism!
>    
>    The existence of many divine beings with one Divine being the ruler of
>    them all!
    
    Patricia, where did I say angels were divine?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Re: Note 825.6 by POWDML::FLANAGAN

�    As long as there is one main creator God and
�    a bunch of lessor divinities, we can call it Monotheism.
    
    Where did the word "divinities" come in? Angels aren't divine any more
    than I am. God created many kinds of things: angels, humans, animals,
    plants, rocks. Depending on how you classify them, any could be
    "better" in some way than any of the others. None of them, however, are
    divine. Only God fits that category.
    
    	BD�

   1." created beings - Colossians 1:16
   2. spiritual beings without bodies - Hebrews 1:4, 1 Corinthians 15:39-40
   3.  present at creation - Job 34:4-7
   4.  have mighty power - Psalm 103:20-21, 2 Thessalonians 1:7

   5.  God's servants/messengers - Galatians 1:6-9, 2 Corinthians 11:14
        (won't contradict God's Word!)
    
   6. Thrones, Dominions, Authorities,
        Principalities, and Powers.
   7. can take on human form - Genesis 18:2, Hebrews 13:2
  
    8.interested in our salvation - 1 Peter 1:12, Luke 15:7

   9. minister, serve, strengthen others - Hebrews 1:14, Luke 22:43
   
   10. protect us from danger & harm - Genesis 19:11,16, 2 Kings 6:17,
        Psalm 91:11-12, Acts 5:19, 12:7, Daniel 10:20, 6:22, Revelation 12:7.
   11. escort us to Christ when we die - Luke 16:22
   12. watch conduct of the church - 1 Corinthians 11:10, 4:9, 1 Timothy 5:21
   assist God in executing His righteous judgment - Acts 12:23, 2
        Corinthians 10:10, 77 references in Revelation.
    13. give us direction & guidance - Acts 10:3, 8:26, John 16:13 (they
        are never spiritual teachers!)"
    
    
    
    Just some clues that you provided which lead me to believe that angels
    could be included as divinities?
    
    Now what is your definition of a divinity?
    
    If angels are not divine then are they human?
    
    Maybe 1/2 divine and 1/2 human?
    
    
    By the way in near eastern mythologies Gods and Goddesses are defined
    as possessing knowledge and being immortal?   Do these angels pass that
    test for divinity?
     
    
    By the way, there is another one of those apparent contradiction
    between 1 and 3 above.

And no, a goddess religion where the original goddess 'births' other
gods/goddesses is not monotheism.  The gods thus 'birthed' are of the same
nature as the goddess that birthed them.

The lesser beings are created, and are thus in no way equal to the creator,
any more than the computers we create are of the same kind as we are.

Paul

    Someone type in the dictionary definitions for Monotheism and
    polytheism please.

    Monotheism: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
    
    Polytheism:  The worship of or the belief in more than one God.
    
    Divine:  Being or having the nature of a deity.
             Of or relating to a deity
             superhuman, godlike
             

>Yes.  Why are you adding to it? (Again - not in heat but being deliberately
>blunt).  You have still not answered the question:  On what basis do you make
>the assertion that there CANNOT be 'female angels,' when the Bible NEVER
>makes this assertion?  You keep pointing to examples of 'male' angels, but
>this says nothing about the complete silence around the topic of 'female'
>angels.
    
    Paul, from where I sit, it is you who is "reading into" the Word. 
    Since you agreed God's Word is infallible, you are implying that it
    isn't because He "forgot" to discuss the possibility of female angels. 
    I believe it is infallible, and since female angels aren't discussed,
    they don't exist.  I'm not adding to His Word, I'm merely following
    what He put in it.  If there were such a thing as female angels, God
    would've said so.
    
    Remember, Joel 3:7 says God doesn't reveal anything to us other than
    what He has said He will do first.
    
    Mike

>    Just some clues that you provided which lead me to believe that angels
>    could be included as divinities?
    
    Patricia, you're reading too much into their characteristics.  As Barry
    said, only God is divine.
    
>    Now what is your definition of a divinity?
    
    The DEC issue AHD says divinity is "the state of being divine" and
    attributes this to being God.  It also says divine is "being or having
    the nature of deity, relating to a deity, superhuman or godlike..." 
    This can't apply to angels because their characteristics don't fit
    God's.
    
    For me personally, there is only 1 who is divine - God.
    
>    If angels are not divine then are they human?
    
    No they are *created* spiritual beings.
    
>    By the way, there is another one of those apparent contradiction
>    between 1 and 3 above.

    Only in an unbiblical perspective.  Angels are created beings.  They
    were created before the universe was.
    
    Mike

I'm pretty surprised, Mike.  The fallacy of the 'argument from silence' is a
very basic principle of Biblical interpretation.

>    I believe it is infallible, and since female angels aren't discussed,
>    they don't exist. 

Anything that is not discussed in the Bible does not exist?  Do you really
want to go by that principle?

There's really not a whole lot of point in continuing this discussion
further.  You will argue from silence, I will not.  Or put from the other
perspective, I will allow for the existence of things which are not discussed
in the Bible, and you will not.

Paul

>Anything that is not discussed in the Bible does not exist?  Do you really
>want to go by that principle?
    
    when it comes to spiritual things that we have no other way to verify,
    yes.

      Just a couple brief thoughts...
    
      Patricia, you asked if angels were human with what seemed to
      be the logical extension that, if not, they are divine.  Have
      you ever applies the same rationale to dogs or cats???
    
      I tend to side with Mike on the gender issue, but for a different
      reason.  I see the main basis for gender as being the unique
      procreative characteristic that is ours.  If angels do not procreate,
      I don't think of them as really male or female.  We have to resort
      to a personal pronoun, but do angels have sexual anatomy?  I tend
      to think not.
    
      But, to use the biblical argument that angels must all be male on
      the standpoint that the male pronoun is always used is just a 
      little weak (to me).  Often the Bible uses the male pronoun for
      exhortations clearly meant to apply equally to women.  But, do
      we insist, on the basis that they are male pronouns, that the
      scriptures do not apply to women?  
    
      Isn't the main characteristic of being male and female the fact
      that the two have this miraculous, God-given ability to produce
      children?  If angels lack this characteristic, what is the signi-
      ficance of being male as opposed to female?
    
      I tend to think angels are an intelligent order of beings that
      are gender-neutral as they do not have the characteristic of
      procreation.
    
    							Tony

>      I tend to think angels are an intelligent order of beings that
>      are gender-neutral as they do not have the characteristic of
>      procreation.

I'm with you, Tony.  I've been mostly putting quotes around 'male' and
'female' in this string for that reason.

Paul

Though even as I say that, there is the Gen 6 reference, which talks about
the 'sons of God' (taken to be angels) procreating with the daughters of men.

That raises the question, if 'male' angels are sexual beings equipped to have
children by the 'daughters of men' then doesn't that imply that there would
be female angels?  Otherwise why would angels be created as male with no
counterpart?

This is getting pretty speculative.

Paul

    >This is getting pretty speculative.
    
    not if you take a literal view of an infallible God and His Word.

    
>    Divine:  Being or having the nature of a deity.
>             Of or relating to a deity
>             superhuman, godlike
             
Don't forget to give the definition of deity along with this.

     Deity:   1) a god or goddess, 2) the essential nature or condition
              of being a god: divinity

BTW, my dictionary here at work did not include superhuman in its definition
of divine.

Leslie

    
>    If angels are not divine then are they human?
    
     That's sort of like asking, "If cats are not divine then are they human?"

     Leslie

   What are the reasons for thinking "sons of God" means angels?

   Leslie

    	re: "sons" of God.
    
    	"... a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and singing,
    	'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of 
    	goodwill.'"
    
    	Either those male-only angels are sexist, or we are simply
    	quibbling over the gender-inclusive use of male-sounding
    	words.

>    15. different rankings & positions (5 ranks) - Ephesians 1:21,
>        Colossians 1:16, 1 Peter 3:22.  Thrones, Dominions, Authorities,
>        Principalities, and Powers.
>    18. Seraphim - Isaiah 6:2.  Only place where the Bible mentions them. 
>       Some claim that Seraphim and Cherubim aren't actually angels.
>    19. Cherubim - Genesis 3:24, Ezekiel 1:5, 10:9, 28:12, Isaiah 37:16.
>    20. Archangels - Jude 9, Daniel 10:21 (Michael is spiritual warfare
>        guardian over Israel), Daniel 12.
>    21. Angels - Hebrews 1

There are nine ranks evident in the angelology at the time Paul was writing:

1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominations (or Dominions)
5. Virtues (or Authorities)
6. Powers
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels.

See topic 252.

/john

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,		Respond, ye souls in endless rest,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,	Ye patriarchs and prophets blest,
Raise the glad strain,			  Alleluia,
  Alleluia!                               Alleluia!
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,	Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,
Virtues, archangels, angels' choirs,	All saints triumphant raise the song,
  Alleluia, alleluia,			  Alleluia, alleluia,
  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!		  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

O higher than the cherubim,		O friends, in gladness let us sing,
More glorious than the seraphim,	Supernal anthems echoing,
Lead their praises,                       Alleluia!
  Alleluia!                               Alleluia!
Thou bearer of the eternal Word,        To God the Father, God the Son,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord,	And God the Spirit, Three in One,
  Alleluia, alleluia,			  Alleluia, alleluia,
  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!		  Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia!

    Leslie, look up "elohim" in Strong's and you'll see one of its uses is
    to refer to heavenly hosts.
    
    Mike

>There are nine ranks evident in the angelology at the time Paul was writing:
>
>1. Seraphim
>2. Cherubim
    
    As I said, there is no general agreement that seraphim and cherubim are
    actually angels.  If you compare their descriptions with those of
    Gabriel and Michael, you can understand the uncertainty.
    
>3. Thrones
>4. Dominations (or Dominions)
>5. Virtues (or Authorities)
>6. Powers
>7. Principalities
    
    I had these listed.  Biblically these are the only 5.
    
>8. Archangels
>9. Angels.

    Archangels, Angels, Seraphim, and Cherubim cannot be said to have their
    own rankings.  Most likely they fall under the 5 known rankings.  It 
    makes more sense for these 4 creatures to fall under the 5 rankings in
    the context of God's Word.  Afterall, Michael is the angelic being 
    responsible for Israel's safety (Daniel 10) - this responsibility falls 
    under one of the 5 rankings.  Going by Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1, the same
    applies to the Seraphim and Cherubim.
    
    Mike

    Hi Paul,
    
    You're right, no biblical authors recorded Jesus saying anything about
    incest specifically.  However, Jesus being God and the Word of God, can
    be attributed with the words addressing incest in the OT.
    
    But in terms of argumentation, you are correct that Mike is arguing
    from silence and that it is not appropriate.
    
    jeff

    Leslie,
    
    I'm not up on this any more, but a sizeable number of conservative
    commentators accepts that the "sons of God" expression in Gen. 6:1
    refers to fallen angels. They support their belief with the fact that
    everywhere else in the OT that this exact expression is used, it's
    clearly referring to angels. They also allude to the few NT passages
    that seem to indicate something weird happened happened back then (e.g.
    2 Peter 2).
    
    Their position is that satan was trying to develop an unredeemable race
    of creatures by having demons be intimate with humans. God took those
    demons responsible and locked them up in Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4) to await
    future judgment (obviously there are plenty of other demons that are
    still free to harass us).
    
    Despite the fact that some of my favorite commentators accept this
    (e.g. John MacArthur) I don't agree. I continue to hold to my belief
    that angels (fallen or otherwise) are not capable of "being intimate"
    with humans.
    
    I'm not prepared to defend my position very well these days, but the
    essense of my reply is that Matt. 22:30 indicates that angels cannot
    procreate. Also, the offspring of the union of Genesis 6 indeed
    materialized (those who accept the angel/human procreation theory point
    to Gen. 6:4 as the offspring), which would mean that satan would have
    in fact succeeded in his mission to create at least some individuals in
    this unredeemable state.
    
    Hth,
    
    	BD�

    I don't know, Barry.  There could be Nephilim playing in the NBA ;-)

    	I didn't really absorb the whole topic here.  I just wondered
    	if anyone has already commented on Genesis 1:26-27
    
    	" 26: ...let us make man in our image and likeness ...  
    	  27: ...Male and female He created them..."

	With all these interpretations here, one has to wonder sometimes if
people are reading the same book! :-)

| <<< Note 825.41 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| It's basically a problem of a literal interpretation of an infallible Word 
| vs. a liberal interpretation of a fallible Word.  

	Are you saying if one does not have the same interpretion of what you
believe is the literal interpretation of an infallible Word, that they are
liberals?

| Even in here, some claim to uphold an infallible Word, but they really don't 
| when it comes down to it.

	What method do you yourself use to determine who is doing what?

	Do you believe that you have the correct interpretation of every piece
of Scripture that exists in the Bible?

	Oh yeah...seeing I don't have a Bible here in work, if you list Bible
passage #'s, could you list the passage itself? 


Glen

     1.  Glen we are not here to get into the discussion that you wish to
        engage. Your questioning of Mike's study/conviction behaviors is
        confrontational and inappropriate.  If you wish to ask this
        question, please take it offline.
    
    
    2.  Write down the passages and look them up at home later.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    
    [End of buffer]
    

    Back to the topic of angels:
    
    I believe angels are created beings, neither human nor divine.  They
    were created specifically to serve God with apparently some degree of
    freedom in terms of choice.  Furthermore, my present understanding
    suggests that angels are spirits who can be perceived by us in bodily
    form, if not actually taking on physical flesh.
    
    To me, angels as spiritual beings are neither male nor female, but can
    appear to us in a form appropriate to the task for which they are sent
    by God.  In other words, the need determines an angel's manifestation:
    If I needed to see a male angel in order to understand God's ministry
    to my situation, then a man is what I perceive.  If someone else were
    to better appreciate God's ministry embodied in a woman, then a woman
    is what would be seen.
    
    Again, this is my "reasonable" reconciliation of things yet unclear to
    me from Scripture, but things nonetheless experienced and documented.
    I'm by no means an expert "angelogist."  I am only a sinner saved by
    Grace desiring to walk by faith, not by sight.  On this topic as many,
    I am a creature with an opinion, albeit studied by God's grace.
    
    /Wayne

| <<< Note 825.45 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| 1.  Glen we are not here to get into the discussion that you wish to
| engage. Your questioning of Mike's study/conviction behaviors is
| confrontational and inappropriate.  If you wish to ask this
| question, please take it offline.

	First off, it is a legit question, and it does not go against the
premise of this conference. I am asking Mike how he came to these conclusions.
If the statement can be made in this topic, then I should have a right to ask
how he came up with it. 

	Now, your first problem was I was not being confrontational. How do I
know what his study habits are? So please don't tell me I am doing something
when I am not. 




Glen

    RE: .35
    
    Hi, Glen.
    
    Given differing opinions/interpretations, we can take one of three
    assumptions:
    
     1) One is right, others wrong;
    
     2) All are wrong, with each of us seeing less truth than error in
        others and being deceived by our own error; or
    
     3) Some are right and some are wrong, and reconciliation of differing
        views will give a fuller understanding of Truth.
    
    The Bible is without error.  God intends for us to truely know Him. 
    The "problem" of differing opinions lays with us sinners, not with the
    Word of God.  We are works in progress with whom God is not yet
    finished!  When we judge another to the point of refusing to attempt
    reconiliation of differences, I am convinced we dismiss opportunity to
    better see/know God.
    
    Bottom-line:  Differing interpretations is NOT an indication that the
    Bible is fallible, rather that we who read are.
    
    /Wayne

                   <<< Note 825.44 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Are you saying if one does not have the same interpretion of what you
>believe is the literal interpretation of an infallible Word, that they are
>liberals?
    
    	WhatMike is saying is that there is only *ONE* correct
    	interpretation, and any deviation from that is a liberal
    	interpretation.
    
    	Everyone thinks he has the one correct interpretation, and
    	therein lies the human element of the debate.

	Wayne, great note. There are a lot of things in your note that delt
with what I was trying to get at with Mike. The claim he made about others in 
here gave me the impression that he has it right, and the others do not. That 
was why I asked the questions I did to see if my impression was right, or if it
was wrong.


Glen

| <<< Note 825.50 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| WhatMike is saying is that there is only *ONE* correct interpretation, 

	Joe Oppelt is now Mike? :-)  I agree with the above, but am wondering
how he comes to the conclusion of others. AND, to find out if he feels he has
it all down pat.

| Everyone thinks he has the one correct interpretation, and therein lies the 
| human element of the debate.

	I don't agree with the above. I DO agree with it if you concern those
who feel they got it right. But I don't believe that everyone thinks they do. I
believe everyone who believes in Him will strive for it, but if they are
following Him, how can their imperfect human minds ever think that they got it
right?


Glen

    It is my assumption that people who have opinions typically think they
    are right about what they have opined.  
    
    I do not challenge their belief that they ARE correct in their opinion,
    though I may challenge the opinion if mine differs.
    
    To challenge someone's thinking process is  a personal attack. 
    To challenge the opinion is a debate/discussion.
        
    Nancy
    

    I think Wayne said it best when he basically said God's Word is perfect
    and infallible and the problem is with us.  In light of that you still
    have:
    
    - some that are absolutely correct and easily proven true
    - majority opinions/interpretations
    - minority opinions/interpretations
    - some that are just plain off and are easily proven false
    
    How do we get in these categories? (cf. 1 John 2:12-17; it definitely
    relates this progression of spiritual growth and maturity.  especially
    verses 12-14)
    
    - There are those in here who exalt His Holy Word and consider it perfect 
      and infallible in every way.  What they don't understand they trust God 
      to reveal in His good will and timing.  As Mark Metcalfe used to say,
      this group allows His Word to totally filter their lives.
    
    - Some consider it holy, perfect, and infallible to a degree but are
      still holding on to their own ways when it comes to a certain
      subject.  It might be because it is an area in their life that they
      are struggling with.  It could be because of how they were raised or
      because it conflicts with their denominational teachings.  They just
      aren't yet willing to give everything over to God's Word.  As Mark
      Metcalfe used to say, they filter the Word instead of allowing it to
      totally filter them.  The Holy Spirit is still working on them.
    
    - Then you have the camp that considers it inspired, but not
      infallible.  They liberally interpret and read their own thoughts
      into God's Word.  Again, this could be because of a lack of faith or
      understanding.  It could be to justify certain areas of their life. 
      It could be because it conflicts with how they were raised or how their
      church believes.  Worst of all, it could be because they aren't
      saved.
    
    - Finally, you have the camp that totally rejects it all as God's Word. 
      The worst-case scenario from the above groups is reflected here.  You
      can't be saved and hold this view.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 825.53 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| It is my assumption that people who have opinions typically think they
| are right about what they have opined.

	I agree.... but an opinion is not a fact. 

| I do not challenge their belief that they ARE correct in their opinion,
| though I may challenge the opinion if mine differs.

	That is cool, too.

| To challenge someone's thinking process is  a personal attack.

	I would agree that it COULD lead to that. But I can't go for a blanket
statement of always. What I am trying to do is obtain a better understanding of
where Mike is coming from. No challenge, here. Just a query. If you see
anything else into it, then stop...cuz you would be wrong.

| To challenge the opinion is a debate/discussion.

	Yes, it is. But then again, even that has the possibility of ending up
as a personal attack.



Glen

	Mike, thanks for posting that. It was exactly what I was looking for. 

	Btw...where do you see yourself in all that? 

	Myself, I guess honestly I would be in the next to last catagory.


Glen

    >	Btw...where do you see yourself in all that? 
    
    Tough call.  Not too long ago, I was definitely in #2.  I think God is
    gradually maturing me toward #1.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely
    subject myself to Him and His Word in all manner of authority, doctrine, 
    correction, etc.  There are just some things that I haven't done or am
    not able to do at the moment.  Most of them are in the areas of
    service and ministry.  Unless I'm confusing what I wrote. ;-)  To me,
    you would have to allow God's Word to filter you in every way.  I've
    prayed about getting involved in some ministries at church, but felt
    God was telling me no because of my other committments.
    
    Mike

                   <<< Note 825.52 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| Everyone thinks he has the one correct interpretation, and therein lies the 
>| human element of the debate.
>
>	I don't agree with the above. I DO agree with it if you concern those
>who feel they got it right. But I don't believe that everyone thinks they do. 
    
    	Why would someone follow a faith they don't believe to be right?

    >    	Why would someone follow a faith they don't believe to be right?
    
    
    habit?

      Hi,
    
        In partial defense of Glen, I truly feel that I have at times
        been critiqued not for what I believe, but for people saying
        *how* I have come to believe as I do in certain instances.
    
        In these cases, such people have never been called out by
        moderator requests.
    
        Its hard to do, but I just honestly believe that there is a
        lack of impartiality in this regard.  I'm sure not defending
        all that Glen has written in this Conference, but sometimes I
        feel he receives warning for things for which others do not
        (receive warning).
    
    						Tony

    > Why would someone follow a faith they don't believe to be right?
    
    I've seen some crazy things in my young life!

    Tony B.,
    
    Often times from afar things can look different than to those that are
    amidst the happenings.  Your thoughts are noted but they are far from
    the complete picture of things.
    
    Thanks for being concerned though, it shows your tender heart.
    
    Nancy

RE: <<< Note 825.6 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

        In the Bible, humans are admonished not to worship angels. In the
        Bible, Angels appearing to humans reject worship.  The only passage
        I can think of where an angel in the Bible seeks worship is where
        the prince of the fallen angels, Lucifer the Adversary, offers
        Yahshua all the kingdoms in the world in return for Yahshua's
        worship.  "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind
        me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
        and him only shalt thou serve." Luke 4:8

        Correct me if I'm wrong, Patricia, but, to my understanding, all
        (or at least many) of the gods of polytheistic religions are
        portrayed as receptive to worship and service, much of which is
        rendered in various offerings and sacrifices.  Furthermore, lesser
	gods are supposedly offspring of the greater gods.
	Hence the term, Polytheism.

        In the Bible, sacrifices and offerings are acceptable only if made
        to YHWH God, not to angels or to anyone or anything else.  In the
        bible, sacrifices and offerings made to any other than YHWH God are
        looked upon as unacceptable and evil. Furthermore, all other beings
        are created by Him, not merely His offspring.
	Hence the term, Monotheism.

	Peace,
		TonyC
		

      Hi Nance,
    
        Thanks so much for your nice reply.
    
        I guess I believe that no matter any other differences between
        two people, (such as one hypothetically being far less moral 
        than another), if each person exceeds the speed limit by the
        exact same amount, they should be treated identically.
    
        The only exception to this I can see is if *frequency of
    	occurances* is factored in.  But, if it is factored in, it should
        be explicitly stated as a factor.
    
        Lets say Glen 'speeded.'  Unless frequency of occurances is a
        factor, if anyone else 'speeded', they should be treated 
        IDENTICALLY.	
    
        I feel I have been told that I have fitted the Bible to
        preconceived ideas and have resorted to "private interpretation."
        That is confrontational.  That is straying from shared dialogue on
        what we believe the Bible means to speaking about the person in
        negative ways.
    
        I believe the above is an analogous case of 'speeding.'  Somehow,
        the law didn't seem fit to respond in an identical manner.
    
        Anyway, Nance, thats where I'm coming from.
    
    							Take Care,
    
    							Tony
                                                  

Tony, I very much understand what you're saying.  About three years ago, I
agreed with you.  But the exception you allow for is in fact exactly the one
that brought about Nancy's response, and the responses at other times of
other moderators.

Frequency of occurence, and longevity of occurence, are *ENORMOUS* factors in
this situation.  It's not always stated explicitly, but that is the reason
for what you are seeing.

Paul

	Mike, thanks for being honest about it. It is pretty much where I
thought you would say you were at. :-)

| <<< Note 825.58 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Why would someone follow a faith they don't believe to be right?

	Not follow a faith......but that their faith is right. People try to
follow Him 100% of the way. But there is no humanly possibility that this will
happen at 100%. Anyone that thinks they can be at 100% has to pretty much think
they are God, don't they? Cuz only He can have it down 100%.



Glen

| <<< Note 825.66 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Often times from afar things can look different than to those that are
| amidst the happenings.  Your thoughts are noted but they are far from
| the complete picture of things.

	Nancy, maybe you did it further down, I don't know. But if you haven't,
could you explain what you mean by the above?



Glen

The Angels

The existence of angels--a truth of faith

328. The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred
Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of
Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

Who are they?

329. St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their
nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek
the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from
what they do, 'angel'." [188]. With their whole beings the angels are
servants and messengers of God. Because "they always behold the face of my
Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word,
hearkening to the voice of his word." [189]

330. As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they
are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible
creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness. [190]

Christ "with all his angels"

331. Christ is the center of the angelic world. They are his angels: "When
the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . ." [191]
They belong to him because they were created through and for him: "for in
him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things
were created through him and for him." [192] They belong to him still more
because he has made them messengers of his saving plan: "Are they not all
ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to
obtain salvation?" [193]

332. Angels have been present since creation and throughout the history of
salvation, announcing this salvation from afar or near and serving the
accomplishment of the divine plan: they closed the earthly paradise;
protected Lot; saved Hagar and her child; stayed Abraham's hand;
communicated the law by their ministry; led the People of God; announced
births and callings; and assisted the prophets, just to cite a few examples.
[194] Finally, then angel Gabriel announced the birth of the Precursor and
that that of Jesus himself. [195]

333. From the Incarnation to the Ascension, the life of the Word incarnate
is surrounded by the adoration and service of angels. When God "brings the
firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"
[196] Their song of praise at the birth of Christ has not ceased resounding
in the Church's praise: "Glory to God in the highest!" [197] They protect
Jesus in his infancy, serve him in the desert, strengthen him in his agony
in the garden, when he could have been saved by them from the hands of his
enemies as Israel had been [198]. Again, it is the angels who "evangelize"
by proclaiming the Good News of Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection. [199]
They will be present at Christ's return, which they will announce, to serve
at his judgment. [200]

The angels in the life of the Church

334. In the meantime, the whole life of the Church benefits from the
mysterious and powerful help of angels. [201]

335. In her liturgy, the Church joins with the angels to adore the
thrice-holy God. She invokes their assistance (in the Roman Canon's
Supplices te rogamus. . .["Almighty God, we pray that your angel. . ."]; in
the funeral liturgy's In Paradisum deducant te angeli. . .["May the holy
angels lead you into Paradise. . ."]). Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn" of
the Byzantine Liturgy, she celebrates the memory of certain angels more
particularly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the Guardian
Angels).

336. From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care
and intercession. [202] "Beside each believer stands an angel as protector
and shepherd leading him to life." [203] Already here on earth the Christian
life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  IN BRIEF

350. Angels are spiritual creatures who glorify God without ceasing and who
serve his saving plans for other creatures: "The angels work together for
the benefit of us all" [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 114, 3, ad 3].

351. The angels surround Christ their Lord. They serve him especially in the
accomplishment of his saving mission to men.

352. The Church venerates the angels who help her on her earthly pilgrimage
and protect every human being.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    NOTES

188. St. Augustine, En. in. Ps. 103, 1, 15: PL 37, 1348.
189. Mt 18:10; Ps 103:20.
190. Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis: DS 3891; Lk 20:36; Dan 10:9-12.
191. Mt 25:31.
192. Col 1:16.
193. Heb 1:14.
194. Cf. Job 38:7 (where angels are called "sons of God"); Gen 3:24; 19;
21:17; 22:11; Acts 7:53; Ex 23:20-23; Judg 13; 6:11-24; Isa 6:6; 1 Kings
19:5.
195. Cf. Lk 1:11, 26.
196. Heb 1:6.
197. Lk 2:14.
198. Cf. Mt 1:20; 2:13, 19; 4:11; 26:53; Mk 1:13; Lk 22:43; 2 Macc 10:29-30;
11:8.
199. Cf. Lk 2:8-14; Mk 16:5-7.
200. Cf. Acts 1:10-11; Mt 13:41; 24:31; Lk 12:8-9.
201. Cf. Acts 5:18-20; 8:26-29; 10:3-8; 12:6-11; 27:23-25.
202. Cf. Mt 18:10; Lk 16:22; Ps 34:7; 91:10-13; Job 33:23-24; Zech 1:12; Tob
12:12.
203. St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, 1: PG 29, 656B.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992.

 Notes pertaining to the tri..triu..notes that digressed from the 
 Angels discussion moved to 826.


 Jim Co Mod

    Sure Glen,
    
    If you wanna talk offline.

	Nancy, why is it that you want to discuss something you brought up
publically, in private? 



Glen

>	Not follow a faith......but that their faith is right. People try to
>follow Him 100% of the way. But there is no humanly possibility that this will
>happen at 100%. Anyone that thinks they can be at 100% has to pretty much think
>they are God, don't they? Cuz only He can have it down 100%.
    
    Glen, I'm not convinced that everyone even trys to follow Christ 100% of 
    the time.  And I agree that it's a percentage not obtainable by humans
    in their current form.  This just highlights the need for Christ's
    atonement even more.  But this is a rathole for another time.
    
    Mike

    Glen,
    
    Unlike in other conferences Glen, this conference doesn't wish to go
    round and round and round over subjective information regarding a
    person's noting behaviors.  If you wish to find out exactly what I
    meant, then you will have to deal with me offline.  If you do not wish
    to find this out, then so be it.  Although at this point, I'm not sure
    what would be gained in hashing over things you've been told before
    online. [see puzzled look on my face]
    
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 825.86 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| And I agree that it's a percentage not obtainable by humans in their current 
| form.  

	Mike, this one sentence says volumes. I wasn't sure if this was
something you believed or not.


Glen

      In the context of several exhortations regarding character...
    
      "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is
       perfect."
    
      As well as...
    
      "Thy will be done on earth even as it is in heaven."
    
      Or...
    
      "Walk before Me and be thou blameless [perfect]."  
    
      Oh yes, it can be done.  The word says so over and over and over
      again.  Sarah shook her head.
    
      And so do we...
    
      When will a people believe in His word???
    
    							Tony

    Amen Tony,
    
    >               -< It Is God Who Sanctifies...and He Is Able!!! >-
    
    it was 'hidden' in your note title - but *this* says it all

      Hi Harry,
    
        Thanks!
    
        Ya know...I was thinking of Abraham and Sarah.  Their story
        really is an object lesson of righteousness by faith.  God
        was able to produce a child through Abe and Sarah.
    
        But, it still wasn't going to happen until they believed!
    
        Yes, God could have produced a child without their belief,
        but as to what the object lesson points to, He cannot produce
        a perfected people until that people does believe (as it says
        of Abraham in Romans 4) that what God says, He can perform.
    
        The message of the cross is POWER - power to transform the 
        heart.
    
        We must never place limits on how much the cross can change the
        heart for there is no end to the transforming revelation of the
        cross!
    
    						Tony

>| And I agree that it's a percentage not obtainable by humans in their current 
>| form.  
>
>	Mike, this one sentence says volumes. I wasn't sure if this was
>something you believed or not.
    
    I don't see how you can arrive at 100% sanctification until 1
    Corinthians 15 happens, but again, this should be in another topic.
    
    Mike

	But Mike, how can a human get it down pat? Won't we miss out on some
doctrine here or there due to interpretation or something? Do you ever expect,
while you're on this earth living as a carbon based person, to reach that
level? OR, do you expect to reach that level when He has come to take you home?


Glen

    As long as these building blocks in are use, our differences are minor. 
    Most of the believers in here agree on all the fundamental doctrines -
    a true testimony to God's Word and His Holy Spirit binding us.
    
1. Prayer 
2. Study & Memorization 
3. Fellowship 
4. Witness 
5. Hearing the Word of God 
6. Reading the Word of God 
7. Studying the Word of God 
8. Memorizing the Word of God 
9. Meditating on God's Word 

The points listed in .64 are all very valid, but I do have a slightly different
perspective to put on it. I would regard items 1-9 as being the fruit of faith,
that is it is the God who gives me my faith who enables me to do the things listed
in .64 as a result of that faith. As I walk with the Lord I find that these things
come naturally; some at different times to others, some seemingly more important
to me at various times than others, but they come naturally nonetheless. By
'naturally' I mean that they become part of what I am. These things contribute to
the building of my faith by opening me up to God's will and therefore enable me to
accept the next additional lump of faith, if I can put it that way, that He wants
to give me. The primary building block of faith has to be Jesus Christ, you could
say perhaps that He is 1 and the rest are 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and so on. I only say
this because it would be possible from .64, if you wanted to, to imply that these
things are the source of faith. From hanging around here for a while I think I can
safely say that this is not what Mike is saying.

As regards Glen's point in .63, when we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit I believe
that it should be possible to lead a life of sinless perfection on this earth. Not
because we are capable of it, but because He is capable of it. Whether we achieve
this or not is another matter, I certainly come nowhere near to it (I've been a
Christian for less than a year, so give me a chance! :-) ) but it is what I seek
because I believe that if I don't seek perfection I limit the power of God to what
I am prepared to allow Him to do. Again, I am in no way perfect in my submission
to Him or in my life in general but it is what He has given me the heart to
desire. I also know that there is no way I can become perfect in my own strength,
so I find myself totally reliant on God to give me the strength. My point is that
a human cannot 'get it down pat', but God can (and did in the form of Jesus) so
why should I deny Him His right to make me what He created me to be rather than
remain what I have become?

Matt

| As regards Glen's point in .63, when we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit I 
| believe that it should be possible to lead a life of sinless perfection on 
| this earth. Not because we are capable of it, but because He is capable of it.

	Matt, I too believe that He is capable of it. But He has given us free
will, which leaves it up to us. And I think that is why 100% perfection is
impossible for any human. Should we not TRY because 100% perfection can not
realistically be reached? No, we should all be trying to reach that goal.


Glen

| <<< Note 825.94 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| As long as these building blocks in are use, our differences are minor.


	Mike, can you really know that the differences will be minor? Or can
you really only guess?


Glen

    I've been involved with this conference for about 10 years now.  Observing 
    discussions in here is proof that the differences between born-again
    Christians are minor.
    
    Mike

Amen, Mike.

Paul

Angelic Snarf

      Hi Matt,
    
        Welcome!  And I very much appreciated your reply!
    
    						Tony

	Mike, no matter how minor you FEEL they are, it CLEARLY shows that the
ability to have perfection has not been reached in here. And it never will
until we meet up with Him. Free will will prevent it from happening while we
are on this earth.



Glen

>	Mike, no matter how minor you FEEL they are, it CLEARLY shows that the
>ability to have perfection has not been reached in here. And it never will
>until we meet up with Him. Free will will prevent it from happening while we
>are on this earth.


  And no one has claimed to have perfection.  The doctrinal differences between
 us are minor, for the most part as Mike stated.  None of those differences
 will prevent us from meeting Christ one day, because most of us recognize 
 our sinful nature (which will be with us until the day we die) and have 
 accepted His death on our behalf.

 Free will has nothing to do with it.  We are sinners, will continue to be 
 sinners until that day we meet Him.  Praise God that we are saved by the
 blood of Christ.

 The question is, are you ready to meet him.  Are you 100% sure that on that
 day you slip into eternity, you will be in His presence.  Free will CAN
 prevent *that* from happening.



 Jim

	Jim, I think we are on the same page here.