Heres a good topic, What about Angels? they are among us right?

I have always been told be assured that angels are real and that they do love you and watch over you. Their work is help you to know that you are beloved of God and to help you feel and experience more love. They know everything about you; every thought, feeling and emotion. They have been with you with every step you have taken. The were with you before you were born, even before you were conceived, and will be with when you leave this life. They accept you and love you completely - exactly as you are!

sermonindex wrote:But I do not find anywhere in the Scriptures the get the idea that they know our thoughts and are there to comfort us. And there may not Scriptures that verify this, I was just letting you know what I was told, not that I totally agree with all of it or any of it, so basically this is why I started this thread, because I would like to know more, I am open to learning here, but I do think this is a good topic one that might inspire all of us here.Thanks Bill

Mmmmmm Its a lovely thought. I have never read any books about angels cos some times its hyped up and think where does all the imformation come from.Angels:I heard an account of a woman being attacked, after a first woman had passed by.The Police asked the man, why he had not attacked the first woman that went by.His reply was, "There were two big men walking with her, one on either side of her, when she went past."The lady that had been refered to said, "I was walking alone, there were no men with me."I also heard of another account. This one I know is true as it was people from our own church.Three traveling abroad on mission to make a delivery going, through all the check points to pass through, into other country's with a lorry load of aid. They came to a check point and had difficuty and then this man appeared from no where and sorted out the documentation. They were then given permission to pass through. It was quite busy there and when they looked around to thank the man, he had gone he just was not there. And so they continued their journey.They believed he was an AngelI believe, that was an angel.I don't think I beleive what you heard. I think it is only through scripture that this could be found to be true or false.I do beleive there are angel's in certain situations.I think the our focus should be on, Jesus, God, Holy Spirit.And enjoy Gods happenings as they happen.ellie

Certainly an interesting subject. I think the ideas posted about holy and unholy angels both being real are important.I am most impressed with the abilities that angels have:Isaiah 37:36, "Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses."Rev 20:1-2, "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years"I have heard many stories in magazines, on TV, and such, of possible angelic encounters. More lately I have heard conservative commentary of things I never had thought about. All angels mentioned in Scripture are male, but most artistic depictions as of late are female or infant. There is never a Scriptural reference to a guardian angel, ie: one angel per Christian. They always seem focused on the will of God, and this sometimes includes the destruction of, and other times, the salvation of man.This is a subject that reminds us to make sure that we are obediant to God, and He will take care of us, whether this be breaking us or protecting us. He will command His angels concerning us if we are in His will.

I too have become very interested about angels recently. And I am also impressed with their abilities and, what seems to be for some of them, their great responsibility and authority in the Kingdom. There is never a Scriptural reference to a guardian angel, ie: one angel per Christian.I used to think this too, but lately I have come across some Sciptures that seem to suggest otherwise. Matthew 18:10"See to it that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in Heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven."Acts 12:15"And they said to her, 'You are out of your mind!' But she kept insisting that it was so. And they kept saying, 'It is his angel."So it seems clear from the first Scripture that every child ("little one") has his/her own angel. The second Scipture seems to give us some insight into the understanding of the Early Church concerning angels. Rhonda kept telling them Peter, who is seems they thought was in prison, was actually at the door! But they were just like, "No way, it's just his angel." This makes me wonder how common and normal angelic presence was in the Early Church. It also seems to indicate that each believer does have his/her own angel. But I admit it is not absolutely clearly stated, and the case can be made that, perhaps, only certain believers have their own angels. But, upon the authority of both of these verses, I think there's plenty of room to be open to the idea that every Christian has their own angel (at least one).

They know everything about you; every thought, feeling and emotion. They have been with you with every step you have taken. Not even the greatest of the angels, the one we call Satan, would have all this information.

Psa 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. :-)

Not even the greatest of the angels, the one we call Satan...Don't want to send this thread off topic; but why do you say Satan is the greatest?

Don't want to send this thread off topic; but why do you say Satan is the greatest?As far as revelation has been given us the angels are the greatest creation of God. Satan is referred to in “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.”(Ezek. 28:14, KJVS) as the 'anointed cherub': the anointed priest was the high priest, the anointed cherbu would seem to be the high-cherub. As far as our revelation goes; none 'was' greater than Satan. Of heaven's angels Michaei is referred to as the archangel; Gabriel is not an arch-angel. Jude seems to indicate that even Michael could not take on Satan without God special support. “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”(Jude 1:8-9, KJVS) However I am talking about created beings; “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.”(1John 4:4, KJVS)

Interesting. I am by no means saying that it is impossible but I still can't see it as an absolute that Satan is or was greatest. I believe that Michael would be a stronger contender being, as you said, expicitly refered to as arch angel. I was not under the impression that all angels are cherubim. Chief cherubim may not equate to chief angel. And I am not 100% that ezekiel 28 refers to Satan although obviously there is merit ot that opinion.

All of your points are valid. archangel may refer to Michael's position as field-marshall in the angelic hosts. I didn't mean to imply that all angels were cherubim; only that they seem to have greatest proximity to God. The descriptions in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, though contested by some, would seem to set Satan/Lucifer at the pinnacle of creation.refs to Michael: Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1; Jude 1:9; Rev. 12:7These two phrases are interesting“the devil and his angels:”(Matt. 25:41, KJVS)“Michael and his angels”(Rev. 12:7, KJVS)

You are correct. Michael himself could not contend with the Angel of Light. None could. Yet with the power of the Great I AM, even the lowliest of angels could defeat Lucifer.Lucifer is, period, the strongest Angel of the Lord.

TiltedHalo wrote:You are correct. Michael himself could not contend with the Angel of Light. None could. Yet with the power of the Great I AM, even the lowliest of angels could defeat Lucifer.Lucifer is, period, the strongest Angel of the Lord.Where does scripture say that Michael could not contend with "the angel of light"?

taco writes:Where does scripture say that Michael could not contend with "the angel of light"?Ron B had written:Of heaven's angels Michaei is referred to as the archangel; Gabriel is not an arch-angel. Jude seems to indicate that even Michael could not take on Satan without God special support.“Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”(Jude 1:8-9, KJVS)Again, your objection is correct. It does not say 'could' not it say's 'dared not'. However, why 'dared not'? Presumably because Michael would not dispute the original hierarchy of the angelic hosts. This whole passage seems to be focused on 'angels which kept not their first estate'. Michael, apparently, even in contest over Moses' body would not abandon his f'irst estate' but called upon God Himself to intervene. You are right, it does not say 'could not' but in drawing attention to the passage I think you have proved my point that Satan was, at one time, the greatest of the angelic hosts.

Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.”(Jude 1:8-9, KJVS)This speaks more of Michael's attitude rather than his limitation. In an other passage we do in fact read of him making war on Satan (rev 12). I infer from this that Satan is indeed a great dignitary but certainly not that he was of necessaity the greatest, any more than the other dignities spoken of in this passage would have to have at one time been "the greatest". Put it like this, had satan been 2nd in command I think that this passage would still apply. I don't believe that Michael's restraint demonstrates that satan must have been greater than he. It could simply be a case of a sort of romans 14:4 among angels (don't judge another's servant) Michael called upon God to rebuke his own servant.I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is :-) But I don't believe that the evidence warrants such a definitive statement about Satan especialy when Michael is the one named as Arch-Angel.

I don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is But I don't believe that the evidence warrants such a definitive statement about Satan especialy when Michael is the one named as Arch-Angel.I agree. I still don't understand Michael's deference to his authority, in the context of Jude, if he (Michael) was the greatest of the angels. It is interesting that Michael is called 'archangel' in Jude; perhaps he was given that role after Satan's defection.I agree, however, that none of this can be proved mathematically. Consider the evidence; make your own choice.

OK, this is my last post on this issue, or I shall be venturing into wrangling over words. Also I hope that we all can continue looking at the rest of this interesting subject.I still don't understand Michael's deference to his authority, in the context of JudeJude does not actualy explicitly say that Michael defered to Satan's authority it simply says that he did not bring a railing accusation against him. A President skilled in diplomacy will not start calling an ammbasador from a communist country "a little red so and so". The president is not defering to his authority but neither is he bbringing a railing accusation against him. this is by no means a one for one analogy of the Michael / Satan dispute. but just to show that not bringing a railing accusation is not the equivelent of defering to authority.Even if it did say that Michael defered to Satan's authority this would still not prove that he was greater than micael. All it would show is that in the present arena ie earth (they were disputing moses body) Satan had more autority. this could well be the case as per the dialogue between the Lrod and Satan in his temptation.I agree, however, that none of this can be proved mathematically. Consider the evidence; make your own choice.Agreed 8-)

Jude does not actualy explicitly say that Michael defered to Satan's authority it simply says that he did not bring a railing accusation against him.I still don't understand why it would say Michael did not 'dare' to bring a railing accusation against him. This is 'tomao' which is used in Matt. 22:46; Mark 12:34; 15:43; Luke 20:40; John 21:12; Acts 5:13; 7:32; Rom. 5:7; 15:18; 1Cor. 6:1; 2Cor. 10:2,12; 11:21; Phil. 1:14; Jude 1:9The implication actually is not that Michael deferred but that he did not have the requisite boldness. My question (to myself) is what did Michael 'fear'. Did he fear breaking the hierarchical chain or did he fear Satan himself. The NKJV has “Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!””(Jude 1:8-9, NKJV) This seems to suggest that Michael did not dare to 'reject authority'. This is not wrangling; I would just like to understand what this passage means.