There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to refute that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, which is why I think the verses address the nature of angels. - Matt. 13:38-39: > "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." That verse is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? - Matt. 16:27 > "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. - Matt. 22:30 > "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. - Matt. 24:36 > "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. - Luke 12:9 > "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 > "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. - 1 Cor. 4:9 > "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 > "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. - Heb. 2:16: > "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. - Jude 1:6 > "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. **Now my question**: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period. That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty. It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship. Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.

In Luke 20:36, Jesus says: *“Those who are worthy of the resurrection from the dead into glory become immortal, like the angels, who never die nor marry.” (TPT)* And in Matthew 22:30 He adds: *“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (ESV)* Some translations use the wording “become like angels.” Does this mean that believers will be transformed into the same form as angels — perhaps even having wings — or is Jesus only referring to other aspects of angelic existence (such as immortality and not marrying) rather than physical form?

So how do they know the angel of the Lord is Michael? How do they reconcile this since Michael in the Bible at Daniel 10:13 is described as "one of the chief princes?"

Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ . The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel. > Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'. I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be? Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions? \* Sorry, couldn't resist.

Some Protestants and Catholics believe that the "Angel of the LORD" mentioned in several Old Testament narratives is not merely a created angel but a manifestation of God—specifically understood by many as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is often described using the theological term theophany (meaning an appearance of God), though the term itself does not appear in Scripture. For instance: > It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form….whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God. (Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions.org ) A Catholic “Dictionary” describes the term “theophany” like this: > A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings. Instances: God confronting Adam and Eve after their disobedience (Genesis 3:8); God appearing to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6); Abraham pleading with Yahweh to be merciful to Sodomites (Genesis 18:23). These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity. One such “theophany” in the form of “the angel of the Lord” is found in Zechariah: > Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (Zechariah 3:1 - NKJV) Many Protestant and some Catholic scholars interpret this account as a theophany—an appearance of God in the Old Testament. In particular, some suggest that the figure identified as the Angel of the LORD may be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity, later revealed in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. This is formally referred to as Christology, which represents a more specific theological interpretation within the broader framework of theophany. > This angel was Christ, or the Logos, mentioned Zechariah 1:11, and called the Lord in the following verse (Benson Commentary) > standing before the Angel of the Lord; not any created angel, but Christ the Angel of God's presence, who is called Jehovah, Zechariah 3:2 is the rebuker of Satan, and the advocate of his people; (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) Interesting with this account is the following utterance by this “angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:2 > And the LORD [the Angel of the LORD speaking as the LORD] said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire (Zechariah 3:2 NKJV) Why does GOD in the form of the second person of the Trinity, manifesting Himself as the Angel of the LORD not rebuke Satan, but asks YHWH (the LORD) to do so? The Archangel Michael in Jude 9 uses a phrase closely resembling Zechariah 3:2—“The Lord rebuke you”—when disputing with the devil. While not a word-for-word quote (wording differs slightly across Hebrew and Greek), the parallel strongly echoes the rebuke found in the Old Testament passage: > 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 9 NKJV) Could it be that the Angel of the LORD similarly “dared not bring against him (Satan) a reviling accusation” in Zechariah 3:2? If so, how could He be GOD? What other reason could there be NOT to rebuke Satan? One possible answer is found in 2 Peter 2:11 > whereas angels, who are greater in power and might [than humans], do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This would suggest that the Angel of the Lord does have the same level of authority granted by GOD YHWH than many other Angels. It would mean that “the Angel of the LORD” is neither God nor the second person of the Trinity. How do those that hold to the position of “the Angel of the Lord” in Zechariah 3:1-2 being Christ pre-incarnate/God reconcile this? Why does the AOTL not rebuke Satan but asks YHWH/the LORD to do so?

As stated above. I know the out-of-pocket answer is "pride", but I'm curious. The angels all had full knowledge of the choice and the resultant consequences, yet a third rebelled. Was it exclusively pride that led them to this decision, or something else? It seems a remarkably unwise decision for a being that knows unequivocally that it will result in eternal torment and separation from God. We can make the obvious argument that this is an awful lot like us, but the angels all had far more information than us. Angels don't need faith, they've all personally met God and know who He is without any doubt. They're timeless and never experienced moments of weakness. They made the decision in utterly ideal circumstances. Was it truly pride and pride alone that led to this?

What is the **liturgical**[i] **history** of the **Prayer to Saint Michael ** *(Oratio ad Sanctum Michael)* that was composed by **Pope Leo XIII **? ---------- [i] **Liturgical**, i.e., as part of the official public worship of the Church distinguished from private devotion. Cf. [CATHOLIC CULTURE > Catholic Dictionary > **LITURGY** ]

According to Catholic teachings, how are Catholics to speak with their guardian angels? With their voice? In their minds? Does the Church provide any guidance or description?

While having a conversation with a member of the Latter day saints. I did some independent research regarding their official account of the origin of their Faith. I did not see any similar question, if there is one I do apologize. Forgive the long build up to my question, it helps the question be properly understood. It is down below in large friendly letters. :) I found this in "Joseph Smith's History" on a very well designed website, that would display explanations for certain words and even links to specific Bible verses involved. During my reading of the first hand account of events, I intentionally did not bother with any historical details nor look up things to bias my original opinion of the text. ---------- The account does not seem to show that Joseph did anything to confirm that his vision was from God and not from the evil one. I come from an eastern orthodox perspective and it seems that Joseph neglected (perhaps due to his age) 2 out of the 3 things we are supposed to do when confronted by visions of supernatural nature. 1. Challenging the messenger, demons can perfectly imitate even divine figures and loved ones. Even various Orthodox saints were deceived by visions where demons impersonated Christ, saints, or similar. We are supposed to challenge them, who sent them, etc. (Example St. Issac of the caves was tricked into worshiping a demon that another one called Christ) 2. Test the message itself, it should align with scripture if it is from God. (Remember this for the question at the end) 3. Seek guidance from a spiritual leader. --------------- These are the issues (minor and major) that I see from reading it. 1. It seems odd that the vision starts with "overpowering darkness" preventing him from speaking. But that doesn't really pose an issue, especially if Joseph did become freed by calling out to God. 2. In the vision, one being points to the other and says "this is my son", who's son? Lucifer and God both will say that they have a son. The orthodox church accounts of visions have many instances where one demon calls another "Christ" to deceive the recipient. 3. The angel Moroni, according to Joseph misquotes scripture by changing verses entirely. This should have been a clear sign that it was false. The "angel" versions are significantly different. 4. Joseph told pastors of his vision, but the pastors he told flatly refused to acknowledge that visions could even occur. (Making it regrettably impossible for him to seek spiritual guidance) -------------------- My main question is this focused on my 3rd objection above. #### "According to the account Joseph as a young man knew the scriptures, despite this he allowed an angel that he knew **changed a text from the Bible** to guide him. How do members of the church of latter day saints reconcile for this direct sin performed by the angel Moroni? >36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, **though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles**. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: > > 37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall **burn** as stubble; for **they that come shall** burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Compare with: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1 or Malachi 3:19) ----------- > 38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will **reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of** Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Compare with: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:" (Malachi 4:5 or Malachi 3:24) ----------------- Changing verses is a sin, and the angel Moroni did it, and Joseph noticed and recorded it officially. > “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.) I understand the LDS response to this already, if the first vision and angel are valid from God, then there is no issue. But the angel sinned according to the account, by changing the scriptures... > We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, **nor do we distort the word of God.** On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2). > “**Your word**, LORD, **is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens**” (Psalm 119:89). > “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but **the word of our God endures forever**” (Isaiah 40:8). > “Heaven and earth will pass away, but **my words will never pass away**” (Matthew 24:35)

In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Revelation, we see vivid accounts of angelic activity, including messages and visions given to John. After the completion of the canon of Scripture, especially following the Revelation of John, some traditions suggest that supernatural visitations—including those by angels—ceased or became extremely rare. From a theological or denominational standpoint, do Christian traditions teach that God stopped sending angels to earth after John received the vision of Revelation? Did God figure the Holy Spirit at work in the church is enough to reveal all hidden things and perfect messenger for the new covenant, unlike in his covenant with the nation of priests of Israel where he used to send angels to people like Manoah , Mary , Daniel? Did the Holy Spirit replace the role of angels in the OT in the NT?

Just wanted to confirm if there is any concept believed in Christianity related to angel numbers or numerology? I have read in this angel number blog that it relates to Christianity. Just want to confirm. What I read is: > **Meaning in the Bible** > > Seeing angel number 2323 signifies new and fresh life as well as harmony according to the Bible. The Holy Bible also suggests that these numbers 2 and 3 occurring twice have great divine power. The holy angels are reminding you that they are always watching over you and guiding you through every single thing. > > *Source*: [Angel number 2323](https://angelsnumbers.net/2323-angel-number/) So I need the proper guidance please. Thanks.

I was reading Romans 11, and 11:32a says: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief ‬ ‭KJV‬‬ I didn't understand that phrase, concluded all in unbelief, so I read a number of commentaries, of which I found Adam Clarke's the most helpful. But after reading through all the notes I took,the mystery remained to me is that we all sin. Why? The angels didn't all sin. I know God knew what would happen when he created Adam. He must have had a reason, or reasons, to create him in such a way, that he 1) was capable of sinning; 2) was the progenitor of the whole human race (as opposed to angels, who were created all at once); and 3) his proclivity to sin would be passed down. After I posed this question, and received answers that were helpful, I thought of this: We all sin, every one of us, because we lack something. God originally created us in His image (Gen 1:26). Yet as Christians, we need to be sanctified, which means we need to be changed into His image, and it won't be completed until we see Him. So we lost something of that image in the fall. Angels are completely different than us, and I don't believe we know enough about them to know why. At least I don't. There are theories proposed in answers and comments under this question Why can't there be another fall? that seem very plausible. I am hoping others can shed some more light from Scripture. Please not from a reformed perspective, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is **Revelation 12:4**: >Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV) I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically. After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures. How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?

I've heard references to debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and it's always been presented as a pointless exercise. If such debates have actually occurred, presumably the participants didn't see them as pointless and thought there was both a way to answer the question and a reason to do so. Did these debates actually occur, and if so what were the reasons at the time? (For bonus points, what answers did people give and was there ever anything approaching consensus?)

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

Throughout the Bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculine form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle. (Source ) However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models). (Source ) **When (about) did this change occur?** --- I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity. I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.

Consider the following examples: Imagine a Christian mother driving her car with her children in the back seats when suddenly, they are surrounded by robbers intent on stealing everything and possibly harming her kids. In such a terrifying situation, would it make sense for her to pray for angelic protection? Or consider a scenario where a Christian encounters a pit bull 100 meters away that suddenly charges toward them with aggression. In that moment of imminent danger, would it be reasonable for the Christian to pray for angelic intervention? Lastly, picture an elderly Christian man in a bedroom with a baby when a fire unexpectedly breaks out, blocking all exits. In such a desperate and life-threatening situation, would it make sense for him to pray for angelic protection, hoping for divine intervention to save them?

Most Christian denominations teach that the devil and his angels cannot be forgiven because they committed an **eternal sin**, while Adam and Eve committed a **mortal sin**, hence they can be forgiven. How did the devil and his angels end up committing an eternal sin when the only sin that leads to eternal damnation is **blasphemy against the Holy Spirit** All **sin** can be defined as going against the **will of God in heaven or on earth** Was it **pride** that made the devil and his angels liable of eternal damnation and how is this a tresspass against the Holy Spirit? Since the Bible claims that **no sin is small or great**, why was the sin by the devil and his angels so great that it made them guilty of eternal damnation and how is the sin of pride any different from the sins committed by men because even men have pride and conspired to be like God in the Tower of Babel?

**Summary of the question**: How can the "angel of the Lord" be the pre-incarnate Jesus if Hebrews 1:5 makes the point that God never said "Thou art my Son" to *any angel*? Those who believe Michael the archangel is Jesus (JW, SDA, and others) usually get Hebrews 1:5 quoted by those who don't share their belief about Michael in an effort to disprove their belief. But what about those who believe the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus? Doesn't the same verse disprove that belief? This is a fairly widely accepted stance, in my opinion. We even have the following question with good answers on this very site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89609/on-what-basis-do-some-protestants-believe-the-angel-of-the-lord-is-the-pre-incar However, some groups like Jehovah's Witnesses (due to the belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) have to respond to questions like this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78168/dont-the-questions-of-hebrews-15-and-113-demand-an-answer-of-none-so-how-c **How would a Protestant who believes the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus (or any Christian who believes this) respond to a very similar question?** If one believes that the angel of the Lord was the pre-incarnate Jesus, how can that be reconciled with Hebrews 1:5 (KJV): > For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I've heard some explain this by saying that the angel of the Lord was not a created angel so that excludes him from the context of "the angels" in this passage. However, the verse doesn't say, "For unto which of the *created* angels said he at any time"... Of course, the basic meaning of "angel" in both the Hebrew and Greek is "messenger". But that doesn't really change the meaning of the passage either. I'm curious how this could be answered satisfactorily.