Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    From TO HEAR THE ANGELS SING by Dorothy Maclean (co-founder of the
    Findhorn community):
    
    "The restoration of wholeness was the constant theme of the angels. 
    They also stated that these opposites had the function of making man
    emerge from unknowingness into consciousness of wholeness.  I have
    written that the angels are above the pairs of opposites.  By this I
    meant that their qualities were of the realm of wholeness, that they
    did not attach value to these opposties, and they did not judge.  Much
    of form or creation emerges out of the relationship between
    complementary opposites or polarities, and of course the devas use this
    principle in creation.  We humans, living in a morphic world, a world
    of form, still need values, our individual version of what is good and
    bad, so that we may continue to move to new values.
    
    Choice is essential.  Our superiority stems from our retaining the
    freedom of choice, remaining universally adaptable and so generalists
    in a world of specialists.  One does not resist evil, because
    everything that comes to us is drawn for some purpose, and resistance,
    while it brings pain, provides no cure.  Neither should we condone our
    evils, but rather seek to understand ourselves and to choose to extend
    our identity into the wholeness of our being.  We can only flow with
    the Tao when we are one with it, without desire, functioning fully with
    our angelic selves.  As Roszak put it in Unfinished Animal:
    
    	The psychotherapy of the future will not find the secret
    	of the soul's distress in the futile and tormenting clash of
    	instinctual drives, but in the tension between potentiality
    	and actuality.  It will see that, as evolution's unfinished
    	animal, our task is to become what we are, but our
    	neurotic burden is that we do not, except for a gifted
    	few among us, know what we are.
    
    Yes, we must know what we are.  Recognition is the path to Christ.
    We only attempt to do something when we believe that we have the
    capability to achieve it, just as I did not attempt to contact angels
    until I was in the state to believe that it was possible.  The devas
    kept telling me about our capabilities, about what we are: gods in the
    making, possessors of infinite potential, one with them in the angelic
    realm.  This oneness with the angels might be described in psychologial
    terms by quoting from Irene Claremont de Castillejo's KNOWING WOMAN:
    
    	Most children are born with, and many women retain, a diffuse
    	awareness of the wholeness of nature, where everything is linked with
    	everything and they feel themselves to be part of an individual whole. 
    	It is from this layer of the psyche which is not yet broken into parts
    	that come the wise utterances of children.  Here lies the wisdom of
    	artists, and the words and parables of prophets, spoken obliquely so
    	that only those who have ears to hear can hear, and the less mature
    	will not be shattered.
    
    This, to me, was a good description of the area of my own consciousness
    which blended with the devic concsciousness.  I had often wondered why
    contacting angels had fallen to my lot, and the only connection that I
    had ever found was that I, when alone with Nature, was blissfully in
    tune with everything.  In de Castillejo's Jungian book this area was
    roughly observed as that of feminine consciousness, a diffuse
    awareness, as opposed to the masculine consciouness, a focused
    consciousness.  Of course, the makeup of all human beings includes both
    these consciousnesses, but general speaking, diffuse awareness is most
    common in women.  Women on the whole are more concerned with life's
    relationships, men with the hows and whys of various aspects of life. 
    Both approaches are inadequate without the other, for vague intuitions
    are dreamy nothingnesses until concretely applied; yet concrete
    applications without a sense of wholeness have brought our world into
    its present dilemmas.  The feminine half of the individual and of
    mankind has been in subjection to the masculine half, and is only now
    beginning to be liberated.
    
    Ms. de Castellejo, in writing that the persistent inner voice of women
    is "You are no good", helped me to realise that this was true for me,
    that I had denied part of myself.  She explained that this judgement
    of ourselves was the outcome of man's collective unconscious fear of
    woman's rivalary and his passionate desire to keep her in her place. 
    But it is more that that; it is also the desire of the mind to
    dominate, a phase necessary for the development of the mind.  During
    this phase mankind has denied its devic consciousness, its diffuse
    awareness, and of course women have felt this most.  But now we can
    claim our birthright and see the worth of our 'feminine' values instead
    of adopting the values of the intellect.
    
    I do not mean to imply that angelic consciousness is not focused. 
    Obviously it is, in the holding of archetypal patterns of form, in the
    perfection of a flower or a body.  But the angels, unlike humanity, in
    their focusness never lose their sense of the whole."
    
    
    Ro
    

From To Hear the Angels Sing, regarding the Angel of Sound:

	"My sounds are everywhere.  You may think that the wind 
rustling through the leaves, for example, is what produces sound, 
but this is only the means used for my effects.  It is the same with 
your voices; the sound builders in my realms help each human to 
develop his own creative sound.  There is no separated life.  all is 
vibration, all is life.  Each range of manifestation is assisted by 
life, by beings.  I merely bring this to your notice to enlarge your 
vision.  when you hear a skylark now, you can think not only of that 
beautiful sound as produced by the bird and by its and our Maker, but 
by the angels and beings of sound who have helped to produce that 
song.  All these aspects of life are to become more real to you, and 
so I compose these notes, to add to the whole.  I will come again.

The author writes "This was fascinating to me.  Without saying much, 
this angel raised a host of ideas in my mind.  We have rudimentary 
knowledge of what are doubtless immense new worlds to conquer, and in a 
week's time I tried to find out more by attuning to the vibrational 
level of this angel.  I converged on beings who identified themselves 
as of the Sound Angel branch attending to Light, the sun's emissaries 
on Earth to make sure that light is able to be revealed by life, 
through the medium of sound.  This was unintelligible to me and they 
sympathized saying:

	No wonder, human minds are not thinking on this subject.  You 
think of photosynthesis, but see no connection with sound.  Although 
our realms are not measured by your science, look up the process of 
photosynthesis.  

They continued to expound on individual plant notes and individual 
human notes, which have very potent effects.  In the plant it attracts 
life substance through the nature spirits.  In the human who has 
harmonized all parts of his being the note is immensely power.  In a 
sense, sound and light are the same, light and life shine through any 
being which sounds its own note.  And the sound comes first.  As I 
didn't see what these angels had to do with this process, they 
explained that, like tuning forks, the individual notes resonate in 
the various plants or beings, and that the note changes with growth.  
This process which was not clear to me at the time, I later 
understood."

Ro
    

This excerpt originally comes from CONNECTING LINKS, vol 1, no 3 by 
Dr. Linda Zwingeberg Fickes, however, I found it in MESSENGERS OF 
LIGHT by Terry Lynn Taylor.
    
"HOW TO USE ANGELS FOR HEALING:

1.  Open your heart with love and trust to the angels of your own or 
your patient's I Am, Christ, or soul's body.  Trust is important, for 
the angels will not adapt to your techniques.  Your techniques must 
follow them!  Your success will reflect how well you can follow 
Nature.

2.  Close your eyes.  Picture the body and locate its problem on the 
screen of your heart.  Share with the angels the problem you are 
concerned with, for instance, a dairy allergy that gives sinus 
congestion, or ankle pain.  The more specific the problem, the more 
specific the angels you will call forth.  Start with an open mind, so 
that the angels can give you an overview of the case.  They may show 
you something that at first doesn't make sense, but you will soon be 
surprised at its wisdom.

3.  Ask for a vision of how the angels of the body would like to heal 
this problem.  You may be very adept at this immediately, or it may 
take some practice.  Remember your level of consciousness determines 
where you get answers.  You will get a vision that powerfully 
magnetizes the necessary angels to work.  This understanding will also 
magnetize your hands, your mind, and your energy bodies to speak the 
right words, to place your hands exactly where necessary, and to bring 
the perfect energy into the body to help remove the blockages or 
integrate the light that has already entered.

4.  Ask where to start.  Follow the angels' lead.  The angels heal in 
waves that touch all the subtle bodies.  We must respect the order in 
which the patient's angels want the care to be given.  Keep asking 
questions.  You will be shown how the healing will best unfold.  You 
may be shown by feeling in your own body the next area to work on.  
This does *not* mean you are drawing the problem into yourself to 
transmute.  Let the angels take care of it all.  your body just 
resonates with the healing and you get some healing, too.

5.  Once you have opened the doors, ask the angels what kind of 
support would help:  nutritional therapies, specific exercises, rest, 
laughter, music, visualization, breathing, tones of color.  We no 
longer need to de everything ourselves; angels are here to help.  We 
cannot afford to believe that we know best.  We have a partnership 
with the angels that can make earth a paradise once again.  Let go of 
all the pictures you have stored of how you should be healed.  Let 
Nature nurture you with joy."


Ro

    "I saw the angel in the marble and I just chiseled 'til I set him
    free."
    
    					Michelangelo
                                              ^^^^^    ;')
    
    

    I know so little about angels.  I know the Hebrew word means messenger.
    And I know there's one called Michael and one called Gabriel.  And I've
    heard that angels are genderless; that is, without reproductive capability.
    And I've read that humans have hosted angels without realizing it.
    
    Thanks, Ro, just for being here.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re. .0-.4

    	Are these 'christian' perspectives on Angels????????????


    	Where is this person (the author of the book not the notes) coming
    from anyway.  As far as I have ever heard God is the healer.  I have 
    never seen or heard anywhere of angels being the instigators of
    healing.

    _ed-

    
    RE: .6
    
    Could it be possible that God has given these beings the task of
    healing?
    
    Carole

    Ed (.6),
    
    
    <<
CSC32::LECOMPTE "MARANATHA!"                         11 lines  24-JUL-1991 01:29
                            -< AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG! >
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>
 
    Your reply indicates that you are aggravated by the information on
    angels!  I'm curious.  Why would you find it upsetting that God would
    create beings to assist him in healing?  
    
    
    <<
       re. .0-.4

    	Are these 'christian' perspectives on Angels????????????  >>
    
    IMO, very much so.  Did not Jesus say of the miracles he perfomed,
    including 'healing' that these and many others would we also do.
    So why do you find it distressing that angels and humans might be
    used as instruments of healing in God's divine plan?  I guess I
    don't understand.


<<    	Where is this person (the author of the book not the notes) coming
    from anyway.  As far as I have ever heard God is the healer.  I have 
    never seen or heard anywhere of angels being the instigators of
    healing.<<
    
    The author's I have cited (and several others as I have an extensive
    collection on books about angels) come from a place of 'love'.
    I don't have any of the books with me, but if I have some free time
    I'll be happy to provide more information on angels as healers.
    
    The angels function is to glorify God and carry out His will.  I
    suspect His will includes healing and wholeness for all his creations.

    Ro
    
    
    _ed-

    RE: .6
    
    
          uh.....didn't the Angels minister to Jesus?  
    
    
    Dave

    
      Hebrews 1:12,13 also address this question of angels ministering
    to others.
     
    

    I've been brought up with a definition of angels as "God's thoughts
    passing to man".  This could mean that the angel thought brings
    whatever each of us most needs at any moment, whether it is healing or
    love or announcement of the birth of the Christ child or directions on
    how to combat the foe being faced.
    
    Alison

    	My question still stands.  Where 'specifically' in the Bible or if
    anyone has a valid testimony is there evidence of angels being used to 
    heal?  
    	I understand that angels are 'ministering' spirits.  But what was 
    described in the 'healing angel' reply as far as I have ever read is
    NOT biblical or supported by any (to my knowledge) standard christian
    theology.

    	Apologies, if my reply seemed to be an attack or in anger.  It was
    not my intent.  It was just response in incredulous disbelief.

    re. .7

    	Carole,
    		Is there precedence for this premise?

    	
    re. .8
    
    	Ro,
    		My apologies again, I was neither aggrevated nor upset.
    
    	Jesus did in fact say that WE would do the same works that He did
    but He did not give that honor to the angels.  It is simply not their
    office.  Angels are Gods 'messengers'.  That is by definition.  They
    were created to glorify & serve Him but I am still patiently waiting 
    for scriptural proof of healing by angels.
    
    
    	Re. .9
    
    	The angels did minister to Jesus.  I don't know if you could prove
    that that ministry was physical as opposed to spiritual.
    
    
    	Re. .10
    
    	Again, I do not see any indication of healing powers.  Verse 14 is
    the relative verse I believe that you were looking for.  The verses in
    context contrast the office and power of Jesus as compared to the
    angels.  By HIS stripes we ARE HEALED.  Not theirs.
    
    	Re. .11
    
    	Allison,
    	This sounds more like traditions of men then actual 'sound
    theology'.
    
    

    Ed (.13)
    	
<<    	Jesus did in fact say that WE would do the same works that He did
    but He did not give that honor to the angels.  <<
    
    I think it is presumptuous of us to think we know what honor has been
    given to the angels.  Because the angelic kingdom are indeed God's
    'messengers', then one might surmise that one of the messages is that
    of healing and wholeness.
    
    <<It is simply not their office.  Angels are Gods 'messengers'.  That
    is by definition.  They were created to glorify & serve Him but I am
    still patiently waiting  for scriptural proof of healing by angels.<<
    
    I think too, you and I may have a different definition of healing.
    Healing does not necessarily mean the physical body.  If angels are
    'thoughts' of God or from God then those messages we receive might
    be to heal us on the mental level.  Since there is a powerful
    connection between the mind and body; much 'dis'ease begins on
    the mental/emotional level, it would seem natural to me that if
    our thoughts becoming loving (Godly) we will not be creating
    illness in our physical bodies.  As we heal mentally/emotionally,
    thus our bodies can begin to heal themselves on the physical level.
    Loving thy neighbor as thyself - loving oneself is difficult for many
    people.  With God's direction, angels can serve to help us do that.
    
    As Divine messengers, it would seem that angels can help facilitate
    this process.  I recall that one of the angel's names in Hebrew means
    healing.  I'll have to check that and get back to you.
    
    Ro
    

    
    RE: .13
    
    Ed, there is no precedence as far as I know that I could recount
    for you.  Since I am not a Christian (as defined by most in this
    file), I am open to other sources of information than the Bible
    alone.
    
    I know that you validate all things through the Bible.  We are just
    coming from very different perspectives.
    
    Carole

    Ed -
    
    Actually, that definition is based on the story of Jacob's ladder,
    where Jacob in his dream saw the angels descending and ascending.  The
    sequence is critical.  It is also based on the angels which appeared to
    the shepherds when Jesus was born, and the angels who came and
    ministered to him in the wilderness after he was tempted by the devil.
    
    Alison

    
    Raphael is the archangel whose charge is Healing...
    
    (for those of us who are hung up on the sources of spiritual 
    information...the references are to be found in the Midrashim
    especially the Books of Enoch...of course some of us are so
    hung up about the sources of things as to actually miss the
    spiritual message under our collective noses)
    
    the other archangels are indeed Michael and Gabriel..and Uriel.
    
    peter

    I checked, Peter you are correct - it is Raphael.
    
    Here is further info:
    
    Hebrew Rapha' (to heal) and 'el (God): God has healed
    Raphael means God heals or divine healer
    
    He is charged with healing the earth, and through him the earth
    furnishes an abode for humans, whom he also heals.
    
    the above comes From Messsengers of Light
    
    Ro
    
    

    Thanks, Ro!  We learn and grow, do we not?  My kid still thinks
    Raphael is one of the Ninja Turtles! 8-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Oh sovereign angel,
    Wide winged stranger above a forgetful earth,
    Care for me, care for me.  Keep me unaware of danger
    And not regretful
    And not forgetful of my innocent birth.
    
    		Edna St. Vincent Millay
    
    
    - Every visible thing in this world is put in the charge of an angel.
    
    		St. Augustine
    		Eight Questions
    
    
    - It is very important to pray for others, because when you pray for
      someone, an angel goes and sits on the shoulder of the person.
    
    		The Virgin Mary
    		to the children at Medjugorje
    
    - That's all an angel is, an idea of God.
    
    		Meister Eckhart
    
    - Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
      them who shall be heirs of Salvation?
    
    		Heb. 1:14
    
    
    - For He will command His angels concerning you
      to guard you in all your ways; they will lift
      you up in their hands, so that you will not strike
      your foot against a stone.
    
    		Ps. 91:11, 12

    Richard (.19),
    
    No, but there is Michael(angelo)!  ;')  What is the fourth turtle's
    name?
    
    Ro
    

    
    	Ro,
    
    	Your definition of angels is contradictary and unclear at best.
    Angels ARE NOT 'thoughts of God' they ARE ministering spirits.  They
    are created beings as real as we are.   The other thing we must remem-
    ber is not all angels are on Gods' side.  We must be careful which ones
    we are listening to.
    
    _ed-

    
    
    	Carole,
    
    	You are absolutely correct!  If we cannot agree on the source of 
    our beliefs then it is doubtful that we can come to an agreement on
    terms.
    
    _ed-

    
    	4 Archangels.
    
    	Again I don't think that we will agree if we don't have a common
    source for our beliefs.  Are there other origins for the belief in
    angels outside of the Judeo-christian theology?  If we are going to 
    use the Bible then there is only 1 archangel mentioned.  There is not
    a mention of plural archangel(s) in the bible.

    rep. .18
    
    	Ro,
    
    	You mentioned 'ministers of light' then I must remind you that 
    the bible warns us that even satan can appear as an angel of light.
    
    _ed-

Re: .22    

>    - That's all an angel is, an idea of God. 
>    		Meister Eckhart

_ed-,

	Your argument may not be so much with Ro as it is with a deceased
Christian mystic.

Peace,
Richard

    
    ed,
    
    do you know what the Midrashim are?
    
    and do you think everyone cares whether or not they are TC
    (Theologically Correct) by Biblical Literalists' standards?
    
    The Catholic Churc (of which you are apparently not a member),
    the traditional Church of Christ, most certainly does recognize
    the existence of more than one Archangel.
    
    from the Mass..
    
          "Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the
      company of heaven...."
    
    peter

Ed (.22)
        
    >>	Your definition of angels is contradictary and unclear at best.>>
    
    Those weren't my definitions, I was quoting a variety of sources.
    
    >>Angels ARE NOT 'thoughts of God' they ARE ministering spirits.  They
    are created beings as real as we are.<<
    
    Hmmm, I consider myself a 'thought of God'.  For something to
    materialize in 'reality' it must be first a thought; all creation being
    manifestations of thoughts of God.
    
    <<   The other thing we must remember is not all angels are on Gods'
     side. <<
    
    Sides?  I wonder if God has sides!!  Sides indicate separation and
    to me there is no separation in the Oneness of God.  Us against them,
    huh?  I guess ultimately I think even the 'angels of darkness' are
    on God's 'side' because eventually we will all return Home to the Light.
    Sounds optimistic I suppose, but I believe God will not lose one soul or
    'angel'.  
    
    << We must be careful which ones we are listening to.<<
    
    I 'listen' with my heart to those that are of the Christ consciousness
    and ask the others to return to the Light.
    
    Ro
    

    Ed (.25)
    
<<    rep. .18
    
    	Ro,
    
    	You mentioned 'ministers of light' then I must remind you that 
    the bible warns us that even satan can appear as an angel of light.<<
    
    
    In reply 18, I used the term 'messengers of Light', not ministers.
    In fact it was you who brought up the word minister, when you said
    the angels ministered to Jesus.  Messengers of Light is the name of
    one of the books I was quoting from.
    
    Ro
    
    

    RE: .13   CSC32::LECOMPTE "MARANATHA",
    
     
    >    The angels did minister to Jesus.  I don't know if you could prove
    >that that ministry was physical as opposed to spiritual
    
       Well let me give it a try. :-)  
    
    
             In Matthew chapter 4 we find the temptation Jesus beginning in 
    verse 1.......
    
    
                1. Then was Jesus led upof the spirit into the wilderness
                   to be tempted of the devil.
    
                2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he
                   was afterward an hungred.
    
    
         **** ok...at this point, the "man" Jesus was hungry....he had a
    physical need.  verses 3 thru 10 relate the devils temptation.  Then,
    after this temptation...we read verse 11:
    
    
               11. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came
                   and ministered unto him.
    
    
         **** Now to me, there is little doubt that the angels ministered
    to a physical need.  There is also another point here...Is the devil
    *SO* powerful that the only perfect man to ever live could be hurt in a
    spiritual way.  I don't think these passages say that.  Jesus was/is
    perfect...but the "man" part of Jesus was hungry and IMHO the angels
    ministered to that need.
    
    
    Dave

Re Archangel

The prefix "Arch" means chief or principal, it follows that there is only one 
Archangel. As Ed brought out in .24 , there is only one mentioned in the Bible 
and the plural form of Archangel is not used either. Jude 9 shows this Archangel 
to be Michael. Revelation 12:7 mentions Michael and his angels battling against 
the Dragon and its angels. One might reason that the Dragon  ( Satan ) is also 
an Archangel, but God's Word does not give him this distinction.

Phil.

    Then Phil,
    
    Why does the prayer found amongst both Roman Catholics and
    Episcopalians to my certain knowlege, and probably other
    Christian denominations, refer to archangels in the plural?
    
    Bonnie

Hi Bonnie,

I am afraid I cant answer this one, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses and
not from any of these denominations. Perhaps someone else could explain
the source of the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians using Archangels in 
the plural form in prayer, it is not from the Bible.

Phil.

    
    phil,
    
    first off, the logic that you are using based on your misunderstanding
    of the prefix "arch" is faulty...if we were to apply this to other uses
    of "arch" there would only be one Archbishop, which is clearly not the
    case..."arch" does refer to a chief or principle but it does not imply
    that there is one and only one chief...you've taken this too far.
    
    i understand that you are a Literalist but the Holy Catholic Church,
    the traditional and historic Church of Chirst does not hold to that
    doctrine. 
    
    the references to various archangels are to be found in
    
          Daniel Chapter 10 verse 13 ("Michael, one of the archangels.."
    
    Gabriel is the angel who announces the birth of St. John the Baptist,
    and the birth of Jesus. This is in the New Testament's Book of Luke.
    
    and in the Book of Revelations the archangels are said to number 7.
    
    Is this One Archangel doctrine something that Charles Russell taught?
    it certainly doesn't follow any Christian teaching that i'm aware of..
    
    peter

>    i understand that you are a Literalist but the Holy Catholic Church,
>    the traditional and historic Church of Chirst does not hold to that
>    doctrine. 

	I am not impressed. :-) BTW, I assume you mean *Roman* Catholic
	church?
>    and in the Book of Revelations the archangels are said to number 7.
 
	Where? I can't seen to find this. Thank you.

			Alfred

    
    assume nothing, mr. grumby...
    
    all of the catholic churches, the Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Roman,
    and World Catholic...do not hold a Literalist interpretation of
    Scripture.
    
    since these churches combined represent the overwhelming majority
    of Christian churches, i think it's reasonable to at least consider
    what they teach as doctrine...
    
    try Revelations 8:2 and 10:11...
    
    who's trying to impress you anyway, Mr. Thompson?
    
    peter

The Bible fails to use the term Archbishops.  Of course, that doesn't mean
they do not or should not exist.

The Bible also fails to mention dinosaurs.  Again, that doesn't mean that they
failed to exist or that consideration of their existance should be suppressed.

I suspect we're allowing ourselves to become eclipsed by the prefix "arch".

Were I to become personally obsessed over an "arch", I prefer to think that
my obsession would be over no less than the inimitable Deb "Arch". ;-}

Peace,
Richard

>    since these churches combined represent the overwhelming majority
>    of Christian churches, i think it's reasonable to at least consider
>    what they teach as doctrine...

    The root of an other topic perhaps? Suffice it to say that I consider
    what they teach *their* doctrine but not necessarily Christian
    doctrine.

>    try Revelations 8:2 and 10:11...

    OK, I tried them and found no reference to archangels. Reference to
    angels yes but not archangels. There are a great many references to
    angels in Revelation. Some to one, three, four, seven and twelve
    angels. I was not able to find a single reference to arch angels
    though.
    
    		Alfred

    re .34 (MEMORY::ANDREWS)
    
>    the references to various archangels are to be found in
>    
>          Daniel Chapter 10 verse 13 ("Michael, one of the archangels.."
    
    	I looked this up in the RSV, and Michael is refered to as "one of
    the chief princes".  
    
    	The footnote in the Oxford Annotated version compares Michael, as
    the "Jew's patron angel," with the "patron angel of Persia" and the
    "patron angel of Greece."  Presumbably, the latter two were demons who
    were granted oversight of those particular nations in a way similar to,
    but more limitted than, the way that Satan is the "ruler of this world"
    (John 12:21; cf. Luke 4:6).  Given the context, perhaps Gabriel was
    simply speaking of Michael as a "one of the chief princes" in the sense
    that he was a 'national guardian', the way the demons were the
    'national princes' of their respective nations, though without making 
    the distinction between Michael, being in God's service, and the other
    spirit princes being in Satan's service.  (I'll have to look into this
    further, though, since it's just an off-the-cuff guess.)
    
    	In any case, this passage doesn't clearly identify Michael as one
    of many faithful "archangels" in God's service, since the term
    "archangel" isn't really used in this passage; and besides Gabriel (who
    isn't specifically called an archangel in the Bible), the only other
    spirit "princes" mentioned in the passage were 'fallen angels', and
    thus could not rightly be classified as "archangels" themselves.
    
>    Is this One Archangel doctrine something that Charles Russell taught?
>    it certainly doesn't follow any Christian teaching that i'm aware of..
    
    	How much Russell wrote about it, I don't know; but whether he did
    or not is immaterial (since Witnesses don't look to Russell, who is
    quite dead, as the 'last word' on Witness teachings).  It is a current
    teaching of the Watchtower Society, collectively, though.
    
    	The "one archangel doctrine" comes from a literal study of the
    Bible, which only uses the term "archangel" in the singular, and with
    respect to Michael.  Anything else in addition to that is (uninspired)
    tradition, speculation, and/or mythology, and is as likely to be the
    teaching of men as you believe the "one angel doctrine" is to be a
    teaching only of Charles Russell.
    
    								-mark.

    dear "semper grundy",
    
    i didn't realize that you (too) are a Literalist...
    
    too bad that you don't consider the teachings of the majority to
    be of any use to you...
    
    the references I supplied are the ones that theologians have used
    to support the teachings on Archangels...but i understand the problems
    that people such as yourself have unless things are spelled out in
    exacting detail...
    
    so do you know what the Midrashim are? 
    
    peter

    mr sornson,
    
    i would appreciate it if you would NOT ascribe to me "beliefs" which
    i do not myself espouse...
    
    I NEVER wrote that I believe anything about the doctrines of Charles
    Russell...I merely asked a question about them...
    
    I will, of course, do my best not to impart suppositions to you that
    you do not propose...
    
    peter

>    i didn't realize that you (too) are a Literalist...

	I'm not sure I am. It's just that when one makes a claim that "the
	Bible says" I like to know where it says that. You said that "in the 
	Book of Revelations the archangels are said to number 7." All I asked
	was where.

>    too bad that you don't consider the teachings of the majority to
>    be of any use to you...

	Now that is not something I've said. The teachings of the majority
	is quite clearly of use. It's just not Gospel that all. If we were
	to have gone with the majority 2000 years ago we would have tossed
	all of Jesus' followers right out. 

			Alfred

	BTW: Such things as distorting a persons personal name field in
	addressing them is generally not considered the act of one who wants
	to be treated with respect themselves.

    re .41 (MEMORY::ANDREWS)
    
>    mr sornson,
    
    ... "mark" will do nicely (unless you accidentally left out the "a" and
    "k") ... ;-)
    
>    i would appreciate it if you would NOT ascribe to me "beliefs" which
>    i do not myself espouse...
    
>    I NEVER wrote that I believe anything about the doctrines of Charles
>    Russell...I merely asked a question about them...
    
    	so you did ... sorry about the offense.
    
    	As a side point, most Witnesses today probably haven't studied
    anything that Russell himself wrote (in any great depth, anyway).  It's
    true that a lot of the basics are the same, but the Watchtower Society
    of today does its best to keep from focusing on the people who write
    our literature (especially since *people* can be wrong), concentrating
    instead on what's said and how it relates directly to what's in the
    Bible.  Although it's not an absolute truism, people (and I mean,
    specifically, non-Witnesses) who frame questions or statements in the
    context of Russell's day often are attempting to make a case for the
    idea that Witnesses are 'followers of Russell,' as though our beliefs
    were 'man made' because the basics can be traced as far back as
    Russell's writings.

    mark,
    
    thanks for the reply...
    
    and thanks for your input on angels and archangels, i learned something
    
    peter

    
    too bad, you can't seem to address me by my name..
    
    if apologies are in order..then you have my sincere apologies
    
    peter

    Peter (or do you prefer peter),

    I'm sorry if you're bothered by my not using your name. After
    years of noting I tend to regard it as conversation and I don't
    generally use peoples names every time I address them in the same
    conversation. I feel somewhat awkward addressing a Note as I would a
    letter. I sign my name only because people often don't read
    the name in the heading and there are quite a few Thompsons noting
    these days.

    		Alfred 

    rep. .26
    
    	Indeed.

    re. .27
    
    	Peter,
    		Since you asked the question twice, I guess that means
    you have us both stumped.  And since I'm sure you realize that I 
    base any theological discussion on the Bible, I am also sure that you
    KNOW that I am going to ask...
    
    	Where are/is Midrashim mentioned in the Bible?
    
    	8)
    
    	_ed-

re .34

Hi Peter

    ;first off, the logic that you are using based on your misunderstanding
    ;of the prefix "arch" is faulty...if we were to apply this to other uses
    ;of "arch" there would only be one Archbishop, which is clearly not the
    ;case..."arch" does refer to a chief or principle but it does not imply
    ;that there is one and only one chief...you've taken this too far.

I am not sure that my logic is faulty. Why, well let us look at Archbishop.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but an Archbishop is a chief bishop, a bishop
who superintends other bishops in his province. Would I be correct in saying
that there is only one Archbishop per province?. A province ,as defined in
my "English Dictionary", is a terrority at some distance from the metropolis;
a large political division; sphere of action; department. So one can see 
why multiple Archbishops would be assigned for there are multiple provinces.
If one applied this similarly to the heavenly realm, though there are not any
provinces, the angels are governed under one Theocratic order. As I understand
it, there are no divisions as in their being governed, which is not the case
for man. So if their are no divisions for what reasons would there be
multiple chief's ?. Would it not follow that if there was only one province
that there would be only one Archbishop?.

    
    ;i understand that you are a Literalist but the Holy Catholic Church,
    ;the traditional and historic Church of Chirst does not hold to that
    ;doctrine.

Just to clarify, I do not take a literal view on all Scripture. Many passages 
within the Bible are figurative or symbolic, the context surrounding such 
passages help to show wether one should take it literal or as symbolic. And
ofcourse God's holy spirit is needed in gaining a full understanding of 
Scripture.

Mark Sornson has replied to the other comments that you made, so I won't reply 
to these.

Phil.

Re: .49 Phil

>Would I be correct in saying
>that there is only one Archbishop per province?. A province ,as defined in
>my "English Dictionary", is a terrority at some distance from the metropolis;
>a large political division; sphere of action; department. So one can see 
>why multiple Archbishops would be assigned for there are multiple provinces.
>If one applied this similarly to the heavenly realm, though there are not any
>provinces, the angels are governed under one Theocratic order. As I understand
>it, there are no divisions as in their being governed, which is not the case
>for man.

There is at least some hint in the Bible that there might be divisions among
the angels:

	Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for
	all who take the sword will perish by the sword.  Do you think that
	I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than
	twelve legions of angels?"
					Matthew 26:52-53

I suppose "more than twelve legions" of angels might be referring to their
number without implying any kind of organization, but I think it would be
equally valid to interpret this verse as saying that the angels are divided
into legions.

The seven archangels might also be in charge of different areas of
responsibility, such as healing, prophesy, etc.

I'm not saying that the Bible says that there are seven archangels, but I
don't think the Bible contradicts the idea either.

				-- Bob

re.50

Hi Bob

;There is at least some hint in the Bible that there might be divisions among
;the angels:

Agreed, many have different roles to play within God's heavenly organisation.
My logic was along the lines of Theocratic order within the heavenly realm,
all angels come under this order. Within that one order there would be a 
chief or principal angel. Principal means first in rank. 

;I'm not saying that the Bible says that there are seven archangels, but I
;don't think the Bible contradicts the idea either.

I have since thought my logic through and agree with you that the Bible does 
not contradict the idea of multiple Archangels. What I should have said in
my previous replies is that the Bible implies that there is one Archangel,
by only identifying one Archangel (Jude 9) and by the plural form of Archangel
not being found in the Bible. 

Phil. 

    
    Ed,
    
    perhaps we can't have a "theological" discussion then since the
    Midrashim are extra-Biblical..
    
    they are Hebrew exegesis...commentaries on the Law..you wouldn't
    find them in the Bible. The Books of Enoch that i mentioned awhile
    back are part of this literature.
    
    i think it's also interesting to note that the Koran names the same
    angels as we've written of here, Gabriel..Raphael..and that these three
    (along with Michael) all have holy days in the Church calendar.
    
    as Richard says,
    
    Peace

    RE .52 (Darn forgot your name, sorry)
    
     The Midrashim, or Midrash, is indeed a commentary on Scripture. It is
    not however considered Scripture. It is at best a guide for basic study
    and an aid for decision making on details of observant living. At worst
    it is highly spurious in areas and even contradictory to itself. (An
    example is one commentary on Genesis wherein the commentator goes to
    some length to explain the actual meaning for the word referring to the
    "man" that Jacob wrestled with means God and then turns around and says
    that Jacob was really wrestling with Satan, and that Satan only blessed
    him because this ewas the first man that he could not overpower. HUh?)
    
      Not trying to be nit-picky here, but just wanted to point out that
    there is a world of difference between actual Scripture an d man-made
    commentary.
    
    Just passing through,
    
    Gil

    
    re:53
    
    Gil,
    
    if you would re-read my notes you'll see i never claimed that any of
    the Midrashim (the singular is Midrash) were Scripture.
    
    in my note to Ed, i wrote that by his definition of a "theological"
    discussion we wouldn't be able to discuss (since anything outside
    the "Bible" is apparently non-theological).
    
    since "Scripture" (with a capital S) is usually used to refer to the
    Christian Bible it goes without saying that the Midrashim are not
    Scripture.
    
    i think it is interesting (in light of your note, Gil) to note that
    the Sadducees took a position very much in the same vein. they insisted
    on a literal interpretation on the Law and continued to perceive
    themselves as the one and only source for the Truth.
    
    happy trails, Gil, i get the impression you're not hanging around..
    
    peter

    Any note now, I'm expecting an argument to start over how many
    of them can dance on the head of a pin.
    
    Eileen
    

    Eileen - 
    
    That depends on the dance.  I mean, the jitterbug or the tango takes up a 
    lot more room than say, the modern day close-dance-shuffle.  
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci 

    What form do angels take? What do they look like? Does their form
    change? 
    
    Eric

    .57
    
    In Denver they now wear red berets and are prepared to kick butt.
    
    Richard
    

    They must be men and they must be capable of being sexually aroused
    because women in Corinth have to cover there heads because of the
    angels. 
    
    

    re  .58, .59

    All quips aside, there are some people who believe angels to be real
    and other who do not. Of those who do believe in angels, some see them
    as physical being, others as totally spiritual. Every depiction of an
    angel I've seen shows a perfectly beautiful, fair-skinned, winged human
    form (male and female). 
                           
    Do they exist? In what form? What is their function in the greater
    scheme of things?

    Eric

    In all seriousness, I do not believe in angels other than perhaps as
    symbols for God's miracles.
    
                                       Patricia

Note 277.60

>    All quips aside, there are some people who believe angels to be real
>    and other who do not.

You're right, Eric.  My apologies for being a smartass.

Ro Reinke, a former employee and member of this file, believes in angels.

The Hebrew for angel, as I recall, can mean messenger.  So, in a sense,
anyone delivering God's message is an angel.

One of the most riveting examples of this appears in a short story by
Mark Twain called, "The War Prayer."  In the end, the angelic being is
dismissed by the people as insane.

Angels, according to certain understandings of Scripture, are supposed to
be genderless.  However, the angels whose names are most familiar have
masculine names:  Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (Clarence?).

Richard

Note 277.62

>masculine names:  Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel (Clarence?).

For the benefit of those living outside the culture of the U.S., Clarence
is a character from a very familiar classic motion picture entitled, "It's
A Wonderful Life."

Richard

    // Clarence is a character from a very familiar classic motion picture
    // entitled, "It's A Wonderful Life."

    I picked up on that! And don't forget the angel in "The Bishop's Wife".
    I forgot the angels name, but he was played by my all time favorite,
    Cary Grant. If there are angels, that's how I view them.

    Eric.
    
    PS. And you just got done apologizing for being a smart-ass. :^)

	Richard, along with the names thing it would seem that in Lot's time
they were seen as men as well. Otherwise how could anyone feel that when the
townspeople wanted to rape the angels that this was homosexual sex? 


Glen

The best man at my wedding, Mark Marchesani, related to me
once that after prayers for a painless childbirth and
protection given by angels, the woman (and child) who
they prayed over did indeed give birth without pain -
and that his eyes were opened and he saw angels
surrounding the house.

RE .57

Eric,

The Bible as much to say about angels, they are spirit creatures (Hebrews 1:7
& Luke 24:39) . Their residence is in heaven and they number in the 
ten thousand times ten thousand (Revelation 5:11, Daniel 7:9,10 & Hewbrews
12:22). They are organised and have four different classifications, archangel
(Jude 9), seraphs (Isaiah 6:2), cherubs (Genesis 3:24) & angels (Zechariah 4:1,
6). They are superior to men in strength and power (2 Peter 2:11 & Hewbrews
2:6,7) Angels are invisible to man however they have made manifested themselves
in human form so that mankind can see them (Genesis 18, Luke 1:5,11).

Angels perform many services for their God, they uphold his throne and his
sovereign majesty (Psalm 99:1, Isaiah 6:2,3 & Genesis 3:17,24). As
representatives of God they have spoken in his name (Exodus 3:1-6, Acts 7:53).
As messengers which has already been mentioned in this note string (Genesis
22:11-17) and they help God's earthly servants (Psalm 34:7, Acts 12:6-11).
They directed and protected ancient Israel (Exodus 23:20-33, 33:2) and
have been and will be executioners of divine judgement (Matthew 13:41,42,
Genesis 19:1,12,13). They direct the preaching work of the good news 
(Revelation 14:6-9, Acts 5:19-21)

Satan and his demons are angels that sinned (1 Peter 3:19,20, Ephesians 6:12)
It would seem that the real appearance of angels is glorious, for Satan is
pictured like that of precious gems in the book of Ezekiel (the chapter
and verse escapes me for the moment).

Please feel free to ask me to expand on anything regarding the angels and
I'll endeavour to do some further research.

Phil.

Reference material : "Make sure of all things hold fast to what is fine"