The Origin of Angels OR Stan Lee did not write the Bible.

[Timotheist]

Ever wonder how and when the angelic host were created? Just how many "kinds" of angelic beings are there? Were they all created at the same time?

This is a not-too-serious topic, but it suddenly seemed odd to me that the Bible does not address these questions. Stan Lee (no relation) would not have left these questions unanswered!

The topic came up while I was having a casual conversation with a "young Earther" who would like to believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. It was a non-contentious conversation, and we went back and forth discussing things like the 'gap' theory, etc.

In the context of this discussion, I pointed out that maybe the reason why the origin of angels is not mentioned is because the Bible is only concerned with this creation. Other eras of creation, including ones that happened on this planet or perhaps on other planets, are so vast and maybe even innumerable to cover in such a tiny book, and that is why there is little to nothing there about prehistory in our Bible.

I am not throwing this topic out for debate, necessarily, but I'm curious as to how many viewpoints on this topic exist within the walls of this forum.

[Ohio]

I find it difficult to believe that the Creator would create an “old” earth, and the history of angels is another determining factor.

[Bible-believer]

Maybe you want to read this article.
The Spirit World.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Maybe you want to read this article.
The Spirit World.

I would note that the origin of these various beings were never revealed

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I would note that the origin of these various beings were never revealed

Yeah, but ... there is a verse that says when God created, the angelic sons of God rejoiced. Then Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 indicate a rebellion of the angelic leader. Many including myself believe this is alluded to in Gen 1.1.

I tend to believe that God has created all things, visible and invisible, animal vegetable and mineral, and that He created everything good, yet with a free will. The Bible may not spell out all the origins, but we can learn from the failures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I would note that the origin of these various beings were never revealed

I'd make another question, which resolves your question, for me. My question is, what is the origin of evil in the world? Related and following upon, what is the pathway of evil?

The problem of the origin of angels is that it's obscured, and we tend to impose our imaginations upon the few helpful scriptures, and because our imaginations remain tainted by the fall (the origin and course of evil), we end up with Stan Lee versions of history. What I've called the Kiplingesque "Just So Stories" of the Local Church of Lee. I remember vividly the wife of our elder telling the children in a dismissive tone, one day whilst I was "serving" in the children's meeting, "Everybody knows there were no dinosaurs!"

On the fall of the angels, we have the famous and well-attested lines from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, which apparently pre-dates (in the historical sense) the narrative of the Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3:1-24. That fallen Angel of Ezekiel and Isaiah appears to have been a special and particular one, whose light became darkness.

But then, we have a very overlooked set of verses that I had to discover on my own, because it's typically glossed-over in current Christian discourse. The Fall of the Angels post-dates the Fall of Humanity. It occurs in Genesis 6. To my reading, then, the fallen humans lured the angels away from their position, just as the fallen woman Bathsheba lured David by bathing in front of his porch in broad daylight (!!). The one with no power, but corruption and guile, lures the powerful down, from a position of serving God (and this isn't a swipe at women - men are and were just as corrupt. It's about power, treachery, and the course of evil).

In the case of the angels' fall, corroborating Genesis 6, we have Jude: "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." The angels in Genesis 6 didn't keep their habitation but were lured down by fallen humanity, who desired to taste more fully of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (see the Book of Watchers' details [and if you dismiss this as non-canonical, apparently Jude didn't]).

So the Genesis 6 narrative has the fallen "daughters of men" luring the "sons of God" away from their rightful position. This underlies much of the NT discussion of angels and spirits - see, e.g., Jesus story of the "evil spirit that leaves a man and flies about" which relates to the antediluvian period of the improper mingling of divinity and humanity. (Also, see the "great chasm where no man can cross" in the gospels, also apparently dependent on these same inter-testament texts.)

So, now to the origin of the angels. Because of the fall, we're obscured, from what might be called 'pre-history', and unfortunately our imaginations will let us take the scripture beyond what is said. At most, I see that there are the seven angels that stand before the throne. These are said to be the "protoctoi" the first-created ones. They are named. "I am Gabriel, and stand before the throne of God". But not all 7 are named clearly, only 3 in scripture. Gabriel, Raphael, and Michael. These are the 'arch-angels' and probably predate the rest.

To me, these participate in subsequent creation. There is the verse in Job of the creation of heavens and all the morning stars sang for joy and the sons of God shouted happily. So some, or most, or perhaps all of the spiritual realm was complete before the physical realm.

Beyond that, I don't know of much. Even the "protoctoi" comes from some later interpretive text and should be held gingerly, if at all. But the Revelation on Patmos clearly has 7 very distinct angels before God's throne. In fact they are listed repeatedly, and interchangeably, with the Seven Spirits before God's throne. Of course Angels are Spirits, so that shouldn't surprise.

But those wishing to read too deeply into texts will end up on YouTube videos, of alien space-ships landing next to the Pyramids with Nephilim etc etc etc. Trying to discern beyond the plain course of text leads one into Wacky Land. Of course it was known to some degree and was referenced in the written text of the NT, as alluded above. But the oral discourse behind the written NT text is now gone, and we lose sufficient context, and supplying context from our imaginations leads us into the course of evil. I pointed out repeatedly Witness Lee's footnotes telling us that "living forever" wasn't the same as "eternal life". This is where you fit your logic to your imagination. Fairy tales. Now, you are no longer handmaiden to text, but to your fancies, which is exactly why the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 is so relevant: Fall #1 begets Fall #2, which in turn begets Fall #3 and so on. The Dragon Tail sweeping 1/3 of the stars from heaven references (to me) the Genesis 6 story, but that sweeping down can continue to infect us. That is what Jesus confronted (and defeated) daily. So please, avoid it at all costs.

(the only other thing that I can add at present is the "Wisdom/Sophia/Logos" tradition which participates in Creation - see, e.g., Proverbs 8:22-31. This of course links to the NT "Logos" tradition of John 1 which to me is Jesus as Pre-Existent Co-Creator of all that is. But again, one merely gets a few verses, almost in passing, and can't do much beyond pause, and reflect)

[Timotheist]

If I understand your lengthy post right, you say the Bible withholds information from us because of our fall.

That’s a new one.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

If I understand your lengthy post right, you say the Bible withholds information from us because of our fall.

That’s a new one.

I don't see that as new at all. The NT has this, explicitly. Jesus didn't trust people because he knew what was in them, crooked perversity because of the fall. So he spoke in parables to the crowds, but privately to his disciples he spoke openly. And it repeatedly - repeatedly - says that the disciples could not understand. So, do you think the Corinthians or Galatians then understood Paul, if the Twelve didn't understand Jesus? I truly doubt it.

There is a public-facing teaching because of the fall, deliberately obscure, and a private interpretation to the befuddled disciples. How much of that private interpretation made it into black-and-white? Do you think all of it? I don't. The written word is exoteric, public. The private oral testimony, the esoteric teaching, is mostly lost. It is clearly evidenced by the references, but references to what?

What is the "chasm that no man can cross" a reference to? What does Paul mean by "being transformed by the Lord Spirit"? These are not pulled from air, but reference something now lost to words.

Why was there a 400-odd year gap in the scripture, between prophets and gospels? Because God had nothing to say? Or because people couldn't hear? I suspect the latter.

Either a) there was no teaching on the origin of the angels, or b) it has been lost. Or, if you prefer, you can make up c) your version of Rudyard Kipling. "How the Leopard got his spots". Connect it to some irrelevant verse. Voila, you are a Bible teacher. Anyone can do it, and many do.

In my lengthy post, I mention the seven first-created angels. Did you read this, and if so, do you think it's true? It may be, it may not be. How are we to tell, for sure? There isn't a sufficiently clear record, any more (assuming there was). There are traces, hints, but of what, truly? There isn't enough (for me, anyway) to make a definitive declaration.

If you want to see scholarly references on the Seven Archangels v/v the Great Angel, there are sources like Chapter 5, "The Principal Named Angels" in Charles Geischen's Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, from Brill (1998). But it's thin reading.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The NT says explicitly that Jesus didn't trust people because he knew what was in them, crooked perversity because of the fall.

John 2:24 says, "But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people." (NIV). In the case of the Bible, what's written as 'scripture' has clearly been established, but because of our perversity we can't see what's right in front of us.

In the NT, we see those who specialized in examining the contents of the written words, but because of their hardened hearts they were not able to perceive that the fulfillment of those very same words were embodied in front of them. "You err, not knowing scripture nor the power of God" ~Matt 22:29.

The words of Jeremiah were plain to see, for all, but one man purified himself through much prayer, fasting and study and solved the puzzle. "in the first year of [King Darius'] reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."

I was in the Baptist Fundamentalist Church for years, then in the Lord's Recovery Church (Local Church) for years, then back to the Fundamentalists, and nobody showed me the fall of the angels in Genesis 6, even though I now think it's probably the most important thing in the NT after the redemptive work of Christ, the Fall of Humanity in Genesis 3, and the eternal reign of the Son of God's love. The Fall of the Angels is interwoven throughout the NT, it is assumed to be underlying many if not most of the activities, from healing sickness to casting out demons. And yet I had to figure it all out on my own.

Originally Posted by aron

...there are sources like Chapter 5, "The Principal Named Angels" in Charles A Gieschen's Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, from Brill (1998). But it's thin reading.

My point about Gieschen being 'thin' was that most of his sources are not scriptural, but peripheral: Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Pliny, various early writings many non-Christian. There's very little in direct scriptural text on the origin of the angels. So one's reduced to looking outside the Bible, and then looking for agreement within it, that certain scriptures might presuppose that external information. But any conclusions thereon must be quite tentative.

[Timotheist]

I am not discounting what you are saying, I am just as not as sure of your theory as you seem to be.

For example, I do not see why "obscuring" Michael's origin has anything to do with man's fall. To what purpose would withholding that information serve?

As I stated in my opening post, the Bible seems to be more concerned about THIS creation, and does not get into other (perhaps uncountable) creations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I am not discounting what you are saying, I am just as not as sure of your theory as you seem to be.

I have a bad habit of stating conjectures as if they were provably true or self-evident. In the case of God shielding us because of sin, it's just conjecture. So I'm not sure of my theory, it's just subjective impression. No more. Sorry for overstating my case, which really isn't a case.

Originally Posted by Timotheist

For example, I do not see why "obscuring" Michael's origin has anything to do with man's fall. To what purpose would withholding that information serve?

As I stated in my opening post, the Bible seems to be more concerned about THIS creation, and does not get into other (perhaps uncountable) creations.

Second apology, is that I re-read your opening post after this comment. However, my point on the fall of the angels still remains at least somewhat valid. The NT speakers and authors were quite intently aware of angels, both ministering and frustrating the human race. I'll give an example, from John 5, an angel went down occasionally and stirred the water, and whosoever touched it first was healed. So clearly the operations behind what was seen was of concern to the NT characters.

In fact, it was of such concern that both Paul and the writer "to the Hebrews" had to tell the NT disciples not to get fixated on angels. They aren't the mediators to God - Jesus is.

Colossians 2:16-19 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I'll be his Father, and he'll be my Son”?

6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

10 He also says, In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”

13 To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

-----

The writer of Hebrews isn't refuting the angels' ministry and function and service, but rather is writing an extensive section on angels at the beginning of the epistle, because the befuddled believers are fixating on angels as if they were something in and of themselves to focus on. To the writer of Hebrews, they're indeed real and function, but only in the sphere of one's complete and die-hard fixation on the Son. As soon as one looks away from the Son, all is lost.

(p.s. the same exact thing happens when we fixate on 'God's economy' or 'the ground' or 'the church' or 'the ministry' or 'God's present move' or anything else. Our voyage is shipwrecked.)

~Peace to all

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Maybe you want to read this article.
The Spirit World.

Not to take this off-track, but did anyone else notice "The Tripartite Man" explanation with accompanying illustration in Larkin's Spirit World?. This book was written by Clarence Larkin when Nee about 18 years old. Larkins Spirit/Soul/Body diagram is exactly like Nee's. (accept for a slightly different arrangement of the conscience, etc) Could this be where Nee got his teaching?


-
-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Not to take this off-track, but did anyone else notice "The Tripartite Man" explanation with accompanying illustration in Larkin's Spirit World?. This book was written by Clarence Larkin when Nee about 18 years old. Larkins Spirit/Soul/Body diagram is exactly like Nee's. (accept for a slightly different arrangement of the conscience, etc) Could this be where Nee got his teaching?


-
-

Quite likely! Here is a snippet from the Wikipedia article about Larkin:

"Larkin's first major publication was Dispensational Truth (or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages), which contained dozens of charts and hundreds of pages. The preparation of the charts and text took Larkin three years to produce. The book is a defense of premillennialist dispensationalism that draws on the major themes found in the works of figures like C.I. Scofield, William Eugene Blackstone, and John Nelson Darby."

[tentmaker]

In all of the trainings and conferences I attended with W Lee at the podium (1977-1996), I do not remember him ever mentioning Clarence Larkin. I have had this book “The Greatest Book on Dispensational Truth in the World”, for many decades. The book was copyrighted in 1918, the enlarged and revised edition is dated 1920. The 3 parts of man sketch is on page 99. You can still get a copy of the book online.



Clarence Larkin; born Oct 28, 1850, died Jan 24, 1924. He began writing the book after 1914. I am not saying I agree with everything written in the book, but it does cause one to consider many biblical matters a bit more seriously. The 3 parts of man understanding, which is huge imo, is not a LSM recovered item.


Thanks to Bible-believer for providing the link!

[OBW]

It could be that, as Tmotheist suggests, the bible is only concerned with this creation.

Or it could be that the purpose of the bible is the revelation of God, not the revelation of angels, therefore their origins are irrelevant.

And an exercise in missing the point.

[awareness]

But what puzzles me is that, in the Bible, there are no female angels. Seems misogynistic to me, by all the males that wrote the books of the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

But what puzzles me is that, in the Bible, there are no female angels. Seems misogynistic to me, by all the males that wrote the books of the Bible.

Tow or three names of angels, which are otherwise not defined as of any gender and you presume that the giving of male names in writing to a male-dominated society is worthy of more than a "meh" is what puzzles me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Tow or three names of angels, which are otherwise not defined as of any gender and you presume that the giving of male names in writing to a male-dominated society is worthy of more than a "meh" is what puzzles me.

Where do you, or any one else find evidence of female angels, written in the Bible?

[awareness]

To be honest it would tickle me pink for someone to point to scripture that proves there's at least 1 female angel. I can't hope enough. Silence will cast me down. But at least we'll all know there's no female angels in scripture.

[UntoHim]

My dear friend Harold, I'm afraid that you are missing the Forest (The God of the Universe) for the trees (a myriad of angels).

And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Hebrews 1:13,14

Don't you know that angels are our servants. They are here to minister to us. Let's not spend too much time worrying about whether they're boys or girls...we'll find out soon enough.

In the meantime, I found the video of you being introduced to your angel. And as usual, you just couldn't resist giving him a bad time!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/469b61c...d-3356516bd27e

[awareness]

UntoHIM, my friend, you are just tooooo cute. You look just like the angel I'd get. But you're not female, darn it.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Not to take this off-track, but did anyone else notice "The Tripartite Man" explanation with accompanying illustration in Larkin's Spirit World?. This book was written by Clarence Larkin when Nee about 18 years old. Larkins Spirit/Soul/Body diagram is exactly like Nee's. (accept for a slightly different arrangement of the conscience, etc) Could this be where Nee got his teaching?


-
-

UntoHim,

It’s totally not out of the question to where did Nee get the concept, or from whom he stole it from. I wish I had more time on my hands to deeply dive into all these things. I would be willing to bet quite a big sum, that majority of what both man “recovered”, is rebranded work of others that has been slightly modified to make it look as if it’s new. They’re not first, nor are they last to do so.
I also will say the following: the only reason that Nee is now being promoted in some circles, is because all of these man know in the back of their minds, that if they will be very honest with themselves, and say the truth from their pulpits and radio shows etc, that Nee received all of his teachings for the following mentors of his, (see below), they will be quickly denounced as heretical in a lot of the churches and by most Bible scholars.

12 Mentors of Nee.

1. Nee Ho-P’ing (Mother)
2. Dora Yu
3. Margaret E. Barber
4. L. S. Ballord
5. Li Ai-ming
6. Jessie Penn-Lewis
7. Madame Guyon
8. Miss Groves
9. Ruth Lee
10. Peace Wang
11. Elizabeth Fischbacher
12. Mary E McDonough

There are still some people, although very few in between, who are familiar with a lot of the names on that list. They know their associations, and what they taught. It’s just my opinion, so as I always say, I can be wrong, but I would say, if for example Mr. “We where Wrong”, comes out and starts quoting all the books/wrings/beliefs of those mentors on his radio show, I doubt very much that he will be able to deal with the bombardment of opinions and views that he would receive. It wouldn’t be a smart financial idea, so that would never happen. But he can hide behind Née’s name, since for the most part is still not very known in the western world.

As a side note, and to put on my “living room theologian” hat for a minute. The idea of the tripartite man has existed for centuries, and was not invented, nor recovered by anyone! Nether did Larkin or Nee, or McDonough, really made any new discoveries. I’ll go out on a limb here and say, that they actually made a mockery out of the Biblical concept of the issue with that faulty diagram. I think that according to the Word of God, our spirit was dead until we went through the process of regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit. Upon that, we have two natures that are at fight within us, as Paul described it very clearly. I will attach a chart below that I think much better describes the way Bible teaches on this issue. I don’t know who did this chart, or where it’s from, so I wasn’t able to find the source, other than it comes from some Jewish Christians. I believe that it’s a much better and not confusing as the other one. What Nee and Larkin have done, is bury the spirit as the central, and notice smallest part of a regenerated person. It’s some mystical “deep” organ, that needs daily exercise, and resuscitation to get to it. You have to go through the process of the flesh, the soul, and if you are lucky one, and get through “two of the most evil things about you” then, cha-ching, you “overcame” and got to that deepest of self, and now you are in your spirit. Nothing of this nature is even exists in any writings of the Bible. It’s very simple and very clear, not mystical. It doesn’t require bodily exercise, it’s there 24/7. No need for daily resuscitation!
The need for a born again believer, is to put away the works of the flesh, by the power of the Spirit that dwells within, and not try to destroy your soul and flesh as promoted heavily by all these mystics and “deep spiritual experiences” scams.

Also, the question that one should ask, what is the biggest and the most prize possession of the human being? Is that our spirit, or our soul? What purpose does our spirit serve? What role does it play in our being, when it comes to the two natures that are within us? All those answers are clearly laid out in the scriptures, and are NOT confusing and not hidden from anyone that’s willing to study them.
What these people promote, under that diagram, what I would call an “inverted human spirit”, which is a mystical “organ” of sorts, that has more use or more power than it actually does. Remember, we are not led by our spirit, but by the Holy Spirit that indwells it! Our spirit is dead, without the Holy Spirit quicken it! It’s not about us, or anything that comes from us, (which is a teaching of humanism theology), it’s about the power of the Holy Spirit working in us daily, to put on the new nature rather than live by the old one!

I’m sure that a there are people will disagree with this concept and conclusions, but I believe that it’s way more clearer and closer to what the Bible teaches in itself, than some people love to promote to confuse people and call it “recovery”. I also think that the other reason that they promote this, is that it’s much easier to go through some mystical experiences that to allow God and the power of His Spirit to work on putting away the old nature, and it’s works. You just kind of go on as if you just have a form of spirituality, but it’s just a shell, voided of the power of God. Existence, rather than Life! Mental/emotional gymnastics vs clear and uncofused state of reality!

[awareness]

Brother Vusik, this is great stuff (left below). All should learn about the true history of the tripartite man theory.

But does it fit on this thread? Wouldn't it go better on :

Local Church Discussions > Apologetic discussions
Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ght=tripartite

Please do still continue to uncover the recovery and its plagiarisms.

Thanks
Harold

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

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

UntoHim,

It’s totally not out of the question to where did Nee get the concept, or from whom he stole it from. I wish I had more time on my hands to deeply dive into all these things. I would be willing to bet quite a big sum, that majority of what both man “recovered”, is rebranded work of others that has been slightly modified to make it look as if it’s new. They’re not first, nor are they last to do so.
I also will say the following: the only reason that Nee is now being promoted in some circles, is because all of these man know in the back of their minds, that if they will be very honest with themselves, and say the truth from their pulpits and radio shows etc, that Nee received all of his teachings for the following mentors of his, (see below), they will be quickly denounced as heretical in a lot of the churches and by most Bible scholars.

12 Mentors of Nee.

1. Nee Ho-P’ing (Mother)
2. Dora Yu
3. Margaret E. Barber
4. L. S. Ballord
5. Li Ai-ming
6. Jessie Penn-Lewis
7. Madame Guyon
8. Miss Groves
9. Ruth Lee
10. Peace Wang
11. Elizabeth Fischbacher
12. Mary E McDonough

There are still some people, although very few in between, who are familiar with a lot of the names on that list. They know their associations, and what they taught. It’s just my opinion, so as I always say, I can be wrong, but I would say, if for example Mr. “We where Wrong”, comes out and starts quoting all the books/wrings/beliefs of those mentors on his radio show, I doubt very much that he will be able to deal with the bombardment of opinions and views that he would receive. It wouldn’t be a smart financial idea, so that would never happen. But he can hide behind Née’s name, since for the most part is still not very known in the western world.

As a side note, and to put on my “living room theologian” hat for a minute. The idea of the tripartite man has existed for centuries, and was not invented, nor recovered by anyone! Nether did Larkin or Nee, or McDonough, really made any new discoveries. I’ll go out on a limb here and say, that they actually made a mockery out of the Biblical concept of the issue with that faulty diagram. I think that according to the Word of God, our spirit was dead until we went through the process of regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit. Upon that, we have two natures that are at fight within us, as Paul described it very clearly. I will attach a chart below that I think much better describes the way Bible teaches on this issue. I don’t know who did this chart, or where it’s from, so I wasn’t able to find the source, other than it comes from some Jewish Christians. I believe that it’s a much better and not confusing as the other one. What Nee and Larkin have done, is bury the spirit as the central, and notice smallest part of a regenerated person. It’s some mystical “deep” organ, that needs daily exercise, and resuscitation to get to it. You have to go through the process of the flesh, the soul, and if you are lucky one, and get through “two of the most evil things about you” then, cha-ching, you “overcame” and got to that deepest of self, and now you are in your spirit. Nothing of this nature is even exists in any writings of the Bible. It’s very simple and very clear, not mystical. It doesn’t require bodily exercise, it’s there 24/7. No need for daily resuscitation!
The need for a born again believer, is to put away the works of the flesh, by the power of the Spirit that dwells within, and not try to destroy your soul and flesh as promoted heavily by all these mystics and “deep spiritual experiences” scams.

Also, the question that one should ask, what is the biggest and the most prize possession of the human being? Is that our spirit, or our soul? What purpose does our spirit serve? What role does it play in our being, when it comes to the two natures that are within us? All those answers are clearly laid out in the scriptures, and are NOT confusing and not hidden from anyone that’s willing to study them.
What these people promote, under that diagram, what I would call an “inverted human spirit”, which is a mystical “organ” of sorts, that has more use or more power than it actually does. Remember, we are not led by our spirit, but by the Holy Spirit that indwells it! Our spirit is dead, without the Holy Spirit quicken it! It’s not about us, or anything that comes from us, (which is a teaching of humanism theology), it’s about the power of the Holy Spirit working in us daily, to put on the new nature rather than live by the old one!

I’m sure that a there are people will disagree with this concept and conclusions, but I believe that it’s way more clearer and closer to what the Bible teaches in itself, than some people love to promote to confuse people and call it “recovery”. I also think that the other reason that they promote this, is that it’s much easier to go through some mystical experiences that to allow God and the power of His Spirit to work on putting away the old nature, and it’s works. You just kind of go on as if you just have a form of spirituality, but it’s just a shell, voided of the power of God. Existence, rather than Life! Mental/emotional gymnastics vs clear and uncofused state of reality!

[awareness]

The question of origin(s), or when and where, angels come/came from, what about what angels are made of. Are they a substance?

I might say that angels are made of imagination(s) - except - when angels act on something or someone. Then, to be sure, angels are made of some kind of hard substance, that can affect the material world ; in a good or bad way, depending on the type of angel, such as the misnomer 'Angel of Death'.

Those that obsess with the need for Bible answers, when it comes to angels, will be disappointed. Turns out that not only is God ineffable, so are angels.

I searched the RSV for how many times angels are mentioned. I came up with 203 times. That seems a lot, except when compared the total of words in the Bible, which is 783,137 words. 203 will go into that number 3,857 times.

So where is the first time an angel is mentioned in the books of the Bible? That would be Genesis of course ; concerning Sarai, Hagar, and Ishmael, in Gen 16.

I can't go into all of it, but will mention that in the NT the book of Acts mentions angel 20 times.

But the book of Revelation takes the cake, the whole cake, as in the whole Bible, by mentioning angel 54 times.

But it never explains the origin, or any of the details, such as the substance angels are made of, and certainly not why there are only male angels.

I've never met an angel. But just tonight, I talked to a man that said he had recently seen angels.

It is said that 80% of Americans believe in angels. But modern angels are often considered female. Those are imagined angels, if we hold to the Bible.

[SerenityLives]

I wouldn't want to meet any angel if this is how its described in the bible. They look scary, I questioned my dad who is a “leading one”. he said they’re nonbinary with male presenting names.
view the images. I can see why they gave a warning “Do not be afraid” when meeting the old testament peeps.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/795800196649180129/

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Vusik, this is great stuff (left below). All should learn about the true history of the tripartite man theory.

But does it fit on this thread? Wouldn't it go better on :

Local Church Discussions > Apologetic discussions
Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ght=tripartite

Please do still continue to uncover the recovery and its plagiarisms.

Thanks
Harold

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

Hey Harold,
I totally agree with your assessment! I was just replying to a previous post in this thread. I’m not a computer geek to know how to move the post over to that thread, so if the administration knows how to do so, please do. If I need to repost it there and delete it here, let me know.
Thanks

[Timotheist]

And what about the dinosaurs? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis?

[OBW]

Neither are a whole host of animals other than as part of very broad categories. But if we presume that the animals mentioned are those that would have been in contact with humans (as we know humans), then a mention would have been somewhat pointless.

[Timotheist]

Speculation alert.

This is where my mind goes at times. What if creatures like Leviathan and Behemoth were names given to fossilized dinosaur remains?

[Timotheist]

If I ever write a work of fiction, this would be a short story within the whole book:

The chapter will be in the form of a dialogue among the fallen angels, in which they witness creatures on Earth reproducing themselves by having offspring.

This trait in particular has them fascinated, because they themselves were created as mature adults, not having parental lineage of any kind.

They choose to interfere with the creation by impregnating the females, and end up producing giant offspring.

God lets things go on for a while, then destroys the dinosaurs and starts over.