• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Angels marry

rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
dance-above said:
I believe the same scripture and believe it shows they do not.the main reason I was thinking about it because some teach that Christ is Michael the archANGEL and if that is so then it contradicts the teaching that the church is the bride of Christ.
Click to expand...

Christ is not literally married to his followers, any more than his Father, Jehovah, was literally married to ancient Israel. (Isaiah 54:5) Rather, I believe their relationship is one of obedient subjection to the Christ, who shows self-sacrificing love for his disciples. (Ephesians 5:25,28)
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
saint_frankenstein said:
It's a teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know of any other group that believes that. It's strange, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Strange? Not at all. Here is the scriptural support for Jw's belief that Michael is, in fact, Jesus in his glorified position in heaven:

"The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”

A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.

Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting Jehovah’s greatest enemy, Satan.

Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”" (W10 4/1 p. 19)
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
rusra02 said:
Strange? Not at all. Here is the scriptural support for Jw's belief that Michael is, in fact, Jesus in his glorified position in heaven:

"The Bible contains five references to the mighty spirit creature Michael. Three occurrences are in the book of Daniel. At Daniel 10:13, 21, we read that a dispatched angel is rescued by Michael, who is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the prince of you people.” Next, at Daniel 12:1, we learn that in the time of the end, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.”

A further mention of Michael occurs at Revelation 12:7, which describes “Michael and his angels” as fighting a vital war that results in the ousting of Satan the Devil and his wicked angels from heaven.

Notice that in each of the above-mentioned cases, Michael is portrayed as a warrior angel battling for and protecting God’s people, even confronting Jehovah’s greatest enemy, Satan.

Jude verse 9 calls Michael “the archangel.” The prefix “arch” means “principal” or “chief,” and the word “archangel” is never used in the plural form in the Bible. The only other verse in which an archangel is mentioned is at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where Paul describes the resurrected Jesus, saying: “The Lord [Jesus] himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet.” So Jesus Christ himself is here identified as the archangel, or chief angel.

In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”" (W10 4/1 p. 19)
Click to expand...

Lol. None of that says that Jesus and Michael are the same. The verse from Thessalonians is saying that Jesus will descend from Heaven while the Angels let loose a cry. It's not saying that He is the one making the cry.

There's more than one Archangel, too. Christianity has always understood this. There are three named Archangels in the Bible: Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. But tradition holds that there are seven (Tobit 12:15).
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
saint_frankenstein said:
Lol. None of that says that Jesus and Michael are the same. The verse from Thessalonians is saying that Jesus will descend from Heaven while the Angels let loose a cry. It's not saying that He is the one making the cry.

There's more than one Archangel, too. Christianity has always understood this. There are three named Archangels in the Bible: Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. But tradition holds that there are seven (Tobit 12:15).
Click to expand...

Your quote is from an apocryphal book, not part of the Bible. And perhaps a quote of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 will settle this:

"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." (nwrt)

King James Version "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

Douay "15 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first."

Clearly, the voice of the archangel is Jesus voice.
 
dawny0826

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
saint_frankenstein said:
Can you find some evidence that early Christians since as the Church Fathers agreed with your view of it?
Click to expand...

Let me know if I'm not understanding your question correctly.

First, to clarify, my view -I find it believable that "Sons of God" refers to angels. I find it believable that a group of angels defied God and produced offspring with humans. I also find it believable that the wickedness on earth in the time of Noah displeased God enough to flood the earth.

I'm certainly not alone in my understanding. If I'm wrong about this when all is said and done, I'll be okay. :)

I watched this video in full a couple of months ago and found it interesting. I don't expect you or anyone to watch it because it's insanely long. The Nephilim fascinate me. I don't find this guy to be horribly outlandish, not that I hang on and accept every word, either.

It's just...interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8dUQOaSmSE

Like you, I certainly don't believe that Christ and Michael are one in the same. And I don't believe that angels can marry.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
rusra02 said:
Your quote is from an apocryphal book, not part of the Bible. And perhaps a quote of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 will settle this:
Click to expand...

It is part of the Bible. Protestants threw it out. Not my problem if you're missing books from the Bible.

"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." (nwrt)

King James Version "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

Douay "15 For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first."

Clearly, the voice of the archangel is Jesus voice.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's just saying that the cry of an Archangel and the trump of God will accompany Him.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
dawny0826 said:
Let me know if I'm not understanding your question correctly.

First, to clarify, my view -I find it believable that "Sons of God" refers to angels. I find it believable that a group of angels defied God and produced offspring with humans. I also find it believable that the wickedness on earth in the time of Noah displeased God enough to flood the earth.

I'm certainly not alone in my understanding. If I'm wrong about this when all is said and done, I'll be okay. :)

I watched this video in full a couple of months ago and found it interesting. I don't expect you or anyone to watch it because it's insanely long. The Nephilim fascinate me. I don't find this guy to be horribly outlandish, not that I hang on and accept every word, either.

It's just...interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8dUQOaSmSE

Like you, I certainly don't believe that Christ and Michael are one in the same. And I don't believe that angels can marry.
Click to expand...

I used to believe in that sort of stuff, too, when I was into fringe conspiracy stuff and believed in alien bloodlines being mixed with humans. I'm not into that anymore.

I just wanted to know if you know of any of the Church Father putting forth such a view.
 
dawny0826

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
saint_frankenstein said:
I used to believe in that sort of stuff, too, when I was into fringe conspiracy stuff and believed in alien bloodlines being mixed with humans. I'm not into that anymore.

I just wanted to know if you know of any of the Church Father putting forth such a view.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I don't even know what the term "Church Father" means. :)
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
saint_frankenstein said:
That's a misreading of the story.

Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God. ​
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying.
EWTN.com - who were the Nephilim
Click to expand...

Too much dogma...not enough consideration....
If Cain was a killer (and no one else?), then who did he fear as God dealt justice for the slaying of Abel?

Cain did complain....they shall kill me....

So God put a mark on Cain.(a tattoo?)

dogmatic faith has problems.

Shall we move this to the debate section?
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Thief said:
Too much dogma...not enough consideration....
If Cain was a killer (and no one else?), then who did he fear as God dealt justice for the slaying of Abel?

Cain did complain....they shall kill me....

So God put a mark on Cain.(a tattoo?)

dogmatic faith has problems.

Shall we move this to the debate section?
Click to expand...

Better yet, you can stay on topic and not bring up random stuff.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
And you are doing better?

So marriage commitment has a physical application here in this life.

Obviously....once the flesh is done...commitment is then of spirit.

Can the angelic make commitment?...I don't see why not.
But as the Carpenter said....neither taken or given...as in flesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top