Angels

Yes, I believe in angels. They are pure spirit and they don't have bodies. I am Catholic, so we have many many books on the angels and teachings. We each have an angel, called a guardian angel. We do not name our angel, ever. He is superior to us, a little like a governess (that children had in the past) and much more intelligent than we are. He protects us, guides us and leads us to do good (what we are made for) and if we comply with him, we will go to heaven and be with him forever. If we don't listen to him and damn ourselves, we'll go to hell and he will go back to heaven. He only has one charge. He was given the choice by God to love you, his vocation for want of a better word. You also have angels for families, countries, institutions. There are 9 choirs of angel, each ascending choir is 3x larger than the one before, the lowet choir is gaurdian angels - each person who has ever existed has had their own guardian angel and each person who exists will have one too. This makes for a very large amount of angels. Only the lowest two choirs of angels have dealings with humans - the others all worship God and do His bidding - which is mostly taking care of us and our the world. 

There are fallen angels of whom the leader is Satan (also called Lucifier or Beelezbab - he has 3 names to mock the Blessed Trinity- God) and he is in hell. He can only come out and tempt people, along wiht his demons, with God's permission. God is the overall boss. Satan nor any demons can do anything without his says so. God allows demons to tempt, oppress, obessess or possess us for our good. We fight and become holy or at least holier. Our angel helps us battle evil. At the beginning of creation - the angels were given a test - they were shown Christ and His descent on earth and had to choose to accept this or not. Satan and his demons would not worship God in human form and said they will not serve. Satan partically was jealous because God came to earth in a woman's womb and he wanted to be the womb God would use to come to earth and could not stand to see a human given such honour above him. Angels have perfect knowledge and so they were given this one test and those that would serve are in heaven now enjoying the beatific vision. Those who would not, are in hell suffering unimaginable torment. 

Interestingly, it is believed that one group of the fallen angels (demons) had the duty of caring for trees and so now in hell they would try to destroy them, by getting humans to destroy them. 

I too am glad that people believe in things not covered in science or maths and I agree that you can't have good without bad.

I think there's a whole other layer/s to existance than we know about. I also think we lost a great deal during the so called enlightenment, it might have been a time of scientific and geographich discovery, but it was also a time that had slavery as normal and shut women out of many areas of life and professions. It was also a time that really brought in seperation between the divine as immanent and science and every day life.

There’s always been evil doers and bad things happening in the world for sure. There’s two side to the coin, there cannot be good without evil, neither can be compared if only one exists. They define each other by their very nature. I’ve had a few supernatural experiences that I can’t really understand through logical, more so with mediums, unless reading minds is possible.

Autismman said:

it’s encouraging to see that people are willing to believe in something not proved by science

Not sure I agree with that. And science is not about proving things—that would be mathematics.

Take a look at what's happening with the CDC in the US at present and tell me that that's "encouraging". Or the "bleach therapy" that is injuring and killing Autistic children? I'll take the science any day ahead of those beliefs.

I’d like to answer though so it’s not an issue at all, it’s encouraging to see that people are willing to believe in something not proved by science. Also I find people’s faith intriguing because I don’t have any firm belief myself but I would like to. 

"Encouraging" in what way? I'm going to play my Autistic card here and state (truthfully) that I don't understand what you mean. Or, rather, I can think of about five things you might mean, but they're all quite different, so, lacking further context, I have no idea which one to pick.

No need to answer. I'm OK with uncertainty.

It’s encouraging to see so many who believe in a higher power whatever that may be. I keep my options open, never say never 

Yeah, it's weird because I think the routine and predictability of it all made me feel safe.

I miss that, but there's lots I don't miss.

Thank you for your well wishes.

Ooh you left Jehovah’s Witnesses? I hear that’s really hard to do. Wishing you the best, I can’t imagine what you may have been through.

Yes, I do believe in angels. My beliefs have shifted a bit since leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I still find comfort in the idea that angels exist.

Iain said:

Isn't the entire old testament all myths and stories though?

No! If you had read my earlier reply to you, you would see that the entire Old Testament is not all myths and stories. (See Assyrian Campaign at Lachish 701BCE). It is primarily a work of theological concern, rather than historical facts.

However, it is a myth that Eve was Adam’s third wife in the Old Testament.

The New Testament doesn't say much about Jesus' growing up years, other than he would go out and speak to his elders to teach them some spiritual truths about a new spiritual law. He went out once and his parents went out looking for him as he was keen on his special mission in life as the Son of God. These pictures may help based on the Bible story and real life event.

Reminds me of the 2002 2DTV sketch of Steve Irwin at Ripley's Spaceship.

Take a look at that Blood! That's Pure Acid!

Desmond1979 said:

Aliens = Nephilim

Aliens < napalm. Ripley proved that.

ArchaeC said:

“Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism” by Howard Schwartz contains exactly what the title suggests, a collection of myths

Isn't the entire old testament all myths and stories though? Almost everything I have looked at is a story from a translation from an earlier text that was a compilation of older works from an oral tradition etc.

This trickle down effect of old stories means it is incredibly hard to give any credence to the truth in them.

Establishing the facts around the old testament is like nailing jelly to the wall.

Look at the creation story - are we to believe that we are descended from 2 people in the garden of Eden? How did their offspring have offspring without in-breeding. How did the other races come about? The facts don't add up.

But I guess it isn't supposed to be factual but a story - a way to make you think there are fantastic creatures struggling for our souls and only the church can save you, so get some money in the collection plate quick matey and indoctrinate your kids into the church or they will suffer eternally if you don't.

I guess I like to see all the holes in the absurdity of it all - a part time special interest.

Aliens = Nephilim.

I’m hoping my guardian angel is always close to me, even in my weakest moments 

TheCatWoman said:

More interesting to me, are Jesus's missing years. Did he just grow up an normal person, following his father Joseph and learning carpentry, seemingly unaware of his spiritual calling until he was 30, when he bursts into the world? Did he travel with his uncle Joseph of Aramathea to Britain and India on trading journeys? Maybe a mix of both?

Yes, the account of his missing years didn’t seem to be important to the writers of the Gospels. There is just that one short account of him when he was 12 years old in Luke, when his parents couldn’t find him because he was “sitting among the teachers and listening to them and asking questions. Lk2:41-52. I wonder was this account important enough to be inserted because it shows he is fully human, in that he needs to learn from others.

The birth narrative is in only two of the four gospels, some biblical theologians think it was a later addition in order to make the account of Jesus’s life complete. The Gospel of Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel, 70CE, and it doesn’t have anything of Jesus until he is an adult. 

Who knows indeed what Jesus did during those missing years. Archaeologists and historians  believe he might have known a significant town called Sepphoris which is near Nazareth. Building would have been going on constantly there during his life, so Joseph’s carpentry/building skills are likely to have been put to good use there, and perhaps Jesus followed him for a while. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepphoris

Iain said:

Since the bible was created from such poor quality source material and has been heavily edited through the millenia I find it has little value other than as a tool of an organised religion to promote themselves and (until recent decades) to keep the people in line.

That is rather unfair as there is nothing wrong with its source material from a theological perspective. The sources for the Bible are believed to have been to have been transmitted orally until they were put into writing, some of which eventually made their way into the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and some were redacted into the Christian Old Testament of the Bible. 

There are historical documents that provide date evidence of the assembly of the Christian Bible into its present form. Biblical theologians, historians and philologists have used different models of textural criticism to date and translate the texts, they have also distinguished several different sources for the texts, although we don’t know what those sources were. 

You may be right about some elements of organised religion using it as a tool to promote themselves and to keep them in line, but that is not universal.

Iain said:

There is no evidence for almost anything in the bible

Some books of the Bible are known as historical books, one of which is The Book of Kings. There is a section of interest to archaeologists, historians & anthropologists of all faiths and none, because it has an account of the Assyrian campaign against Judah in 701BCE. A similar account of the campaign is in contemporary Assyrian historical documents. Moreover, archaeological evidence supports the Assyrian account of Sennacherib’s campaign of destruction at Lachish and the surrounding area.  When there are two separate credible sources of an account of mass destruction in 701BCE, the third source of a Biblical account adds some interesting information of how things were from a Judean perspective. We have evidence of historical events, which is more than we can say for myths about Genesis, Eve, Lilith and the flood account. 

I am not claiming Assyrian historical sources and archaeology prove the Bible is historically accurate,  because they certainly do not. I am saying that the Bible is of interest to academics and others who do not have faith. The Bible has worth in addition to its value for Christians, and it can’t be written off completely. 

Are you not getting your old and new testaments mixed up a bit Iain? The OT is the Hebrew holy book or bible that was was taken over by Christians, the NT is from the birth of Jesus until his death and ressurection.

There is little evidence to support Jesus, although like many I do think he existed, but what he was, messenger from God, rabble rouser, terrorist or just a pain the Roman behind is something we probably will never know. The nativity story is taken from the birth of Mithras, a near contemporary of Jesus, Mithraism was very popular, especially amoung the Roman legions, there's evidence of Mithraums at several Military sites in Britain and Europe.

It fascinates me what made it into the Bible and what didn't, why were certain books left out? The gospel of Thomas is pretty obvious, as it says Jesus was married and talks of his brothers and sisters. jesus having brothers and sisters has always been a bit of a problem for the church, although St James is widely acknowleged, he was at odds with St Paul over the direction of Christianity after the death of Jesus, with James saying it should be only open to Jews and Paul, who after all never met Jesus deciding it should be open to gentiles too. Jesus having siblings was also a bit of a spanner in the works of the church who were promoting Mary as a virgin and it's pretty much irradicated any attempts to portray her as having other children.

More interesting to me, are Jesus's missing years. Did he just grow up an normal person, following his father Joseph and learning carpentry, seemingly unaware of his spiritual calling until he was 30, when he bursts into the world? Did he travel with his uncle Joseph of Aramathea to Britain and India on trading journeys? Maybe a mix of both?