An Angel Highway?

[Barb]

Don't mean to be hard on an elder, but where is his proof that the Jews have always known that our guardian angel looks like us?

I have never heard that before in my life...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

Also, if one chooses to be dogmatic to believe this passage supports look alike guardian angels (with NO WITNESS), the narrative indicates that she recognized Peter by his voice, not his face. We cannot assume she even recognized him in the dark ... just what the author relates to us.

Dan, you're explanation of that passage isn't convincing at all and you have the brash boldness to trash what another minister says as false doctrine without setting forth a reasonable explanation.

This is from Gill's commentary:it is his angel;
not his tutelar or guardian angel, everyone having, as some think, a particular angel to attend him; whereas sometimes one angel attends many persons, and sometimes many angels encamp about, and are a guard to a single saint; nor did they think it was an angel sent to give notice of his death, as some persons, by one means or another, have had previous notices of the death of their friends; but rather, that it was an angel in Peter's shape, who had something to communicate: and this agrees with the notions of the Jews, who think that angels do assume the shapes of men on certain occasions: so they say F9, when Moses was in danger in Pharaoh's court, God sent Michael, the prince of the host of heaven, "in the shape of an executioner"; who brought him at once out of Egypt, and set him at the border of it, the distance of three days journey: Bar Kaphra says F11, an angel descended (hvm twmdb) , "in the likeness of Moses", and caused him to flee, and they thought the angel had been Moses: and so it is elsewhere said F12, that an angel descended "in the likeness of Solomon", sitting upon his throne: there are some who think, that the sense of the brethren praying for Peter, was not that it was an angel, a celestial spirit, but a messenger sent by Peter from the prison on some errand: who represented him, or mentioning his name, the damsel took him for Peter himself. Beza's ancient copy reads, "then said they unto her, perhaps it is his angel", and so the Syriac version.

[mizpeh]

The is from Robertson's commentary:
It is his angel (Ho aggelov estin autou).
This was the second alternative of the disciples. It was a popular Jewish belief that each man had a guardian angel. Luke takes no position about it. No scripture teaches it.

From Adam Clarke's commentary:

Verse 15. It is his angel.
It was a common opinion among the Jews that every man has a guardian angel, and in the popish Church it is an article of faith. The Jews also believed that angels often assumed the likeness of particular persons. They have many stories of the appearance of Elijah in the likeness of different rabbins. As αγγελος signifies in general a messenger, whether Divine or human, some have thought that the angel or messenger here means a servant or person which the disciples supposed was sent from Peter to announce something of importance to the brethren: it was also an opinion among the Jews, even in the time of the apostles, as appears from Philo, that the departed souls of good men officiated as ministering angels; and it is possible that the disciples at Mary's house might suppose that Peter had been murdered in the prison; and that his spirit was now come to announce this event, or give some particular warning to the Church.

[mizpeh]

You could at least have tried to prove that the greek word for angel is sometimes used to mean a disembodied spirit or the like. Did you do that? Did I miss it?

From JFB's commentary:
that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel--his disembodied spirit, his ghost; anything, in fact, rather than himself. Though this had been the burden of their fervent prayers during all the days of unleavened bread, they dispute themselves out of it as a thing incredible. Still, it is but the unbelief of the disciples who "believed not for joy and wondered" at the tidings of their Lord's resurrection. How often do we pray for what we can hardly credit the bestowment of, when it comes in answer to our prayers! This, however, argues not so much hard unbelief as that kind of it incident to the best in this land of shadows, which perceives not so clearly as it might how very near heaven and earth, the Lord and His praying people, are to each other.

[mizpeh]

So maybe it was a common Jewish folklore which shouldn't be taught as fact.


Give a brother (Stoneking) a "grace" break. You've already trounced him on HMH.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan, you're explanation of that passage isn't convincing at all and you have the brash boldness to trash what another minister says as false doctrine without setting forth a reasonable explanation.

This is from Gill's commentary:it is his angel;
not his tutelar or guardian angel, everyone having, as some think, a particular angel to attend him; whereas sometimes one angel attends many persons, and sometimes many angels encamp about, and are a guard to a single saint; nor did they think it was an angel sent to give notice of his death, as some persons, by one means or another, have had previous notices of the death of their friends; but rather, that it was an angel in Peter's shape, who had something to communicate: and this agrees with the notions of the Jews, who think that angels do assume the shapes of men on certain occasions: so they say F9, when Moses was in danger in Pharaoh's court, God sent Michael, the prince of the host of heaven, "in the shape of an executioner"; who brought him at once out of Egypt, and set him at the border of it, the distance of three days journey: Bar Kaphra says F11, an angel descended (hvm twmdb) , "in the likeness of Moses", and caused him to flee, and they thought the angel had been Moses: and so it is elsewhere said F12, that an angel descended "in the likeness of Solomon", sitting upon his throne: there are some who think, that the sense of the brethren praying for Peter, was not that it was an angel, a celestial spirit, but a messenger sent by Peter from the prison on some errand: who represented him, or mentioning his name, the damsel took him for Peter himself. Beza's ancient copy reads, "then said they unto her, perhaps it is his angel", and so the Syriac version.

These teachings are from the Essenes and Hasidm, Mizpeh. None of the canon possess these teachings ... it was the Essenes who developed a highly developed belief in angels .... which was rejected namely by the Saduccees who even doubted their existence.

If you believe the mysticism of the Kaballah represents mainstream Judaism ... or is "common" ...

http://www.wbenjamin.org/scholem.html#n22

You find this teaching namely expressed in the Book of Angels by Worms ... more deeply rooted in Persian mysticism:

So far, we have been concerned with a special experience that is granted to only the select few. We can now retrace the steps the kabbalists took to turn the notion of the Tselem into a constituent part of their teaching on man in general. The writings of the German Hasidim (around 1200) clearly attest to the connection between the old motif of the personal angel or daemon of the individual and the Tselem, in which the person is created. Eleazar of Worms, who must have been intimately acquainted with occult and hermetic sources unknown to us, advances a conception that also occurs repeatedly in the extant writings of Merkavah mystics: there is a personal 'star' of every individual and an archon, who is the star's personal guardian angel. This angel is none other than the heavenly archetype, Demuth, a heavenly double of the person. When this archon is dispatched to the lower world, he has the form of the person over whom he is stationed.[22] The archon, therefore, is his Doppelgänger [ghostly counterpart or double], a conception unknown to the older Jewish sources of Merkavah mysticism. The transmission of the archon into the earthly realm is related to the appearance of this Doppelgänger. This experience is said by Eleazar to explain certain accounts of the Talmud, though he does not expressly connect the idea to the prophetic mission. According to Eleazar, this archetypal form is the Tselem in which the person has been created or with which he has been endowed since birth. When it is stated in Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his Tselem, in the Tselem of God [Elohim] he created him," the repeated Tselem is thought to refer precisely to the man's and to his star's angel, who has the man's form. The Tselem Elohim belongs to the angel, who imprints the man at birth or at his conception. Eleazar also pondered the question of whether it would be possible to conjure this personal archon. In contrast to Iamblichus, Eleazar denies the possibility. In other circles of Jewish esoterics, the tradition of such practice was kept alive.[23]

A mainstream rabbi today on the idea of guardian angels:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...ian-angels.htm

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

So maybe it was a common Jewish folklore which shouldn't be taught as fact.


Give a brother (Stoneking) a "grace" break. You've already trounced him on HMH.

His teachings smack of mysticism, Mizpeh ... and at every corner ... mysticism and the occult are appealed to support the teachings he espouses ... it's a trend. ....

Why not stick to the Word ... which does not teach this?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

Stoneking's teachings on angelology are just as fruity as his doctrine on HMH ... many of the angel teachings over the years have been extrabiblical in scope and contradict what the Word teaches on these celestial beings.

Is the Deja vu and Bro. Barnes' angel showing up your main objections to what Stoneking is saying?

"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 18:10

The Bible is implying that the little ones have angels watching out for them. By saying, "their angels", it appears that they belong to the children.

[TroubleMaker]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

So maybe it was a common Jewish folklore which shouldn't be taught as fact.


Give a brother (Stoneking) a "grace" break. You've already trounced him on HMH.

No. This is absolutely the definition of "False doctrine." If anyone ever fits the New Testament classification of a "Heretic", he is it. How much crazier can it get, "Bro. Barnes' angel was at Landmark the night I preached"?? And we're just gonna say he was a little off? Nuh uh. This stuff is dangerous. Admittedly, I only listened to a minute or so of that clip, but it was just enough to make me sick. I didn't laugh at it, would never make fun of it, and wouldn't mock it. It's much too serious for that. It is absolute heresy and I wonder how long until the UPC pulls the plug on him? Every conference he's allowed to hold a microphone diminishes the credibility of the organization (as if it doesn't already struggle with credibility as a result of the enforcement of non-biblical rules and dress codes, it's obsession with tongues, and it's aggressive near-elimination of those who relied only on God's grace for salvation).

I still can't believe I just heard him proclaim that "Bro. Barnes' angel is here." Good heavens. He sounds like Benny Hinn who claims to frequently visit the grave of Kathryn Kuhlman to obtain "her anointing."

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

No. This is absolutely the definition of "False doctrine." If anyone ever fits the New Testament classification of a "Heretic", he is it. How much crazier can it get, "Bro. Barnes' angel was at Landmark the night I preached"?? And we're just gonna say he was a little off? Nuh uh. This stuff is dangerous. Admittedly, I only listened to a minute or so of that clip, but it was just enough to make me sick. I didn't laugh at it, would never make fun of it, and wouldn't mock it. It's much too serious for that. It is absolute heresy and I wonder how long until the UPC pulls the plug on him? Every conference he's allowed to hold a microphone diminishes the credibility of the organization (as if it doesn't already struggle with credibility as a result of the enforcement of non-biblical rules and dress codes, it's obsession with tongues, and it's aggressive near-elimination of those who relied only on God's grace for salvation).

I still can't believe I just heard him proclaim that "Bro. Barnes' angel is here." Good heavens. He sounds like Benny Hinn who claims to frequently visit the grave of Kathryn Kuhlman to obtain "her anointing."

So Stoneking doesn't get a break (I'm not saying you have to condone his teaching on angels) but a couple of the "orthodox" commentators lend credence to what Stoneking teaches on angels that look like us, do they get a bye but LS gets singled out for such an atrocity? Is it all about bashing Stoneking because he's UPC? Where is the grace you rely so heavily upon from God for? Can you spare a drop for LS?

The angel passage in Acts 12 sounds like Jewish folklore but how do you explain the man who was healed seeing TWBarnes in his hospital room all night when TB stated that he prayed a quick prayer and left? Do you think it was a familiar spirit sitting at his bedside all night?

How much do we really know about the angelic world? They can take on the form of men. Is it beyond thinking they might even take on the visage of the one they watch over? I have a difficult time totally dismissing things I know nothing about. But...there has been an abuse of things pertaining to angels like Joseph Smith of the Mormon fame and lately, Todd Bentley of the Lakeland revival.

I can understand your distaste at what LS is saying but can you be 100% certain that he belongs in the heretic bin?