Do Guarding Angels exist?

[Cathode]

When the argument shifts from Scripture to metaphors and mystical language, it is because the biblical foundation has collapsed.

Funny man. Much of scripture has metaphors and mystical language.

Much of what happens in the spiritual is by impression. The attempts to explain the spiritual leads to “mystical language”.

Metaphors are used to translate the sublime spiritual things into temporal terms that people can relate to.

The angels are here to assist us fulfil our mission, either physically or spiritually.

The angels ministered to Jesus to fulfil His mission, and as our lives imitate Christ’s, we are ministered to by the angels, especially as we enter into our passion.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes it does. “ May I take or orders “ is the first thing they say.

Your legalistic quibblage is a fascinating study in the denial of reality, and the lengths a desperate man will take. I bet you could gnaw your leg off to get out of a trap.

Be a good fellow and just cheerfully admit defeat, no one wants to see you hobbling on a peg leg.

It’s good that you contended your position, I truly admire that, but contention should lead to understanding not mutilation.

Where, in the Bible, do we read of any angel appearing to somebody, and opening what they say with words like, "May I take your orders?" Just a few examples, in which I have highlighted the angel's first words:

(Luk 1:11-13 NKJV) Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."


(Luk 1:28 NKJV) And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"

(Luk 2:10 NKJV) Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.

I cannot think of a single biblical example of an angel asking somebody for their order(s).

 

[Cathode]

Where, in the Bible, do we read of any angel appearing to somebody, and opening what they say with words like, "May I take your orders?" Just a few examples, in which I have highlighted the angel's first words:

(Luk 1:11-13 NKJV) Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John."


(Luk 1:28 NKJV) And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"

(Luk 2:10 NKJV) Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people.

I cannot think of a single biblical example of an angel asking somebody for their order(s).

Neither can I. But that’s irrelevant, the word “Trinity” can’t be found in scripture but we have scriptural reasons enough to believe it.

You are arguing from absence, which is no argument at all.

We have the scripture which states clearly that they are “ sent forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life “, namely us.

You either believe they serve us or you don’t, which is unscriptural.

 

[David Lamb]

Neither can I. But that’s irrelevant, the word “Trinity” can’t be found in scripture but we have scriptural reasons enough to believe it.

You are arguing from absence, which is no argument at all.

We have the scripture which states clearly that they are “ sent forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life “, namely us.

You either believe they serve us or you don’t, which is unscriptural.

I agree about the word "Trinity." However, the teaching or doctrine embodied in the word "Trinity" certainly is in Scripture. The idea that human beings should give orders to angels is not (as far as I know) found anywhere in the Bible.

Yes, I do believe that angels are sent forth by God to serve Christians, not that God sends them to Christians for the Christians to give orders to angels.

 

[Cathode]

I agree about the word "Trinity." However, the teaching or doctrine embodied in the word "Trinity" certainly is in Scripture. The idea that human beings should give orders to angels is not (as far as I know) found anywhere in the Bible.

Yes, I do believe that angels are sent forth by God to serve Christians, not that God sends them to Christians for the Christians to give orders to angels.

Anthony was saying they only serve God not us.
But scripture says “ sent forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life “

I’ll stick with the scripture, it’s a clear cut case that lines up with my experience and understanding.

 

[David Lamb]

Anthony was saying they only serve God not us.
But scripture says “ sent forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life “

I’ll stick with the scripture, it’s a clear cut case that lines up with my experience and understanding.

I was replying to you, not Anthony. Anthony had written:

Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served.

You replied:

"Yes it does. “ May I take or orders “ is the first thing they say."

Therefore I replied that nowhere in Scripture do we read that we are to give orders to angels.

 

[Cathode]

I was replying to you, not Anthony. Anthony had written:



You replied:

"Yes it does. “ May I take or orders “ is the first thing they say."

Therefore I replied that nowhere in Scripture do we read that we are to give orders to angels.

Which is analogous of my example of the waiters.

His reply was general not specific.

“Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served”

I never said that angels will address this way.

I think you guys are taking legalism to new heights, and it’s not in good faith.

 

[David Lamb]

Which is analogous of my example of the waiters.

His reply was general not specific.

“Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served”

I never said that angels will address this way.

I think you guys are taking legalism to new heights, and it’s not in good faith.

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood. I really thought you were saying that angels take our orders. It seems you meant that waiters do that, so I humboly apologise

 

[Cathode]

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood. I really thought you were saying that angels take our orders. It seems you meant that waiters do that, so I humboly apologise

They serve us, and all that implies, even though they may not use the exact term “ may I take your orders “, they take our orders.

 

[David Lamb]

They serve us, and all that implies, even though they may not use the exact term “ may I take your orders “, they take our orders.

So from that, it seems I wasn't mistaken after all. The fact that angels serve Christians does not make them "cosmic waiters", ready to take orders from us.

 

[Cathode]

So from that, it seems I wasn't mistaken after all. The fact that angels serve Christians does not make them "cosmic waiters", ready to take orders from us.

The waiter’s analogy was not perfectly analogous, we all know angels aren’t waiters.
I use waiter example rhetorically and you know this.

 

[David Lamb]

The waiter’s analogy was not perfectly analogous, we all know angels aren’t waiters.
I use waiter example rhetorically and you know this.

Yes, I did realise that you were using waiters as an example of taking orders, but you still wrote that angels take our orders.

 

[Cathode]

Yes, I did realise that you were using waiters as an example of taking orders, but you still wrote that angels take our orders.

I did didn’t I.

I’m glad we cleared this up.

You’ve been watching too much Matlock recently, haven’t you.

 

[David Lamb]

I did didn’t I.

I’m glad we cleared this up.

You’ve been watching too much Matlock recently, haven’t you.

Thanks. The only Matlock I know of is a town of that name in Derbyshire (UK). I have never watched a TV programme called Matlock, and have no idea what it is about.

 

[Cathode]

Yes, I did realise that you were using waiters as an example of taking orders, but you still wrote that angels take our orders.

I did didn’t I.

I’m glad we cleared this up.

You’ve been watching too much Matlock recently, haven’t you.

 

[Cathode]

Thanks. The only Matlock I know of is a town of that name in Derbyshire (UK). I have never watched a TV programme called Matlock, and have no idea what it is about.

It’s probably just as well.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Which is analogous of my example of the waiters.

His reply was general not specific.

“Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served”

I never said that angels will address this way.

I think you guys are taking legalism to new heights, and it’s not in good faith.

Earlier you wrote, “Yes it does. ‘May I take your orders’ is the first thing they say.” Now you are saying you never claimed angels address us that way. I’m simply pointing out the difference between those two statements. My concern is only to stay with what Scripture actually presents, which is angels obeying God, not humans.

 

[Cathode]

Earlier you wrote, “Yes it does. ‘May I take your orders’ is the first thing they say.” Now you are saying you never claimed angels address us that way. I’m simply pointing out the difference between those two statements. My concern is only to stay with what Scripture actually presents, which is angels obeying God, not humans.

You aren’t following scripture.

Scripture says that God sent forth the angels to serve those who will inherit eternal life.

It’s not scripture you follow here. It’s protestantism’s persistent problem with authority figures shining through.

Catholics have the plain scriptural understanding.

The Angels are in obedience to God when they are under the direction of men. God sent them forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life.

Yes the one being served does expect obedience from the server, he wants his ham and cheese on rye and a piece of cherry pie.

What he doesn’t expect from the server is “ you’re not the boss of me “.

The Angels are servant spirits sent forth to serve those who will inherit eternal life.

This not part of your human tradition, so it’s a shock to the system when you see it for the first time in scripture.

The angels have been sent out to be our servants, when there was no other human help angels came to help, and I’ve been able to carry out my mission because of their help.

You have a very stunted desupernaturalised understanding, it’s all just on page to be legalised over.

 

[Cathode]

Earlier you wrote, “Yes it does. ‘May I take your orders’ is the first thing they say.” Now you are saying you never claimed angels address us that way.

Now what would the average reasonable person assume I was referring to.

Where would a server utter these words to the ones being served.

“ May I take your orders “

This in response to,

“Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served”

Serving does imply taking orders from the served.

The clear restaurant analogy was obvious, you feign ignorance of my allusion to avoid the point I was making.

You can argue black means white till you are blue in the face, it won’t change a thing.

This is what I meant about you guys, look at all the legalising of the word you have just done.
When all you had to do was accept the plain reading of scripture.

You have ended at the absurd conclusion that the server is not under obedience to the ones they serve.
Without obedience the server is not a server, and served is not the served.

This is just another redux to absurdity that legalisers do rather than accept the plain reading of scripture.

 

[Cathode]

Earlier you wrote, “Yes it does. ‘May I take your orders’ is the first thing they say.” Now you are saying you never claimed angels address us that way.

Now what would the average reasonable person assume I was referring to.

Where would a server utter these words to the ones being served.

“ May I take your orders “

This in response to,

“Serving does not imply taking orders from the one served”

Serving does imply taking orders from the served.

The clear restaurant analogy was obvious, you feign ignorance of my allusion to avoid the point I was making.

You can argue black means white till you are blue in the face, it won’t change a thing.

This is what I meant about you guys, look at all the legalising of the word you have just done.
When all you had to do was accept the plain reading of scripture.

You have ended at the absurd conclusion that the server is not under obedience to the ones they serve.
Without obedience the server is not a server, and served is not the served.

This is just another redux to absurdity that legalisers do rather than accept the plain reading of scripture.