Angels

[Silvertusk]

Just a quick question. Is there anything in scripture that says God doesn't create any more angels? I know he created a lot before Earth but is there anything that states that God is no longer creating?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Nothing specific about angels. This is fine for me: Gen 2:3

FL

[B. W.]

Just a quick question. Is there anything in scripture that says God doesn't create any more angels? I know he created a lot before Earth but is there anything that states that God is no longer creating?

Well what we can find from the bible are several principles such as from Ezekiel 28:15 that angels were created on a certain "day" of creation...

Genesis 2:1 mentions this: Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. NKJV

What does - all the host - imply if it does not include angels? (note: Isa 24:21. )

Therefore sometime during one of the Days of Creation - God created angelic beings as well too. Now I do not want to hijack the thread, but Old Earth Creationism would make sense here as how long these days could last would be unknown to us due to God's timelessness...

During these days, there must have been a war in heaven as Lucifer was tossed out for leading the rebellion and still seeks to overthrow God by pitting God's entire Holy Nature and attributes against themselves in order to have God act in contradiction to Himself but I digress here. Back to the topic then.

In my opinion, it may have been on anytime during first or fifth day of Creation that God created angelic beings. Now is God creating more angels, I personally do not think so and base this on that the bible mentions that only one third of the angels rebelled and if only one third, then, there are no more to be made. As for God not creating - I think that depends on context. God creates a new pouring out of the Holy Spirit and will tell us before hand certain matters before he makes them., then yes, God still creates, but as creating another heaven and earth at this moment, No, however, in Revelation 21:1 - God is still creating...
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

All created beings came to be during certain periods of the creative process.
God doesn't "need" to create anymore. just as He doesn't "need" to create anymore humans because we can dot hat ourselves.
Angels are different since they do NOT reproduce with each other.
Of course, we will be like the angels too eventually - same "powers" and such and at that point I guess we won't be reproducing either.
Can God at any point create more? Of course.
Will He? Only God knows.
Angels were/are, IMO, the first ones created by God, they are very,very old beings that have "evolved" to be as we know them, they may or may not be all of the same "species" ( they are different enough to quite possibly be of different "types" - cherubs, Seraphs...). I think that, just as we are "evolving" to become angels, so have they and, if there are other species out there in the universe that are younger than Us, maybe so will they become "like the angels".

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...

For lack of a better word, LOL

I don't think that we can say that when we become "like the angels" it will be a step down, right?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...

For lack of a better word, LOL

I don't think that we can say that when we become "like the angels" it will be a step down, right?

Let's see what scripture says about becoming "like the angels":

Mark 12:25

"For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Luke 20:36
for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Matthew 22:30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

None of those verses in context, say anything about people evolving to become angels.

See what happens when you take the theory of evolution to its proper conclusion? Scripture gets twisted, and people evolve into angels.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...

For lack of a better word, LOL

I don't think that we can say that when we become "like the angels" it will be a step down, right?

Let's see what scripture says about becoming "like the angels":

Mark 12:25

"For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Luke 20:36
for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Matthew 22:30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

None of those verses in context, say anything about people evolving to become angels.

See what happens when you take the theory of evolution to its proper conclusion? Scripture gets twisted, and people evolve into angels.

Are you being argumentative just for the sake of arguing?
I said "evolve" in quotation marks, if you prefer change, that is fine.
BUT if you DO wanna argue the word:
To evolve:
evolve verb \i-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, ē- also -ˈväv or -ˈvȯv\
: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state.

So there !! *blowsraspberry*

All kidding aside, my point was simply that our species will eventually change ( there is that better?) into beings much like the angels and that, PERHAPS, angels are simply a different species of beings that may or may not have been "lower" like humans at one point.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Are you being argumentative just for the sake of arguing?

No. I just read your post, and wanted clarification.

I said "evolve" in quotation marks, if you prefer change, that is fine.
BUT if you DO wanna argue the word:
To evolve:
evolve verb \i-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, ē- also -ˈväv or -ˈvȯv\
: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state.

I know I've made an issue about evolution before, but your writing evolution wasn't really what I was confused about. "Evolving" was part of the issue, but my main question had to do with you saying "to become angels". I don't see any merit for saying people will change into angels. Angels are a different creature. People won't change into angels any more than people will change into horses. Any scripture that talks about us being "like the angels", doesn't have anything to do with becoming angels.

So, as I read what you wrote, "... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...", it looked like some kind of "new age", man reaching the apex of his evolution by becoming angels.

All kidding aside, my point was simply that our species will eventually change ( there is that better?) into beings much like the angels and that, PERHAPS, angels are simply a different species of beings that may or may not have been "lower" like humans at one point.

Ok, you have clarified what you mean. And, it's really not that different than what I said above. It just threw me for a loop so to speak, when I read that we are evolving to become angels.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

... PERHAPS, angels are simply a different species of beings that may or may not have been "lower" like humans at one point.

Did you get this revelation from a crystal ball? or from voices in your head?

FL

[PaulSacramento]

... PERHAPS, angels are simply a different species of beings that may or may not have been "lower" like humans at one point.

Did you get this revelation from a crystal ball? or from voices in your head?

FL

Probably the same voices that you hear that make you write like you got a pickle up your ass.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
Are you being argumentative just for the sake of arguing?

No. I just read your post, and wanted clarification.

I said "evolve" in quotation marks, if you prefer change, that is fine.
BUT if you DO wanna argue the word:
To evolve:
evolve verb \i-ˈvälv, -ˈvȯlv, ē- also -ˈväv or -ˈvȯv\
: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state.

I know I've made an issue about evolution before, but your writing evolution wasn't really what I was confused about. "Evolving" was part of the issue, but my main question had to do with you saying "to become angels". I don't see any merit for saying people will change into angels. Angels are a different creature. People won't change into angels any more than people will change into horses. Any scripture that talks about us being "like the angels", doesn't have anything to do with becoming angels.

So, as I read what you wrote, "... just as we are "evolving" to become angels,...", it looked like some kind of "new age", man reaching the apex of his evolution by becoming angels.

All kidding aside, my point was simply that our species will eventually change ( there is that better?) into beings much like the angels and that, PERHAPS, angels are simply a different species of beings that may or may not have been "lower" like humans at one point.

Ok, you have clarified what you mean. And, it's really not that different than what I said above. It just threw me for a loop so to speak, when I read that we are evolving to become angels.

I think your bias against the word is kind of giving you a "blind spot" for what the word actually means - change over time.
Understandably so since so many evolutionist use the term in one way only.
We have to understand that what a word means should NOT be define by how people choose to use it.

Its like the debate between being religious and spiritual, or spirituality VS religion.
People forget that the moment you "formalize" any belief, you have a religion, but because of the negative connotations that the word religion CAN be associated with, some people prefer "spiritual" or "spirituality" as the way they describe their beliefs.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I think your bias against the word is kind of giving you a "blind spot" for what the word actually means - change over time.

Actually, no. The real issue I had with what you wrote, was about becoming angels.
I just don't see any reason to think people change into angels.
Just like dogs don't die and evolve/change into humans.

Angels and humans are two different beings.

It really has nothing to do with me having a bias against the word "evolve". When evolve is used as a change over time, I have no problem at all with it.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
I think your bias against the word is kind of giving you a "blind spot" for what the word actually means - change over time.

Actually, no. The real issue I had with what you wrote, was about becoming angels.
I just don't see any reason to think people change into angels.
Just like dogs don't die and evolve/change into humans.

Angels and humans are two different beings.

It really has nothing to do with me having a bias against the word "evolve". When evolve is used as a change over time, I have no problem at all with it.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood.
My bad.

I don't think that we change into angels either, but that we change/become LIKE the angels, but are unique in our own (resurrected) way.
As you know there are different types of angels as well and the term "angel" means only "messenger" BUT we tend to use it to describe a "race" of beings in Heaven ( or hell).

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I think your bias against the word is kind of giving you a "blind spot" for what the word actually means - change over time.

Actually, no. The real issue I had with what you wrote, was about becoming angels.
I just don't see any reason to think people change into angels.
Just like dogs don't die and evolve/change into humans.

Angels and humans are two different beings.

It really has nothing to do with me having a bias against the word "evolve". When evolve is used as a change over time, I have no problem at all with it.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood.
My bad.

I don't think that we change into angels either, but that we change/become LIKE the angels, but are unique in our own (resurrected) way.
As you know there are different types of angels as well and the term "angel" means only "messenger" BUT we tend to use it to describe a "race" of beings in Heaven ( or hell).

Thanks for clarifying Paul. I'm glad I asked. Otherwise I would've just thought you had some kind of "Froot loop" theology.