Who believes in Angels?

Who believes in Angels?

Not just the idea, but the actual beings. Humanoid looking creatures posessing wings and magical powers who carry out God's work.

I heard somewhere that a third of all Americans believe in this.

Is this true? I don't know a lot of Christians in real life and don't ask the ones I do know.

I believed till they didnt win the series again this year, Now i find them mediocre to say the least ..........Erick

I don´t.

Possessing wings? Nah...but sure there are creatures that are called angels. They may take humanoid form when encountering us, but they have spiritual bodies, not physical ones.

I believe in angels though.

I do.

i believe in angels.

human angels. and spiritual angels.

Thanks for answering you guys.

What about Christians that you guys know? I would imagine some of you are church goers and know a large amount of Christians. What % of American Christians believe in Angels?

Not just the metaphorical idea, but actual sentient beings with powers etc. . .

Id say that most christians in america and other places in the world, if they believe in the resurrection as a real event, most likely also believe in angels are real sentient beings with powers, etc.

Josh is correct. Virtually all Christians who are bible based believe in Angels. I personally don't know a christian who doesn't believe in angels, and I know a ton of'em.




Puzzled

Thanks for the responses guys.

Just commercialization man. Where did baby angels come from!?

I believe in all forms of beings, spiritual and "alien". Calling some of these beings "angels" is okay with me.

tglaser, can u please elaborate?

Im very interested in the details about your beliefs. Won't you please share?

yes, but not with wings. The wings were added to the angels in the middle ages.

yours in Christ

sherm

elgringo,

Well I just think we are scratching the surface with what we currently know in terms of life and science. The bible(s) are certainly not meant to be a scientific or all-encompassing reference on all aspects of GOD's creation.

Whenever I attend a funeral, I think of how lifeless a body looks ... empty. Thus my belief in the soul or "spark of life". The soul has to go somewhere, and clearly originates from somewhere before we enter life on earth. Christ himself said he existed long before he incarnated on earth. Genesis talks of "heaven" and "the heavens" almost interchangably (at least in some parts) ... at least that was how I interpretted it, granted plenty will disagree, but whatever.

I do not think when we die, we "sleep" until judgement day, nor do I believe that we simply go to "heaven" or "hell".as that is far to simple in this complex thing we know as life. Nothing is so cut and dry,so why would life & death be?

GOD exists, yet is absolutely not human. Jesus existed as a human, yet stated that he existed before the earth,yet he was not said to be an angel. Human souls exist, and yet are apparently not "angels". Life most likely exists all overthe vast universe, perhaps in many different forms and perhaps dimensions (I would say that the place a soul goes after death is not our "dimension"). So who is to say there are only 2 dimesnions of life ... material & spiritual. there may be many forms of life.

As for the term "alien", well to me it makes more sense to travel the vast distances of the universe(s) as energy/spirit, rather than in a material form (or vehicle), and if spirit is outside of the material universe, presumably is can go faster than 186,000 miles per second,our limits would no longer apply. So as silly as it sounds, beings could be buzzing all over space/time. Think about it ... somehow our souls get to earth from ... wherever. Do they travel through a singularity? Do they come from a spiritual "dimension" ... who knows.

If GOD created us, why stop there? Look at the animal and plant kingdom, all sorts of amazing creatures,that cando all sorts of amazing things. I thing the definition of intelligent life should not be limited to human beings.

Sorry,I probably sound insane ;) but I just think we only see .0000000000000001% of GOD's creation.

yes, but not with wings. The wings were added to the angels in the middle ages.?Isaiah 6.2-3:Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. (NRSV)Revelation 4.8:And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing, 'Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.' (NRSV)

Actually wings were added in much artwork of angels around this time. It's certainly not a total fabrication to put wings on angels in your art, b/c as IBI has referened, some had wings or maybe all had/have wings but can appear as men. The point I think some others were making is that many times in the bible when angels appeared, they looked like normal men. Or atleast there weren't mentions of wings in many cases.

If I'm not mistaken, their actually 3 different types of angels identified in the bible. Seraphim, Cherubim, and Archangels. And of course you could class Lucifer and his 1/3 of angels as "fallen" angels. Which is a common label used among christians.





Puzzled

Oh and then you have the Angel of the Lord, which is little fuzzy also. Was it a theophany? Or an angel with a special mission from God?


I think we can all agree that the biblical angels shouldn't be depicted as women playing harps in artwork.

In fact, some believe that the angels were all men and actually had sex with some women to create Giants in the OT. Remember Goliath? H's allegedly a descendant from this line of Nephalim or whatever they're called. I think this is derived from an OT scripture which states that the "sons of God went into the daughters of men and bore great and mighty men" (rough paraphrase).

Anyway...


Puzzled

Ugh NRSV...

Them having wings certainly has a Biblical basis, but much artwork is purely creative spin.

Ugh NRSV...Sorry if that was a bad choice. I'm certainly no expert on Biblical scholarship. Which version is considered to be the most accurate?