Origin of angels

[Athena]

In the thread about the existence of God, I focus on the mythology of religion. Christianity is a mix of mythologies. In this mix of mythologies is the concept of angels. I goolged the origin of this concept of angels, and the concept comes up in Hebrew, Greek and Persian thinking without clear evidence of there being a first angel thought. The concept seems to begin a concept of a messenger, and evolves into a concept of a messenger from God.

 

That would make Satan a messenger. We are told his message is a lie. Jesus, is also a messenger from God. The bible tells us in the beginning is the word, and Jesus is the word. So Jesus is an angel of God's truth, and Satan is an angel of the lie. The rest of the angels are not born either, and I do not know how they come into existence, nor how demons come into existence. May be they just pop into being like atomic particles? These are things we might want to think about if we are going to discuss the reality of God, and how well holy books inform us about this reality.

 

Here is a link for information about the origin of the concept of angels.

http://www.angelsghosts.com/angels_history

[lemur]

I think of angels as mythological messengers or agents. You can look at them as archetypal personalities as well, which raise your consciousness to certain ideas or virtues when you study them and meditate on the knowledge. I've heard of people attributing experiences to them as well - like for example if something good happens to them, they interpret it as being a gift from a certain angel whose personality they associate with the good thing that happened. I don't think the bible or other mythology about angels is supposed to explain their origins and DNA, etc. They are symbolic concepts of personified intermediation of good and evil in people's living experiences.

[Realitycheck]

What really got to me, at least in the Torah portion of the OT, was every few pages, over and over, "God" would show up and say,"Go kill those heathens and I will reward you." Who or what was God supposed to be? A message from the clouds? A common person being spoken through? An Annunaki? Were they schizophrenic from the tree of knowledge? The possibilities are endless. As far as angels go, its really easy to just chalk them up to Annunaki, but I also subscribe to the idea that they were extremely virtuous, timely and meaningful donors of effort.

 

Also, if it even matters, in Islam, angels are considered as anyone who donates their efforts to good causes, as opposed to demons, who are considered detrimental to mankind, generally speaking.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Marat]

The notion of God having to communicate with humans by sending another humanoid/supernatural creature like an angel to act as message bearer just shows the poverty of the ancient imagination. Obviously a real god would come up with some more imaginative process of communicating messages, such as implanting ideas directly in the minds of the people addressed, thus ensuring that there would be absolute identity between the message and the interpretation of the message. An angelic intermediary, bearing a translation of God's will or thought into a message suitable for human minds, which would then be received and in turn reinterpreted by the human minds picking up the message, would simply no longer be the same message.

 

Incidentally, there is an interesting display at the British Museum of an ancient Babylonian model of a temple with winged angels littering the floor, and out of each angel extends a wire, indicating that these were once hung from the temple's ceiling to make them look as though they were flying. It's remarkable how constant the imagery of angels has been through various cultures, right down to the bird wings and human heads. In this they are like the illustrations on the side of the famous Harpy Tomb of the ancient Greeks, which show human-headed birds carrying the souls of the dead on their nightly journeys out of the tomb. At one time the common imagery would have been explained as a 'Jungian archetype,' but now perhaps we would have to say it represents traces of a distant source in a common mythological image.

[mississippichem]

This is wild speculation, but perhaps angels are present in the stories to provide contrast. Can't remember where, but somewhere in the Bible it is mentioned that the angels covet the mortal lives of the humans and are also jealous that God would send his son to die for the filthy sinning humans. Angels get the fortune of having perfect bodies and basically no problems, whereas humans have to deal with the struggles of life on Earth but having finite lives can appreciate the concept of time and God's forgiveness. Having angles present in the mythology highlight's a god's love for imperfect humans.

 

Angels seem like they are higher in the rankings but many stories in the Bible highlight the fact that god uses them to serve humans by sending messages, protecting, and comforting.

 

Are angels supposed to have free will in the Christian Tradition? Anyone know?

[lemur]

This is wild speculation, but perhaps angels are present in the stories to provide contrast. Can't remember where, but somewhere in the Bible it is mentioned that the angels covet the mortal lives of the humans and are also jealous that God would send his son to die for the filthy sinning humans. Angels get the fortune of having perfect bodies and basically no problems, whereas humans have to deal with the struggles of life on Earth but having finite lives can appreciate the concept of time and God's forgiveness. Having angles present in the mythology highlight's a god's love for imperfect humans.

 

Angels seem like they are higher in the rankings but many stories in the Bible highlight the fact that god uses them to serve humans by sending messages, protecting, and comforting.

 

Are angels supposed to have free will in the Christian Tradition? Anyone know?

I've heard people say that they don't have free-will like humans, but I don't see how they couldn't if Lucifer was able to make the choice to oppose God. I think angels, saints, and prophets are similar except that angels don't have to deal with material struggles without bodies (good point). I think angels and demons mainly help to facilitate the imagery of multiple agency for the forces of good and evil. The mythology wouldn't work as well if God and Satan were trying to run around doing everything themselves where influencing humans was concerned. I think it's also nice to think that when saints and prophets die, they become angels so they can continue their work without a material body.

 

 

 

[Athena]

I think of angels as mythological messengers or agents. You can look at them as archetypal personalities as well, which raise your consciousness to certain ideas or virtues when you study them and meditate on the knowledge. I've heard of people attributing experiences to them as well - like for example if something good happens to them, they interpret it as being a gift from a certain angel whose personality they associate with the good thing that happened. I don't think the bible or other mythology about angels is supposed to explain their origins and DNA, etc. They are symbolic concepts of personified intermediation of good and evil in people's living experiences.

 

Your explanation of our relationship with angels, is just like my understanding of the relationship with Greek gods and goddesses, which are also archetypes,and we can seek their aid through incantations.

 

I wasn't meaning to question the DNA of angels. but the origin of the concept, and your explanations leads us to the Greek consciousness.

 

Also, if it even matters, in Islam, angels are considered as anyone who donates their efforts to good causes, as opposed to demons, who are considered detrimental to mankind, generally speaking.

 

Yes, the Islamic understanding matters very much, because we are speaking of a consciousness that was shared thousands of years ago, in an effort to dismiss the idea that a God has chosen people, and only His chosen people received the word of God through a special messenger and no one else. That is the mythology problem isn't it? Concepts of good and evil are pretty universal. However, when someone thinks his holy book, is the only correct explanation of God's truth, and those who do not interpret this holy book the same way, and do not share exactly his belief in God's truth, must be of Satan and is God's enemy, then we have BIG PROBLEM.

 

Marat, that was beautiful reasoning.

 

This is wild speculation, but perhaps angels are present in the stories to provide contrast. Can't remember where, but somewhere in the Bible it is mentioned that the angels covet the mortal lives of the humans and are also jealous that God would send his son to die for the filthy sinning humans. Angels get the fortune of having perfect bodies and basically no problems, whereas humans have to deal with the struggles of life on Earth but having finite lives can appreciate the concept of time and God's forgiveness. Having angles present in the mythology highlight's a god's love for imperfect humans.

 

Angels seem like they are higher in the rankings but many stories in the Bible highlight the fact that god uses them to serve humans by sending messages, protecting, and comforting.

 

Are angels supposed to have free will in the Christian Tradition? Anyone know?

 

Interesting reasoning and yes, angels have free will. That is why Satan is a bad guy; he used his free will. Along the lines of your reasoning, isn't Satan the personification of ego? Is it not our ego that holds us separate from God? If we give up our egos, are we not one with God?

Edited April 30, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

Interesting reasoning and yes, angels have free will. That is why Satan is a bad guy; he used his free will. Along the lines of your reasoning, isn't Satan the personification of ego? Is it not our ego that holds us separate from God? If we give up our egos, are we not one with God?

You can't give up your ego any more than God can purge evil and banish Satan from the creation. "Armageddon," the eternal struggle taking place between good and evil could be as easily interpolated as a struggle between God and Satan as between consciousness and ego - my opinion, but a logical one I would argue.

Edited April 30, 2011 by lemur

[Realitycheck]

sounds pretty narrow-minded

[Realitycheck]

You can't give up your ego any more than God can purge evil and banish Satan from the creation.

So your ego is constant aye?

[lemur]

So your ego is constant aye?

what does this mean?

[immortal]

The difference between Lucifer and other angels is that Lucifer thinks he does all things by himself, he thinks he has control over his life but he doesn't know the truth and he takes pride upon him and where as other angels see that it is their egos which is doing everything and they know the truth that they were always one with GOD. You are no where in this world picture. Who told that we are seperated from god we are always one with God. One can not do anything with out their ego, you can not give it up. Your ego is not your enemy it is your perception of it.

Satan takes pride, God hates it. The common misconception is that the small light merges with the Supreme light as shown in videos and in pictures and this tends us to believe that we are seperate from God but it is not the truth. We are the light of God and everything merges into us(supreme light).

 

As far as origin of angels is concerned, In my world view I don't see angels as someone sitting in heaven and they appear whenever they want to give us a message, NO!. Angels are in our bodies it is they who stimulate our minds. How do we know that the scripture is the word from God it is because when prophets wrote them it was these angels who guided them i.e. it is the angels themselves who made the prophets to write. God is not very far from us he is within us.

[Athena]

You can't give up your ego any more than God can purge evil and banish Satan from the creation. "Armageddon," the eternal struggle taking place between good and evil could be as easily interpolated as a struggle between God and Satan as between consciousness and ego - my opinion, but a logical one I would argue.

 

 

I have multiple personalities, which one is the real me? Seriously how do we know who we are? The young people are looking for themselves, and the old ones are trying to forget. Good grief, I don't want to remember my whole life. I work hard at forgetting much of my life and so do others. I totally get the value of Zen Buddhism and letting go of the ego. I appreciate the Hindu image of a god crushing the ego, under his foot. I much rather think of myself becoming one with the Tao, than being an individual in an unknown after life.

 

I also want to reply to what you said of angels, demons and saint? Without bodies, what can a spirit experience? What is knowledge without experience? Check yourself for how you know you are you, where is the feeling that is the knowing you are alive and you are you. Consider if you were cloned and there were another body identical to yours, but not of the life experience you have had. Would that body be you or a separate individual? Now if you don't have a body how do you experience life?

[lemur]

I have multiple personalities, which one is the real me? Seriously how do we know who we are? The young people are looking for themselves, and the old ones are trying to forget. Good grief, I don't want to remember my whole life. I work hard at forgetting much of my life and so do others. I totally get the value of Zen Buddhism and letting go of the ego. I appreciate the Hindu image of a god crushing the ego, under his foot. I much rather think of myself becoming one with the Tao, than being an individual in an unknown after life.

 

I also want to reply to what you said of angels, demons and saint? Without bodies, what can a spirit experience? What is knowledge without experience? Check yourself for how you know you are you, where is the feeling that is the knowing you are alive and you are you. Consider if you were cloned and there were another body identical to yours, but not of the life experience you have had. Would that body be you or a separate individual? Now if you don't have a body how do you experience life?

You can no more dismiss or purge your body and its desires and effects on your spirit as you can purge your ego. You just have to deal with these facts of life and recognize them as being potentially negative influence despite their being natural facets of you as an individual. People who hate ego and try to eliminate it usually end up replacing it with some collective identity that they project their shame and pride onto because they won't allow themselves to express pride or shame in themselves individually. Buddhist detachment is a more promising path insofar as it allows you to observe the presence of the attachment without stimulating it by interacting with it in an aggressively positive or negative way. The ego and the body are inevitable but they don't have to dominate consciousness or will - imo.

 

 

 

[Athena]

The difference between Lucifer and other angels is that Lucifer thinks he does all things by himself, he thinks he has control over his life but he doesn't know the truth and he takes pride upon him and where as other angels see that it is their egos which is doing everything and they know the truth that they were always one with GOD. You are no where in this world picture. Who told that we are seperated from god we are always one with God. One can not do anything with out their ego, you can not give it up. Your ego is not your enemy it is your perception of it.

Satan takes pride, God hates it. The common misconception is that the small light merges with the Supreme light as shown in videos and in pictures and this tends us to believe that we are seperate from God but it is not the truth. We are the light of God and everything merges into us(supreme light).

 

As far as origin of angels is concerned, In my world view I don't see angels as someone sitting in heaven and they appear whenever they want to give us a message, NO!. Angels are in our bodies it is they who stimulate our minds. How do we know that the scripture is the word from God it is because when prophets wrote them it was these angels who guided them i.e. it is the angels themselves who made the prophets to write. God is not very far from us he is within us.

 

 

I need a lot of clarification. I have a vague of concept of Zoroastrian darkness and light, but not a good understanding of how the darkness and light becomes Satan and God, and demons and angels. Perhaps this is a question of spontaneous generation? Animation verses materialism? Of what is an angel or demon made? What are the elements? We have pictures of angels that are beings with wings. I am not sure I like the idea of a being with wings being inside my body? I absolutely do not like the Christian idea that I can be possessed by demons and Satan.

 

Now if we say God is in everything, I am cool with that. Quantum physics goes nicely with Eastern philosophy. But angels and demons, and a Satan, that is a different thing. That needs more clarification.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Athena

[immortal]

To completely comprehend this the first thing is to view mind and brain as two different things as dual entities. We see the mind as a rope with one end connected to the platonic world (we see that numbers and even languages exist in their own realm and they are not something which was created by humans) and the other end connected to the five sense organs. We normally think that there is only one way to see things that is through our eyes but there is an another way of seeing things i.e. through rejecting the sense organs (by disconnecting the connection between the sense organs and the mind). It is normally believed that the more pleasure you give to the sense organs the stronger the connection becomes that's why most people resort themselves from worldly pleasure and end up in forests to seek the truth and have good control of their sense organs. It is in this state of mind (which will look like a fallen rope with its one end strongly connected to the platonic world(intelligence) and with other end set free from the sense organs) one has religious experiences and the things that they see should be the same thing what their masters had observed. There is consistency but these experiences can not be predictable and therefore can not be testified objectively and it is restricted to a subjective phenomena.

 

This gives a new insight into the epistemological (means of gaining knowledge) capabilites of human beings. I think it is unwise to make quantum physics relevant to metaphysical enities. Science is about making models of the physical world which can be testified and it is wrong to comprehend God through reductionism. We should seperate one from the other.

 

Even though we have hundreds of gods we are basically Sun (savithru) worshippers. We don't see the sun as something scorching in the day light we see him as a personal god who resides in each and everyone and who stimulate our minds through our intellect. We are resorted into idolatry but there is no truth in that. One can find the truth by surrendering one self to him.

 

As far as appearance of Angels is concerned they are far different from what we imagine in our minds. It is very much wrong to describe them through worldly means. They are of a different nature but this doesn't mean that they are weird, their appearance is similar to humans. The Sun God has ornaments with blue and red pearls all over his body and the light will be eminating from them with such intensity that one can not see the true shape of the God. How one can say about a God with such precision is through revealation of God to those who are faithful to him and all see the same form it can not vary. In those times individuals would not be tested through debate or aguments instead they would be asked a question based on the expereinces that they have had and if the individual's expressed answer is identical to their experiences then the individual will be declared as someone who has witnessed the truth. They didn't accepted everything and it was not blind faith.

 

I have got no idea what they are made up of, probably light and one would definitely don't find any angels in this body which is made up of flesh. What they mean is one's spiritual body something what one might attain after a rapture occurs and don't try to model them through the eyes it is beyond that, one needs a different epistemological ability to know it.

 

All mythologies give too little information about the origin of gods, light and other stuff like the mind. The fact that the mind exists shows that what ever that stuff was got differentiated if everything is created by the mind then from where did the mind came from. In our mythology it is believed that one will know about the origin when one understands one's true SELF. So I don't know because I don't know myself. Know thyself.

[Realitycheck]

what does this mean?

 

 

It's the way Charlie Sheen should feel after doing a show in New York city, Madison Square Garden, ranting and raving about always "winnniiiiinnnnngggg!", blaming everybody but himself, defying reason at most every turn, trying so hard to live up to his bloated egotistical namesake "TWO and a HALF Men", when, at a ways before the end of the show, 75% of the audience has walked out and left. That's called losing your ego, though being a disillusioned drug addict doesn't guarantee that it actually happened.

[lemur]

It's the way Charlie Sheen should feel after doing a show in New York city, Madison Square Garden, ranting and raving about always "winnniiiiinnnnngggg!", blaming everybody but himself, defying reason at most every turn, trying so hard to live up to his bloated egotistical namesake "TWO and a HALF Men", when, at a ways before the end of the show, 75% of the audience has walked out and left. That's called losing your ego, though being a disillusioned drug addict doesn't guarantee that it actually happened.

That has nothing to do with losing ego. Attack of the ego for being egotistical is ego-re-inforcement. Realize that the social attack of egoism is part of subordinating the ego to social control, which must maintain the ego to use it in service of wordly domination. You could call it "ego-enslavement" or "enslavement through ego-control." Transcending ego involves the individual become actualized in a way that is no longer fixated on concerns of worshipping or hating/rejecting ego/image. It is pure action without regard for identity or self. It is the ability to interact directly without image-issues being involved. Most of the time, people are engaged in ego-battles of identity-assertion and reaction to other people's identity or collective identities. Few people can engage materiality or subjectivity directly, imo, because of their focus on identities and other nominal appearance issues. They cannot transcend social judgment as the ultimate object of all action.

[Realitycheck]

Yeah, but who's saying that there are two party "attacks" involved? A person can realize they are wrong, feel guilty or embarrased or whatever and their ego diminishes, happens all the time.

[keelanz]

who says the ego is a bad thing? i see how it can cause tunnel vision but at the same time if people like winston churchill and galileo galilei didnt have big enough self ego's who knows the nazi's might be in power and science might not exist.

 

an angel is what you make of it.

angels come from self awareness and stay there for no-one was born perfect.

 

Ego's are a necessity of survival, if you believe in creationism then we were made with an ego for a purpose and if you believe in evolution theres a reason we still have an ego.

 

though ive only read the posts above vaguely (im not going to point out every person who makes this view) but people seem to think an angel is what happens with lack of ego which in all fairness makes sense but the ego can play a bigger part of being an angel for example someone without an ego can see how all humans with an ego behave(ungodly) but it doesnt help do anything about it because they dont have an ego to act upon

 

i would argue angels are the ones with the biggest ego and most insight into a collective god, therefor able to actually act upon the collective groups behalf who in most cases cant or wont fight their own cause?

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[lemur]

Yeah, but who's saying that there are two party "attacks" involved? A person can realize they are wrong, feel guilty or embarrased or whatever and their ego diminishes, happens all the time.

Guilt and embarrassment are basically the same as shame and pride, which are the essential egoizing emotions, imo. You go from being focussed on what you're doing to being focussed on yourself. Your own good judgment is replaced by concern with how others may judge you. You become subjugated to external authority.

 

who says the ego is a bad thing? i see how it can cause tunnel vision but at the same time if people like winston churchill and galileo galilei didnt have big enough self ego's who knows the nazi's might be in power and science might not exist.

When people are focussed purely on their egos, they can't do what they truly believe is right (imo) because they are distracted by what the consequences for themselves are in the eyes of others. They reduce themselves to subsidiaries of some other human master, judge, or authority. Ultimately, when you see beyond what anyone else may think to believe in what you have seen to be clearly true at a given moment, you transcend ego to do what you know is right.

[keelanz]

Guilt and embarrassment are basically the same as shame and pride, which are the essential egoizing emotions, imo. You go from being focussed on what you're doing to being focussed on yourself. Your own good judgment is replaced by concern with how others may judge you. You become subjugated to external authority.

 

 

When people are focussed purely on their egos, they can't do what they truly believe is right (imo) because they are distracted by what the consequences for themselves are in the eyes of others. They reduce themselves to subsidiaries of some other human master, judge, or authority. Ultimately, when you see beyond what anyone else may think to believe in what you have seen to be clearly true at a given moment, you transcend ego to do what you know is right.

 

i get what your saying but dont you need the ego to do anything, weather for yourself or the community your ego dictates "wanting" at all, therefor its not the ego which is bad but the thoughts which the ego acts upon?

 

im not saying churchill or galileo are angels but they give us truth in our lives, which is what angels transcend to humans via the word of god?

 

also i think the ego is the part of the mind which makes us want to "act" at all, therefor we must see it as being "right" atleast for our own behalf

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[lemur]

i get what your saying but dont you need the ego to do anything, weather for yourself or the community your ego dictates "wanting" at all, therefor its not the ego which is bad but the thoughts which the ego acts upon?

 

im not saying churchill or galileo are angels but they give us truth in our lives, which is what angels transcend to humans via the word of god?

 

also i think the ego is the part of the mind which makes us want to "act" at all, therefor we must see it as being "right" atleast for our own behalf

I think you're confusing identity with agency itself. "Ego," imo, refers to the identity, i.e. the sense of self that is separate from total freedom to act according to free will. Ego is felt, imo, either individually or collectively when the individual feels pride or shame in how s/he/they are regarded by others. Still, the individual has the ability to act independently of ego, by concerning itself with its own independent judgement beyond considerations of how it will be regarded by others as a result of its choices.

[Realitycheck]

what does this mean?

 

My mistake, I reread your previous question and found that I had not answered it completely. In summary, anyone can choose to be humble and not consumed by an overbearing ego at any given time.

 

What I was trying to explain is that someone with an overbearing, overdominating ego has the ability to become humble at any time, due to whatever reasons that are fitting. Just semantic differences.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Realitycheck

[keelanz]

theres no difference between character traits and the ego other than when the ego's dead so is the character beneath it.......

 

i dont think we have a mutual understanding of what the ego is =D

 

mine is a hybrid of the psychological ego, super ego and the spiritual ego whereby "wanting" makes you "do", you may "want" for a different reason than just pride or short term fulfillment, for example you could "want" the end of religion as to make area's of society more interactive, this may not have a direct implication on you but it would bring you happiness if you could reach that goal......which really is the point i was trying to make, although generally speaking ones ego causes another's loss in one form or another because humans by nature are greedy, its not always true that the ego acts negatively on mankind because its not true that the ego has such short term plans for itself and it may not see "itself" as an entity at all but mankind as an "entity" in which case killing ones own ego or humankinds ego certainly downplays the use of an angel

 

in other words killing your ego doesnt make you any better of a person it simply destroys what you are, if it were actually possible to kill an ego im sure the ones who do it wont be angels but vegetables in a loony asylum.

 

the ones with real big ego's are the politicians, actors, scientists, the people in control of the world who (although you may not agree) are trying to make big changes in the world for the better. (angels?)

 

theres also the other ones with the big ego's like bankers that dont draw a line between right and wrong because if rights left then wrong must be right, they will see their ego as a single entity and act greedily for themselves (demons?)

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz