NOTE: These were written by Uriel, on my website, House of the Fallen
1st Breakdown. What type of beings are Angelics?
Incarnates: those angels who are born into the bodies of humans. this would be where instead of a human soul, you'd have an angel soul.
Manifest: Angels manifest as humans. Though technically not human, they appear human.
Daemon: A human with a spiritual/metaphysical connection to an angel. Though not technical an angel themselves, they get their abilities from the angel they are connected with. The term Daemon here is similar to the computer term, and was used during the middle ages to represent a connected spirit which lies dormant until something causes it to awaken.
Possession: You've heard of demonic possession? Angels can do it too. Unlike a demonic possession, the soul isn't tortured during inhabitation, but experiences a sense of euphoria.
Half-Angel: Those born to one angel parent, one human parent. In the case of the angel parent, this is USUALLY an incarnate angelic, as angels in general cannot copulate. You do get cases similar to the story of Jesus, where an angel appears and causes the human to become pregnant. In these cases the human parent is ALWAYS female, as angels do not have the ability to carry a child.
You can also have some combinations:
Incarnate Manifest: an angelic who manifests as an infant in the womb and stays in human form through life. Because the angel is not technically in a human body, as with a standard incarnate, it isn't considered one, but because it is born as a "human" it "incarnates" as one.
Daemon Possesion: this is where the human for whatever reason has the inability to channel the power offered it by it's Daemon, so in times of need the Daemon takes possession of the mortal's body.
2nd thing: Sub Types
Angels all have specific purposes they were created for, as do angelics. Angelic personalities tend towards what their purpose is, as well as their powers. Listed below are the sub types I know of.
Guardians: this is what I am. Angelics meant to defend humanity from forces of evil. Unlike Saviors, they don't defend anyone specifically, they just fight back the darkness.
Saviors: Angelics who make sure mortals meant to do something important that they haven't accomplished yet. Often referred to, unwittingly, as one's "guardian angel" they are the angelics who pull you from a burning car inexplicably, and vanish into the night.
Destroyers: Angels meant to destroy the entropic, to make way for the new. What else can you say?
Watchers: angelics meant to simply watch, but never interfere. the scouts and historians of the angelic host.
Healers: Angels who heal. Not always just mortals, though this is the most commonly found kind. Some heal the land, for example.
Guides: Angels who help people emotionally and spiritually. They are the angels who inexplicably call you up when you're depressed and suicidal because they were worried about you and wanted to talk.
Muses: Angels meant to inspire humans
These types fit for Nephilim, except in the obvious cases when they'd be reversed. They are the fallen, after all, and still retain their abilities they had as angels, though often these are twisted by the time spent in the abyss.
Contrary to popular belief, Nephilim are NOT demons. Demons are the tortured souls of evil mortals. Nephilim are fallen angels, but angels none the less.
Slayers: Angels meant to end suffering by causing death. For the most part they just lead the souls to the land of the dead, this job fits under several other catagories, but is also it's own subdivision.
Angelkin Courts
Courts:
For lack of a better term here, I'm using courts. Angelic courts are like the 'houses' your angelic type is a part of, and all types and sub types exist among the courts. There are WAY too many courts to list them here, but I'll give some examples.
Animal Courts:
The animal courts are angelics who have an affinity to and rule over the animal kingdom. The higher in the hierarchy, the more likely you are to have multiple animal affinities, the lower the more precise the affinity. It is possible to have an affinity with an animal that's extinct/never existed beyond a concept because they still have reflections in the spiritual world, and because angels have existed since the beginning of creation.
Nature Courts:
Angels who have an affinity with some part of nature. The higher up the hierarchy the more general the affinity (ie water) the lower the more specific (ie streams, or even lower a specific body of water).
Concept Courts:
These courts have affinities with general concepts. Examples would be art, war, song/dance, etc. A lot of Muses come from this group, as it only makes sense.
Your court gives you abilities beyond your type/subtype based on your affinities. For instance, say you're an incarnate healer from the animal courts (specifically canids) you might be able to generally heal, but you're better with dogs/wolves. Because of your affinity perhaps stray dogs trust you more, and those dogs everyone's scared of in the neighborhood don't bother you.
Just to mention, there are courts that go beyond the world and humanity. For example, there are celestial courts, angels who have affinities with specific celestial bodies. A lot of their abilities come from those celestial body affinities. For instance, an angel from the Court of Mars may have warlike abilities. Even a healer could be from the court of mars, and may have some combat abilities that involve non-injuring 'attacks."
Your thoughts??
Full Version: Angelkin
Hmm, interesting. I'm willing to bet most humas live their lives as Daemons though, unable (or unwilling) to use their full potential and become the angel their meant to be...
Hmm, interesting. I'm willing to bet most humas live their lives as Daemons though, unable (or unwilling) to use their full potential and become the angel their meant to be...
Interesting, but for future reference you might want to use a different colour because blue's too hard to read. I had to highlight it to see the words pretty much.
Just a little hard to read.
But the information was good. How would one know about their powers if they were an incarnate or a deamon?
But the information was good. How would one know about their powers if they were an incarnate or a deamon?
I've always been interested about the categories of angels and will be saving your input for future references. Thank you much for the information. =)
i am tracla, earthen angel of this realm. which means i am a fallen angel. usually i am in the being of an animal, but i was called upon this body as a human. how the father of this child knew of me enough to call upon me is a mystery. but he was dedicated enough to sacrifice his son, which he on a way failed, because we both are in here now. sorta like a person with double personalitys. so i ask of you now, what is it that you have to say to this?
multiple personalities is not exactly common but not uncommon either. So what I'm trying to ask is how many angels do you think are actually out there on this earth? I am one of the few with multiple personalities or maybe it is simply my conscience. How do you sort the malfunctioning from the ones with angels beside them? What if they have no God in their heart to begin with?
QUOTE
multiple personalities is not exactly common but not uncommon either. So what I'm trying to ask is how many angels do you think are actually out there on this earth? I am one of the few with multiple personalities or maybe it is simply my conscience. How do you sort the malfunctioning from the ones with angels beside them? What if they have no God in their heart to begin with?
the same question has been raised in the mind of this child and in the mind of myself. in a realm where humans cant, or just wont, tell the difference between reality and the unreal, the question will arise in anyones mind. and it would be quite ignorant for it not to. i am not beside this child, i am living in. and as i had said before, i am of the fallen angels. . which does not mean i am "demonic" or evil, it just means i wasnt willing to follow gods or lucifers will. so now i am here in this realm of neutrality, an odd chaotic neutrality. but in all sadness, i have found that barely any humans are as they should be and defy all the laws in which god has given them. is this a world in which you wish to reside in? it is not one in which i would, but i do because i was called into it. and now i hope to clean it of the things in which should not have been and give back to the things that were. do you understand? i am sorry to say that even though i am angelic in nature to a degree, i myself do not hold god in my heart and am not held in gods hand as i once was. i am not sad of it, and i am not proud. but i am... as i am. what kind are you, i mean angel wise?
Basicly, I must take a leap of faith to believe you are an angel. As with an religion/religious belief. I'm not athiest, I think something is out there and beyond this life but no matter there be a hell or heaven I feel I should do what is right. Lead a moral life. I guess I have the same thoughts as you, if there is a God. I am not all for him. Or maybe it is just my insecurity to believe that allows me to want to follow him. Well anyways...
-If- I am an angel I say...hmm..
?(insert 1st breakdown here)-->Guide-->Concept Court(art)
But how do I figure if I am human or angel? I believe I am human. But I guess I can go out on a limb here.
-If- I am an angel I say...hmm..
?(insert 1st breakdown here)-->Guide-->Concept Court(art)
But how do I figure if I am human or angel? I believe I am human. But I guess I can go out on a limb here.
being of an angel, i do not know hwo you could tell if you were. but of being a fallen angel you may have the thoughts of how humans are, in these days, pathetic. people fighting because they are different, killing each other and themselves. people commiting suicides because they think their lives are unlivable. how people take advantage of others and maelest and/or rape them. it sickens me so much, but what is there i can do? god made these people as they are and gave them the situations that made them the people they are. so in a way i can blame god for their pathetic ways. therefore, iall in all, i am disgusted with god.
I think he simply provides the energy of life. Rather it is society that makes up itself. You'll notice those who grow up and become rapists etc. do not plan on being them. They usually come from lines of some type of abuse. Types of people make other types of peoples, good or bad in the end. But when born, we hold nuetral grounds. I think it is knowledge that allows most to keep their heads without breaking laws.
well, i must agree to that, but it still confuses me as to why humanity must be wrong in its choices. atleast most of them.
Free will and temptation. =)
And the flaw of humanity is that they have to use free will for bad things. i dont belive they deserve to have it.
I know this thread has been dead a year, but I wanted to comment since this is actually my article...
Actually the first version of this was posted on otherkin.com, and has since been posted all over by the originator of this thread, which is fine by me, except that I don't update my posts on her forum, I update them on my own.
Actually the first version of this was posted on otherkin.com, and has since been posted all over by the originator of this thread, which is fine by me, except that I don't update my posts on her forum, I update them on my own.
QUOTE (Ratziel @ Nov 7 2005, 06:16 PM) 
NOTE: These were written by Uriel, on my website, House of the Fallen
1st Breakdown. What type of beings are Angelics?
Incarnates: those angels who are born into the bodies of humans. this would be where instead of a human soul, you'd have an angel soul.
Manifest: Angels manifest as humans. Though technically not human, they appear human.
Daemon: A human with a spiritual/metaphysical connection to an angel. Though not technical an angel themselves, they get their abilities from the angel they are connected with. The term Daemon here is similar to the computer term, and was used during the middle ages to represent a connected spirit which lies dormant until something causes it to awaken.
Possession: You've heard of demonic possession? Angels can do it too. Unlike a demonic possession, the soul isn't tortured during inhabitation, but experiences a sense of euphoria.
Half-Angel: Those born to one angel parent, one human parent. In the case of the angel parent, this is USUALLY an incarnate angelic, as angels in general cannot copulate. You do get cases similar to the story of Jesus, where an angel appears and causes the human to become pregnant. In these cases the human parent is ALWAYS female, as angels do not have the ability to carry a child.
You can also have some combinations:
Incarnate Manifest: an angelic who manifests as an infant in the womb and stays in human form through life. Because the angel is not technically in a human body, as with a standard incarnate, it isn't considered one, but because it is born as a "human" it "incarnates" as one.
Daemon Possesion: this is where the human for whatever reason has the inability to channel the power offered it by it's Daemon, so in times of need the Daemon takes possession of the mortal's body.
2nd thing: Sub Types
Angels all have specific purposes they were created for, as do angelics. Angelic personalities tend towards what their purpose is, as well as their powers. Listed below are the sub types I know of.
Guardians: this is what I am. Angelics meant to defend humanity from forces of evil. Unlike Saviors, they don't defend anyone specifically, they just fight back the darkness.
Saviors: Angelics who make sure mortals meant to do something important that they haven't accomplished yet. Often referred to, unwittingly, as one's "guardian angel" they are the angelics who pull you from a burning car inexplicably, and vanish into the night.
Destroyers: Angels meant to destroy the entropic, to make way for the new. What else can you say?
Watchers: angelics meant to simply watch, but never interfere. the scouts and historians of the angelic host.
Healers: Angels who heal. Not always just mortals, though this is the most commonly found kind. Some heal the land, for example.
Guides: Angels who help people emotionally and spiritually. They are the angels who inexplicably call you up when you're depressed and suicidal because they were worried about you and wanted to talk.
Muses: Angels meant to inspire humans
These types fit for Nephilim, except in the obvious cases when they'd be reversed. They are the fallen, after all, and still retain their abilities they had as angels, though often these are twisted by the time spent in the abyss.
Contrary to popular belief, Nephilim are NOT demons. Demons are the tortured souls of evil mortals. Nephilim are fallen angels, but angels none the less.
Slayers: Angels meant to end suffering by causing death. For the most part they just lead the souls to the land of the dead, this job fits under several other catagories, but is also it's own subdivision.
Angelkin Courts
Courts:
For lack of a better term here, I'm using courts. Angelic courts are like the 'houses' your angelic type is a part of, and all types and sub types exist among the courts. There are WAY too many courts to list them here, but I'll give some examples.
Animal Courts:
The animal courts are angelics who have an affinity to and rule over the animal kingdom. The higher in the hierarchy, the more likely you are to have multiple animal affinities, the lower the more precise the affinity. It is possible to have an affinity with an animal that's extinct/never existed beyond a concept because they still have reflections in the spiritual world, and because angels have existed since the beginning of creation.
Nature Courts:
Angels who have an affinity with some part of nature. The higher up the hierarchy the more general the affinity (ie water) the lower the more specific (ie streams, or even lower a specific body of water).
Concept Courts:
These courts have affinities with general concepts. Examples would be art, war, song/dance, etc. A lot of Muses come from this group, as it only makes sense.
Your court gives you abilities beyond your type/subtype based on your affinities. For instance, say you're an incarnate healer from the animal courts (specifically canids) you might be able to generally heal, but you're better with dogs/wolves. Because of your affinity perhaps stray dogs trust you more, and those dogs everyone's scared of in the neighborhood don't bother you.
Just to mention, there are courts that go beyond the world and humanity. For example, there are celestial courts, angels who have affinities with specific celestial bodies. A lot of their abilities come from those celestial body affinities. For instance, an angel from the Court of Mars may have warlike abilities. Even a healer could be from the court of mars, and may have some combat abilities that involve non-injuring 'attacks."
Your thoughts??
1st Breakdown. What type of beings are Angelics?
Incarnates: those angels who are born into the bodies of humans. this would be where instead of a human soul, you'd have an angel soul.
Manifest: Angels manifest as humans. Though technically not human, they appear human.
Daemon: A human with a spiritual/metaphysical connection to an angel. Though not technical an angel themselves, they get their abilities from the angel they are connected with. The term Daemon here is similar to the computer term, and was used during the middle ages to represent a connected spirit which lies dormant until something causes it to awaken.
Possession: You've heard of demonic possession? Angels can do it too. Unlike a demonic possession, the soul isn't tortured during inhabitation, but experiences a sense of euphoria.
Half-Angel: Those born to one angel parent, one human parent. In the case of the angel parent, this is USUALLY an incarnate angelic, as angels in general cannot copulate. You do get cases similar to the story of Jesus, where an angel appears and causes the human to become pregnant. In these cases the human parent is ALWAYS female, as angels do not have the ability to carry a child.
You can also have some combinations:
Incarnate Manifest: an angelic who manifests as an infant in the womb and stays in human form through life. Because the angel is not technically in a human body, as with a standard incarnate, it isn't considered one, but because it is born as a "human" it "incarnates" as one.
Daemon Possesion: this is where the human for whatever reason has the inability to channel the power offered it by it's Daemon, so in times of need the Daemon takes possession of the mortal's body.
2nd thing: Sub Types
Angels all have specific purposes they were created for, as do angelics. Angelic personalities tend towards what their purpose is, as well as their powers. Listed below are the sub types I know of.
Guardians: this is what I am. Angelics meant to defend humanity from forces of evil. Unlike Saviors, they don't defend anyone specifically, they just fight back the darkness.
Saviors: Angelics who make sure mortals meant to do something important that they haven't accomplished yet. Often referred to, unwittingly, as one's "guardian angel" they are the angelics who pull you from a burning car inexplicably, and vanish into the night.
Destroyers: Angels meant to destroy the entropic, to make way for the new. What else can you say?
Watchers: angelics meant to simply watch, but never interfere. the scouts and historians of the angelic host.
Healers: Angels who heal. Not always just mortals, though this is the most commonly found kind. Some heal the land, for example.
Guides: Angels who help people emotionally and spiritually. They are the angels who inexplicably call you up when you're depressed and suicidal because they were worried about you and wanted to talk.
Muses: Angels meant to inspire humans
These types fit for Nephilim, except in the obvious cases when they'd be reversed. They are the fallen, after all, and still retain their abilities they had as angels, though often these are twisted by the time spent in the abyss.
Contrary to popular belief, Nephilim are NOT demons. Demons are the tortured souls of evil mortals. Nephilim are fallen angels, but angels none the less.
Slayers: Angels meant to end suffering by causing death. For the most part they just lead the souls to the land of the dead, this job fits under several other catagories, but is also it's own subdivision.
Angelkin Courts
Courts:
For lack of a better term here, I'm using courts. Angelic courts are like the 'houses' your angelic type is a part of, and all types and sub types exist among the courts. There are WAY too many courts to list them here, but I'll give some examples.
Animal Courts:
The animal courts are angelics who have an affinity to and rule over the animal kingdom. The higher in the hierarchy, the more likely you are to have multiple animal affinities, the lower the more precise the affinity. It is possible to have an affinity with an animal that's extinct/never existed beyond a concept because they still have reflections in the spiritual world, and because angels have existed since the beginning of creation.
Nature Courts:
Angels who have an affinity with some part of nature. The higher up the hierarchy the more general the affinity (ie water) the lower the more specific (ie streams, or even lower a specific body of water).
Concept Courts:
These courts have affinities with general concepts. Examples would be art, war, song/dance, etc. A lot of Muses come from this group, as it only makes sense.
Your court gives you abilities beyond your type/subtype based on your affinities. For instance, say you're an incarnate healer from the animal courts (specifically canids) you might be able to generally heal, but you're better with dogs/wolves. Because of your affinity perhaps stray dogs trust you more, and those dogs everyone's scared of in the neighborhood don't bother you.
Just to mention, there are courts that go beyond the world and humanity. For example, there are celestial courts, angels who have affinities with specific celestial bodies. A lot of their abilities come from those celestial body affinities. For instance, an angel from the Court of Mars may have warlike abilities. Even a healer could be from the court of mars, and may have some combat abilities that involve non-injuring 'attacks."
Your thoughts??
I would like to know this Uriel's source.
I have no data that synchs up with any of this.
and it sounds like something out of Constantine so its suspicious to me.
"original source please"
QUOTE (Rhuen @ Dec 19 2006, 11:21 AM)
I would like to know this Uriel's source.
I have no data that synchs up with any of this.
and it sounds like something out of Constantine so its suspicious to me.
"original source please"
I have no data that synchs up with any of this.
and it sounds like something out of Constantine so its suspicious to me.
"original source please"
This was written before Constantine came out as a movie, and I'd never seen the comics. A source, well if I explained my 'source' nobody ever believes me anyway, so whats the point? The information is there, take or leave it, it really doesn't matter to me lol
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Dec 19 2006, 08:44 PM)
This was written before Constantine came out as a movie, and I'd never seen the comics. A source, well if I explained my 'source' nobody ever believes me anyway, so whats the point? The information is there, take or leave it, it really doesn't matter to me lol
then the information is not legitimate. Unlike "abstract" topics. a topic that refers to something such as types of angels or what not requires a "reputable source" such as the religions from which the creatures come from.
put it this way: saying that angels come in such and such groups but these groups not recognized by any of the religions that believe in angels would be like some one saying that Kami are aliens from the horsehead nebula. Or that Djinn come in various elemental forms (D&D does this but Islam doesn't).
In other words while we may make up all sorts of things for various creatures(otherkin) from around the world for our own purposes. You can't claim something as "fact" for one of them that is not recognized by the group(s) that have them in their theology.
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Dec 12 2006, 10:04 PM)
I know this thread has been dead a year, but I wanted to comment since this is actually my article...
Actually the first version of this was posted on otherkin.com, and has since been posted all over by the originator of this thread, which is fine by me, except that I don't update my posts on her forum, I update them on my own.
Actually the first version of this was posted on otherkin.com, and has since been posted all over by the originator of this thread, which is fine by me, except that I don't update my posts on her forum, I update them on my own.
what are you talking about?
I agree with Rhuen, this does not conform to any of the ancient dogma or writings in religion concerning angels. It strikes me as a modified version of angelic lore designed to "sound cool" and allow for the claim of angelic status.
It was enjoyable to read however.
~N~
It was enjoyable to read however.
~N~
first question why does everyone seem to have soo much trouble spelling the angel of death's name correctly? it is azreal (pronounced az RAY al) and it is a he not she azreal prefers to be considered a male entity if you do not believe me ask him he is easy enough to contact
second djinn do come in different elemental forms and are not muslim in origin but asian they are of both chinese and japanese but are also prevelant in the middle east.
remember also that islam is a relatively new religion and has no real spiritual base. like the mormon religion it is based on one mans word.
another note is that because one type of otherkin is in one theology and not another does not mean that the theology it is in cannot be called fact. it may be because the creature is not common or does not habitate that area of the world i doubt a desert living people would be familiar with a type of elf common only in wooded ares
second djinn do come in different elemental forms and are not muslim in origin but asian they are of both chinese and japanese but are also prevelant in the middle east.
remember also that islam is a relatively new religion and has no real spiritual base. like the mormon religion it is based on one mans word.
another note is that because one type of otherkin is in one theology and not another does not mean that the theology it is in cannot be called fact. it may be because the creature is not common or does not habitate that area of the world i doubt a desert living people would be familiar with a type of elf common only in wooded ares
Rhuen: I only have one thing to say regarding your reply, and that's simply that I didn't post it HERE in the first place, I was just stating that the article is, in fact, copyrighted by me.
With regards to dogma, jadeslayer makes a good point. Just because its not in dogma that pertains to said beings, doesn't make it untrue. After all, technically all religions are created by man, even if one was to say it was 'started' by a deity, they're all adapted BY humans and evolve over time. Who is any human to say they completely understand angels? Going from a Christian perspective there's not a whole lot about angels in the bible.
This article was actually compiled after discussion with many other angelkin, and there's a reason it is a very common article, and people copy and paste it all over (which is why I google the article once in a while to make sure it is properly credited).
On a side note to jadeslayer: its actually spelled Azrael, or actually Ezra'il and means "whom God helps" and a lot of angelkin claim to be Azrael, I know one of them specifically who pretty well fits the bill, though he specifically denotes that he is actually split up into three parts.
With regards to dogma, jadeslayer makes a good point. Just because its not in dogma that pertains to said beings, doesn't make it untrue. After all, technically all religions are created by man, even if one was to say it was 'started' by a deity, they're all adapted BY humans and evolve over time. Who is any human to say they completely understand angels? Going from a Christian perspective there's not a whole lot about angels in the bible.
This article was actually compiled after discussion with many other angelkin, and there's a reason it is a very common article, and people copy and paste it all over (which is why I google the article once in a while to make sure it is properly credited).
On a side note to jadeslayer: its actually spelled Azrael, or actually Ezra'il and means "whom God helps" and a lot of angelkin claim to be Azrael, I know one of them specifically who pretty well fits the bill, though he specifically denotes that he is actually split up into three parts.
Just let us know if you want it removed, Sarim.
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 9 2007, 02:38 AM)
copy and paste it all over (which is why I google the article once
On a side note to jadeslayer: its actually spelled Azrael, or actually Ezra'il and means "whom God helps" and a lot of angelkin claim to be Azrael, I know one of them specifically who pretty well fits the bill, though he specifically denotes that he is actually split up into three parts.
On a side note to jadeslayer: its actually spelled Azrael, or actually Ezra'il and means "whom God helps" and a lot of angelkin claim to be Azrael, I know one of them specifically who pretty well fits the bill, though he specifically denotes that he is actually split up into three parts.
ja yer right about the spelling a combination of a faulty keyboard and lack of time turned me into a hypocrite in that i was bitching of people not spelling his name correctly. I have one qualm in that Ezra'il was actually another character in the bible who has his own story. azrael is not at all in gods favor in that he is Lucifer's personal angel of death the one who collects souls condemned to hell. he was the first to follow Lucifer out of heaven and into hell. he is also the first repentant angel and is currently trying to find his way back into heaven. the method given to him is that he must find a willing replacement and trade "existence" if you will with that person and live the rest of that bodies life as a mortal human during this life if he lives his life truly doing his best to be a "good person" and is acceptant (not that it matters he knows and believes already) of the crucification story he will be returned to heaven but will never again be an angel i know this from talking to him directly he is my guardian angel.
another note to this is that if you look enough you will find evidence of his presence in many places such as a ghost ship that sunk in a typhoon in the Mediterranean sea while carrying a cargo of kidnapped children being taken to slave markets. and the cat on the smurfs. it is interesting to see how certain entities are allowing their presence to be known in different ways by manipulating the thoughts of humans.
last note here is that the bible is very descript, even in the remnants we have to call a bible today of the angels naming and describing every heaven borne type of angel of which there are only six. if you search it well enough you will find all you need to understand the angels. it would be helpful to read books that were written near the beginning of the catholic churches power or even from before it. they have descriptions of angel based on books that have since been removed and of demons as well. it would only add to the mental picture of what our current understanding allows, but when we die i guess we will all know how much of it was true
Well the bible is the bible. There are a lot of 'biblical' texts that were never actually part of the bible. The gnostic gospels, the apocrypha, things like that. However, those are not considered general 'Christian' dogma so can't be counted as such.
Christian dogma is based pretty much entirely off the teachings of Christ combined with some older texts (though less so) and really doesn't contain a lot of real information about angels. The new testament has little interest in angelic hierarchy.
While discussing dogma with regards to angels, I would also like to point out that a lot of it is contradictory from faith to faith.
Regarding Azrael, the name is spelled Izrail, Izrael, Azrail, and Azrael, and is transliterated into Arabic as Ezra'il, its a reference to the same being, just a different language ;)
Beyond that, languages are funny with regards to all angelic names. After all, Lucifer is the Roman Latin version of that name. In Greek its Phosphoros. For the record, btw, Lucifer is not Satan and isn't associated with Satan, that didn't come until later interpretations of the bible influenced by Dante's The Divine Comedy. Originally Lucifer was more associated with the likes of Prometheus, gifting humanity with fire and light (and thus knowledge and 'enlightenment') and being punished for it. Hence the name "Light-Bearer".
Satan, more of a title meaning "adversary", is actually a reference to Mephisto/Mansemat (hebrew/gnostic respectively) who is the one who refused to bow down before humanity. :)
Christian dogma is based pretty much entirely off the teachings of Christ combined with some older texts (though less so) and really doesn't contain a lot of real information about angels. The new testament has little interest in angelic hierarchy.
While discussing dogma with regards to angels, I would also like to point out that a lot of it is contradictory from faith to faith.
Regarding Azrael, the name is spelled Izrail, Izrael, Azrail, and Azrael, and is transliterated into Arabic as Ezra'il, its a reference to the same being, just a different language ;)
Beyond that, languages are funny with regards to all angelic names. After all, Lucifer is the Roman Latin version of that name. In Greek its Phosphoros. For the record, btw, Lucifer is not Satan and isn't associated with Satan, that didn't come until later interpretations of the bible influenced by Dante's The Divine Comedy. Originally Lucifer was more associated with the likes of Prometheus, gifting humanity with fire and light (and thus knowledge and 'enlightenment') and being punished for it. Hence the name "Light-Bearer".
Satan, more of a title meaning "adversary", is actually a reference to Mephisto/Mansemat (hebrew/gnostic respectively) who is the one who refused to bow down before humanity. :)
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 9 2007, 07:24 PM)
Well the bible is the bible. There are a lot of 'biblical' texts that were never actually part of the bible. The gnostic gospels, the apocrypha, things like that. However, those are not considered general 'Christian' dogma so can't be counted as such.
Christian dogma is based pretty much entirely off the teachings of Christ combined with some older texts (though less so) and really doesn't contain a lot of real information about angels. The new testament has little interest in angelic hierarchy.
While discussing dogma with regards to angels, I would also like to point out that a lot of it is contradictory from faith to faith.
Regarding Azrael, the name is spelled Izrail, Izrael, Azrail, and Azrael, and is transliterated into Arabic as Ezra'il, its a reference to the same being, just a different language ;)
Beyond that, languages are funny with regards to all angelic names. After all, Lucifer is the Roman Latin version of that name. In Greek its Phosphoros. For the record, btw, Lucifer is not Satan and isn't associated with Satan, that didn't come until later interpretations of the bible influenced by Dante's The Divine Comedy. Originally Lucifer was more associated with the likes of Prometheus, gifting humanity with fire and light (and thus knowledge and 'enlightenment') and being punished for it. Hence the name "Light-Bearer".
Satan, more of a title meaning "adversary", is actually a reference to Mephisto/Mansemat (hebrew/gnostic respectively) who is the one who refused to bow down before humanity. :)
Christian dogma is based pretty much entirely off the teachings of Christ combined with some older texts (though less so) and really doesn't contain a lot of real information about angels. The new testament has little interest in angelic hierarchy.
While discussing dogma with regards to angels, I would also like to point out that a lot of it is contradictory from faith to faith.
Regarding Azrael, the name is spelled Izrail, Izrael, Azrail, and Azrael, and is transliterated into Arabic as Ezra'il, its a reference to the same being, just a different language ;)
Beyond that, languages are funny with regards to all angelic names. After all, Lucifer is the Roman Latin version of that name. In Greek its Phosphoros. For the record, btw, Lucifer is not Satan and isn't associated with Satan, that didn't come until later interpretations of the bible influenced by Dante's The Divine Comedy. Originally Lucifer was more associated with the likes of Prometheus, gifting humanity with fire and light (and thus knowledge and 'enlightenment') and being punished for it. Hence the name "Light-Bearer".
Satan, more of a title meaning "adversary", is actually a reference to Mephisto/Mansemat (hebrew/gnostic respectively) who is the one who refused to bow down before humanity. :)
on all of these topics i have issue
first the bible is not Christian it is used by Christian religions it is not entirely based on the teachings of Christ as this is only four books of the new testament
it is a gathering of texts that are meant to record the history of mans struggle to stay close to god and away from the devil.
the apocrypha is in the current text although it is better known as revelations.
additional point. catholicism is not a Christian religion it is a worksbased religion that is based on worship of entities other than god such as the virgin mary and Christ. that i include Christ in here may raise question but i would like to point out that Christ is the SON of god, not god himself. this is how Christ was able to atone for sins and god didn't just "wash em away" himself.
next i note that the new testament shows much of angelic hierarchy if you read the three johns and revelations you will find plenty
on the name lucifer i will agree that it is a translation of his origional name though i will point out that lucifer is refered to as lucifer, satan, and belzebub among other names. it is stated that lucifer was the most beautiful of all angels and gods favorite untill he refused to bow to GOD not humanity. he wished to take over gods throne and was cast from heaven for his troubles. the name satan refers to his conflict with god and the deal they made to wage a "war" for souls.
the name lucifer means bearer of light and is where the term "angel of light" comes from. he was the first angel in charge of our sun as well as casting the light that "shines throughout heaven."
next the different names you posted for azrael are names for different entities every one of them.
as i stated god has no reason to help azrael as he is a fallen angel so to name him with a name meaning "who god helps" is retarded or at least poorly thought through.
next point in this is that if you are aware of the age of christianity and of the age of the texts on which it is based you will see that the texts are a whole hell of alot older. so i encourage the thought that christianity was not the aim of these texts. it may also be an aid to remind that jesus was not christian but jewish.
last point is that if you notice when the first religion based on these texts were formed all of them were included as time passed those texts not convenient to the aims of the CATHOLIC church were not destroyed but archived and removed from teachings and forbidden as heresy.
points to ponder
Well, Uriel, it seems you know your Biblical history. Unfortunately, that framework is only as real as the belief of those who ascribe to it, which isn't much in my case. I tend to view "angels", "demons", and their ilk as sub-categories of "supernatural beings", with their own individual prejudices and personalities. It tends to cause issues for occultists who obsess too much about it.
I was actually describing the name as based on hebrew transliteration. Azrael in hebrew means "who god helps" so in reference, you most likely have that name confused with another angel.
Apocrypha is, by definition, early Judeo-Christian cannon not included in the bible or of dubious authenticity, but included in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and thus includes nothing in the bible. Revelations is not apocrypha.
Christian, by definition, means you believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for your sins on the cross. It does not, by definition, include whether or not you believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God as his own son (I tend to agree with you, that Jesus was the SON, not the incarnation) and since Catholics DO believe that Jesus was the son of God (even if its God incarnated into his own earthly son) and died for the sins of humanity on the cross, they count as Christians. I would also like to point out that worship of the saints (IE the Virgin Mary, etc) is considered to be Catholic saint cults, and the practice is actually frowned upon by the catholic church.
Side note: in Gnosticism it is believed that as Jesus was the son of God, so are we all, and all contain the spark of divinity, and should follow Jesus' example and attempt to bring out that divine spark and/or become one with it.
With regards to Lucifer's 'associated' names, those are often misconceptions, just like what you were describing with Azrael, though the names are associated with him, they're not actually him.
For reference, the Hebrew version of Lucifer would be along the lines of Notanor, Notanori, Notanur, Notanuri, Nosaor, Nosaori, Nosaur, Nosauri, Ornosa, Orinosa, Urnotan, Urinotan, Ornotan, Orinotan, Urnosa, or Urinosa. They all translate to pretty close to the same meaning :)
And to your final statements, as well as Alaras, I would like to note that the whole concept behind what I was discussing is that humanity adapts religion and texts to suit their needs and their agendas, and was merely pointing out that just because my original article (as that's what this thread is a discussion of) does not entirely fit any 'official' church doctrine of any religion, it doesn't make it untrue. :) Though I am Christian (and actually a minister) I ascribe to the belief that everyone has their own path to their own truths, and thus the original article was written based from a perspective that was not faith based, as not all angels are of a Judeo-Christian origin.
Apocrypha is, by definition, early Judeo-Christian cannon not included in the bible or of dubious authenticity, but included in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and thus includes nothing in the bible. Revelations is not apocrypha.
Christian, by definition, means you believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for your sins on the cross. It does not, by definition, include whether or not you believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God as his own son (I tend to agree with you, that Jesus was the SON, not the incarnation) and since Catholics DO believe that Jesus was the son of God (even if its God incarnated into his own earthly son) and died for the sins of humanity on the cross, they count as Christians. I would also like to point out that worship of the saints (IE the Virgin Mary, etc) is considered to be Catholic saint cults, and the practice is actually frowned upon by the catholic church.
Side note: in Gnosticism it is believed that as Jesus was the son of God, so are we all, and all contain the spark of divinity, and should follow Jesus' example and attempt to bring out that divine spark and/or become one with it.
With regards to Lucifer's 'associated' names, those are often misconceptions, just like what you were describing with Azrael, though the names are associated with him, they're not actually him.
For reference, the Hebrew version of Lucifer would be along the lines of Notanor, Notanori, Notanur, Notanuri, Nosaor, Nosaori, Nosaur, Nosauri, Ornosa, Orinosa, Urnotan, Urinotan, Ornotan, Orinotan, Urnosa, or Urinosa. They all translate to pretty close to the same meaning :)
And to your final statements, as well as Alaras, I would like to note that the whole concept behind what I was discussing is that humanity adapts religion and texts to suit their needs and their agendas, and was merely pointing out that just because my original article (as that's what this thread is a discussion of) does not entirely fit any 'official' church doctrine of any religion, it doesn't make it untrue. :) Though I am Christian (and actually a minister) I ascribe to the belief that everyone has their own path to their own truths, and thus the original article was written based from a perspective that was not faith based, as not all angels are of a Judeo-Christian origin.
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 9 2007, 11:29 AM)
Apocrypha is, by definition, early Judeo-Christian cannon not included in the bible or of dubious authenticity, but included in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and thus includes nothing in the bible. Revelations is not apocrypha.
Err, I meant: "early Judeochristian writings not included in canon"
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 9 2007, 08:44 PM)
Err, I meant: "early Judeochristian writings not included in canon"
one for each of us now. you said you are a minister. of what denomination? im glad you can be open mined about peoples having different versions of "truth and the path to it" as many members of clergy are not. do you know when the last book of the current version of the bible was written though? i ask this because it was long before any hint of a christian religion came about. and that would bear great weight when considering if the texts were judeochristian. i would also (without any malice or offense intended) like to point out that clergy such as your self are the type that originally caused the catholic archives to be sealed in the first place. great concentration on the "superstitious hogwash" as i have stated before was the original cause. now i ask since your interest is so great to assist me in a movement to open those vaults to the public again.
this is not a request confined to any one person i would appreciate the help of you all
QUOTE (jadeslayer @ Jan 10 2007, 09:50 AM)
one for each of us now. you said you are a minister. of what denomination? im glad you can be open mined about peoples having different versions of "truth and the path to it" as many members of clergy are not. do you know when the last book of the current version of the bible was written though? i ask this because it was long before any hint of a christian religion came about. and that would bear great weight when considering if the texts were judeochristian. i would also (without any malice or offense intended) like to point out that clergy such as your self are the type that originally caused the catholic archives to be sealed in the first place. great concentration on the "superstitious hogwash" as i have stated before was the original cause. now i ask since your interest is so great to assist me in a movement to open those vaults to the public again.
this is not a request confined to any one person i would appreciate the help of you all
this is not a request confined to any one person i would appreciate the help of you all
I'm a non denominational minister (true non denominational by the way, most 'non denominational' churches actually just don't want to be associated with a standard denomination but still teach very strictly)
And technically it was impossible for any of the books of new testament to be written before Christianity started, because really Christianity started with the apostles teaching what Christ taught, and what happened to him. With regards to Judaical texts, most of their history was oral, it wasn't until much later that they started actually recording it, first on clay tablets, later on papyrus and scrolls.
With regards to the texts that were locked away, clergy 'like me' aren't the ones who locked it away. The clergy who did thusly are the ones I previously described, the ones who decided they didn't fit into their point of view, or taught something they didn't want people to know about. A lot of the supposedly locked away texts or non canonical texts, however, are still taught. When studying in seminal school priests still learn a lot of the apocrypha and jewish texts that aren't part of the bible. They're not really focused on, but they still learn it because the christian form of the bible doesn't contain a lot of the stuff you hear about in church.
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 10 2007, 11:25 PM)
With regards to the texts that were locked away, clergy 'like me' aren't the ones who locked it away. The clergy who did thusly are the ones I previously described, the ones who decided they didn't fit into their point of view, or taught something they didn't want people to know about. A lot of the supposedly locked away texts or non canonical texts, however, are still taught. When studying in seminal school priests still learn a lot of the apocrypha and jewish texts that aren't part of the bible. They're not really focused on, but they still learn it because the christian form of the bible doesn't contain a lot of the stuff you hear about in church.
ummm well first i believe i was misunderstood. i meant not that your type of clergy (whom i appreciate) locked the texts away but that were the cause of other clergy (whom i am against) to lock them away. your interest in the "occult" is the same attitude that became frowned upon and was the cause of the change in doctrine. the concentration on "superstition" it inspired in the common public caused a deviation from the original purpose of the message which was concentration on the actions of christ and being like him and believing in him. although the actions taken were far from the best possible choice the intent was at first well meaning. so i just am saying that i want to cause the vaults to reopen and i really dont care who is responsible for their closing in the first place.
but i have a question about what is taught in church not being in the bible myself and every minister, priest, monk, pastor, etc i have ever known or heard have backed up every statement with a verse from the bible quoted verbatim with chapter and verse refrence. granted on a couple occasions the verses were used out of context but the point is ive never heard of a church teaching what is not in the bible excepting cult impersonations of christian worship.
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 10 2007, 11:25 PM)
With regards to the texts that were locked away, clergy 'like me' aren't the ones who locked it away. The clergy who did thusly are the ones I previously described, the ones who decided they didn't fit into their point of view, or taught something they didn't want people to know about. A lot of the supposedly locked away texts or non canonical texts, however, are still taught. When studying in seminal school priests still learn a lot of the apocrypha and jewish texts that aren't part of the bible. They're not really focused on, but they still learn it because the christian form of the bible doesn't contain a lot of the stuff you hear about in church.
ummm well first i believe i was misunderstood. i meant not that your type of clergy (whom i appreciate) locked the texts away but that were the cause of other clergy (whom i am against) to lock them away. your interest in the "occult" is the same attitude that became frowned upon and was the cause of the change in doctrine. the concentration on "superstition" it inspired in the common public caused a deviation from the original purpose of the message which was concentration on the actions of christ and being like him and believing in him. although the actions taken were far from the best possible choice the intent was at first well meaning. so i just am saying that i want to cause the vaults to reopen and i really dont care who is responsible for their closing in the first place.
but i have a question about what is taught in church not being in the bible myself and every minister, priest, monk, pastor, etc i have ever known or heard have backed up every statement with a verse from the bible quoted verbatim with chapter and verse refrence. granted on a couple occasions the verses were used out of context but the point is ive never heard of a church teaching what is not in the bible excepting cultic impersonations of christian worship.
Oo it looks like a double post within a post so I'll just use the fast reply.
Anyway, interest in the occult? Well that depends on your definition. The 'Church' (as a political body) has, for a long time, accepted and believed in the supernatural. Usually fearfully. But really, their point in the FIRST place was to pretty much recruit as many followers as they could. Altering (or placing) holidays to fit with the people they were trying to convert (which is why All Hallows Eve falls on Samhain, and Christmas near Yule, etc) even up to the Holy Trinity as a lot of the pagan faiths (especially the Celts) had a trinity deity. It wasn't til much later where the super "faithful" guys decided they didn't want others learning anything. What I mean is, people who become faithful in ignorance, the kind of people who supported things like the crusades. People with the same religious fanaticism as Muslim terrorists, except Christian.
The main reason they locked things away, however, is when they were contradictory to the Church's teachings, or their authenticity was questionable. An example would be the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas which is completely contradictory to the teachings of the church.
With regards to pastors, monks, priests, etc teaching only from the bible, well this is what my point was. They may learn about other texts but they are not considered canon. Lilith would be an example of this, as she appears in the bible but in translation was referred to as a screech owl (KJV) and is generally not considered to be a canonical figure by the Catholic Church. However, getting hidden texts released would be very difficult for anyone to do, as they are mostly held by the Vatican, and the Pope and the Cardinals most certainly wouldn't release texts that counter their teachings. If its Judeo-Christian mystical teachings you're after, check out Kabala or the Keys of Solomon. If its writings that counter the workings of the church check out the aforementioned Gospel of St. Thomas.
I would like to note, however, that I find it interesting what the Church decides to persecute with regards to sinful acts. An example would be their reaction to homosexuality. I mostly find this funny because while you see all these Christians freaking out about gay marriage, I have not once seen a Christian protester outside a Red Lobster, and its in the same book of the bible (Leviticus) that says that being gay is 'bad' (btw, read it again, doesn't say being gay is bad, technically it only says having gay sex is bad, and only among men, but even that's up for interpretation) says that eating anything that comes from the sea except pretty much NORMAL fish is evil. So yeah, lobster, crab, shrimp, prawns, all that, sinful to eat. Technically the only things that are okay to eat are pretty much beef, fish, and I *think* mutton. Two people I know work at Red Lobster. I should set up a protest simply to point out that a lot of Christians only pay attention to half the bible, and only persecute those who are, as a standard, different from them. Oh wait, that's right, Jesus died for our sins, so its okay to eat lobster! Yay! Oh, and its okay to be gay, too, by the same standards. (sorry for the sarcasm throughout this last paragraph)
Anyway, interest in the occult? Well that depends on your definition. The 'Church' (as a political body) has, for a long time, accepted and believed in the supernatural. Usually fearfully. But really, their point in the FIRST place was to pretty much recruit as many followers as they could. Altering (or placing) holidays to fit with the people they were trying to convert (which is why All Hallows Eve falls on Samhain, and Christmas near Yule, etc) even up to the Holy Trinity as a lot of the pagan faiths (especially the Celts) had a trinity deity. It wasn't til much later where the super "faithful" guys decided they didn't want others learning anything. What I mean is, people who become faithful in ignorance, the kind of people who supported things like the crusades. People with the same religious fanaticism as Muslim terrorists, except Christian.
The main reason they locked things away, however, is when they were contradictory to the Church's teachings, or their authenticity was questionable. An example would be the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas which is completely contradictory to the teachings of the church.
With regards to pastors, monks, priests, etc teaching only from the bible, well this is what my point was. They may learn about other texts but they are not considered canon. Lilith would be an example of this, as she appears in the bible but in translation was referred to as a screech owl (KJV) and is generally not considered to be a canonical figure by the Catholic Church. However, getting hidden texts released would be very difficult for anyone to do, as they are mostly held by the Vatican, and the Pope and the Cardinals most certainly wouldn't release texts that counter their teachings. If its Judeo-Christian mystical teachings you're after, check out Kabala or the Keys of Solomon. If its writings that counter the workings of the church check out the aforementioned Gospel of St. Thomas.
I would like to note, however, that I find it interesting what the Church decides to persecute with regards to sinful acts. An example would be their reaction to homosexuality. I mostly find this funny because while you see all these Christians freaking out about gay marriage, I have not once seen a Christian protester outside a Red Lobster, and its in the same book of the bible (Leviticus) that says that being gay is 'bad' (btw, read it again, doesn't say being gay is bad, technically it only says having gay sex is bad, and only among men, but even that's up for interpretation) says that eating anything that comes from the sea except pretty much NORMAL fish is evil. So yeah, lobster, crab, shrimp, prawns, all that, sinful to eat. Technically the only things that are okay to eat are pretty much beef, fish, and I *think* mutton. Two people I know work at Red Lobster. I should set up a protest simply to point out that a lot of Christians only pay attention to half the bible, and only persecute those who are, as a standard, different from them. Oh wait, that's right, Jesus died for our sins, so its okay to eat lobster! Yay! Oh, and its okay to be gay, too, by the same standards. (sorry for the sarcasm throughout this last paragraph)
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 11 2007, 04:56 PM)
Oo it looks like a double post within a post so I'll just use the fast reply.
Anyway, interest in the occult? Well that depends on your definition. The 'Church' (as a political body) has, for a long time, accepted and believed in the supernatural. Usually fearfully. But really, their point in the FIRST place was to pretty much recruit as many followers as they could. Altering (or placing) holidays to fit with the people they were trying to convert (which is why All Hallows Eve falls on Samhain, and Christmas near Yule, etc) even up to the Holy Trinity as a lot of the pagan faiths (especially the Celts) had a trinity deity. It wasn't til much later where the super "faithful" guys decided they didn't want others learning anything. What I mean is, people who become faithful in ignorance, the kind of people who supported things like the crusades. People with the same religious fanaticism as Muslim terrorists, except Christian.
The main reason they locked things away, however, is when they were contradictory to the Church's teachings, or their authenticity was questionable. An example would be the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas which is completely contradictory to the teachings of the church.
With regards to pastors, monks, priests, etc teaching only from the bible, well this is what my point was. They may learn about other texts but they are not considered canon. Lilith would be an example of this, as she appears in the bible but in translation was referred to as a screech owl (KJV) and is generally not considered to be a canonical figure by the Catholic Church. However, getting hidden texts released would be very difficult for anyone to do, as they are mostly held by the Vatican, and the Pope and the Cardinals most certainly wouldn't release texts that counter their teachings. If its Judeo-Christian mystical teachings you're after, check out Kabala or the Keys of Solomon. If its writings that counter the workings of the church check out the aforementioned Gospel of St. Thomas.
I would like to note, however, that I find it interesting what the Church decides to persecute with regards to sinful acts. An example would be their reaction to homosexuality. I mostly find this funny because while you see all these Christians freaking out about gay marriage, I have not once seen a Christian protester outside a Red Lobster, and its in the same book of the bible (Leviticus) that says that being gay is 'bad' (btw, read it again, doesn't say being gay is bad, technically it only says having gay sex is bad, and only among men, but even that's up for interpretation) says that eating anything that comes from the sea except pretty much NORMAL fish is evil. So yeah, lobster, crab, shrimp, prawns, all that, sinful to eat. Technically the only things that are okay to eat are pretty much beef, fish, and I *think* mutton. Two people I know work at Red Lobster. I should set up a protest simply to point out that a lot of Christians only pay attention to half the bible, and only persecute those who are, as a standard, different from them. Oh wait, that's right, Jesus died for our sins, so its okay to eat lobster! Yay! Oh, and its okay to be gay, too, by the same standards. (sorry for the sarcasm throughout this last paragraph)
Anyway, interest in the occult? Well that depends on your definition. The 'Church' (as a political body) has, for a long time, accepted and believed in the supernatural. Usually fearfully. But really, their point in the FIRST place was to pretty much recruit as many followers as they could. Altering (or placing) holidays to fit with the people they were trying to convert (which is why All Hallows Eve falls on Samhain, and Christmas near Yule, etc) even up to the Holy Trinity as a lot of the pagan faiths (especially the Celts) had a trinity deity. It wasn't til much later where the super "faithful" guys decided they didn't want others learning anything. What I mean is, people who become faithful in ignorance, the kind of people who supported things like the crusades. People with the same religious fanaticism as Muslim terrorists, except Christian.
The main reason they locked things away, however, is when they were contradictory to the Church's teachings, or their authenticity was questionable. An example would be the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas which is completely contradictory to the teachings of the church.
With regards to pastors, monks, priests, etc teaching only from the bible, well this is what my point was. They may learn about other texts but they are not considered canon. Lilith would be an example of this, as she appears in the bible but in translation was referred to as a screech owl (KJV) and is generally not considered to be a canonical figure by the Catholic Church. However, getting hidden texts released would be very difficult for anyone to do, as they are mostly held by the Vatican, and the Pope and the Cardinals most certainly wouldn't release texts that counter their teachings. If its Judeo-Christian mystical teachings you're after, check out Kabala or the Keys of Solomon. If its writings that counter the workings of the church check out the aforementioned Gospel of St. Thomas.
I would like to note, however, that I find it interesting what the Church decides to persecute with regards to sinful acts. An example would be their reaction to homosexuality. I mostly find this funny because while you see all these Christians freaking out about gay marriage, I have not once seen a Christian protester outside a Red Lobster, and its in the same book of the bible (Leviticus) that says that being gay is 'bad' (btw, read it again, doesn't say being gay is bad, technically it only says having gay sex is bad, and only among men, but even that's up for interpretation) says that eating anything that comes from the sea except pretty much NORMAL fish is evil. So yeah, lobster, crab, shrimp, prawns, all that, sinful to eat. Technically the only things that are okay to eat are pretty much beef, fish, and I *think* mutton. Two people I know work at Red Lobster. I should set up a protest simply to point out that a lot of Christians only pay attention to half the bible, and only persecute those who are, as a standard, different from them. Oh wait, that's right, Jesus died for our sins, so its okay to eat lobster! Yay! Oh, and its okay to be gay, too, by the same standards. (sorry for the sarcasm throughout this last paragraph)
ill try not to double post this one and im not sure how it happened before.
the part about being gay id like to point out that the kjv says that for men or women who engage in same sex sex or bestiality should "have their heads removed and their blood poured out on them" (the animal must also be killed and its blood be cast on the person too) that is in Leviticus just not sure of the C:V as to the lilith screeching owl thing id like it if you could C:V mo on that cause ive never seen it, but i would definitely like to.
ill say that the new testament to me and i could have this severely distorted but to me it is saying this is how it is and the old testament is saying this is how i could have left it so be greatful you little shits?
Isaiah 34:14 in KJV, different versions say quite different things, however, even between NKJV and KJV. *nods* Anyway, its a reference to Lilith.
With regards to homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" the bible says nothing of two women together, I assume its for the same reason that the Queen of England didn't illegalize lesbian sex: they couldn't figure out how two women could do it lol
And with regards to the new testament, you have pretty much the same point of view as me ;)
With regards to homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" the bible says nothing of two women together, I assume its for the same reason that the Queen of England didn't illegalize lesbian sex: they couldn't figure out how two women could do it lol
And with regards to the new testament, you have pretty much the same point of view as me ;)
QUOTE (SarimUriel @ Jan 11 2007, 07:17 PM)
Isaiah 34:14 in KJV, different versions say quite different things, however, even between NKJV and KJV. *nods* Anyway, its a reference to Lilith.
With regards to homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" the bible says nothing of two women together, I assume its for the same reason that the Queen of England didn't illegalize lesbian sex: they couldn't figure out how two women could do it lol
And with regards to the new testament, you have pretty much the same point of view as me ;)
With regards to homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" the bible says nothing of two women together, I assume its for the same reason that the Queen of England didn't illegalize lesbian sex: they couldn't figure out how two women could do it lol
And with regards to the new testament, you have pretty much the same point of view as me ;)
sweet thanx
finally we agree on something
It wasn't really about disagreeing to me, it was perhaps a little debate and just pointing out a few theological things. I'm sarcastic a lot :(
A good source on Angels:
"The Dictionary of Angels, including the Fallen" by Gustav Davidson
The information in this thread is a good start...however it seems alot is missing.
Rather than post up 90% of the information in the above mention book...here is a link.
http://www.angelicinspirations.com/page191.htm
I have found this to be one of the most accurate sources....online anyway.
"The Dictionary of Angels, including the Fallen" by Gustav Davidson
The information in this thread is a good start...however it seems alot is missing.
Rather than post up 90% of the information in the above mention book...here is a link.
http://www.angelicinspirations.com/page191.htm
I have found this to be one of the most accurate sources....online anyway.
QUOTE (tracla @ Nov 27 2005, 12:12 AM)
being of an angel, i do not know hwo you could tell if you were. but of being a fallen angel you may have the thoughts of how humans are, in these days, pathetic. people fighting because they are different, killing each other and themselves. people commiting suicides because they think their lives are unlivable. how people take advantage of others and maelest and/or rape them. it sickens me so much, but what is there i can do? god made these people as they are and gave them the situations that made them the people they are. so in a way i can blame god for their pathetic ways. therefore, iall in all, i am disgusted with god.
Does anyone out there know anything about lycans (Werewolfs)
QUOTE (nickelback @ Jan 15 2008, 12:42 AM)
Does anyone out there know anything about lycans (Werewolfs)
try posting in a werewolf thread. Or the questions thread.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.