Differentiating between gods and angels

[GoCeltics]

On 2/20/2025 at 2:52 PM, InCognitus said:

(repeating what I said earlier in the thread) that since "angel" is just a messenger and a job description (even if only a temporary one)

Are there angels solely created by God that were not born from the union of heavenly Parents?

Edited February 22, 2025 by GoCeltics
inserted a few words

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Are there angels solely created by God that were not born from the union of heavenly Parents?

You ask this and then wonder why I know you are the same user as theplains, TheTanakas, telnetd, or marineland?   

"Solely created by God", what do you mean by that exactly? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

What do you mean by glory ?

I think that glory here refers to the conditions and nature of those that are in that kingdom. When the text says that there is "one glory" it means that in that kingdom, everyone has the same conditions - the same nature. So we don't have a situation in which some have a different nature or state or condition than others. For those in the celestial kingdom, this state of glory includes being in the presence of the Father, and of sharing with Him all that He has. Or, as Lehi puts it in 2 Nephi 2, a state where we act (freely) and are not acted upon.

[teddyaware]

28 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

You ask this and then wonder why I know you are the same user as theplains, TheTanakas, telnetd, or marineland?   

"Solely created by God", what do you mean by that exactly? 

As you well know, the Catholics and Protestants believe everything that exists outside of God himself was created ex nihilo, or created from nothing solely by an act of the will of God. This being the case, Catholics and Protestants believe all the angels that exist were created out of nothing, without any need for God to create the angels by engaging in a loving procreative process with his divine female counterpart. For these, all the angels in heaven that existed prior to the creation of the earth were created from nothing. and all of earthly mankind is created from nothing as well. For these, God has all the knowledge and power he needs to create anything he wants without having to engage in a “messy” and “cumbersome” male/female procreative process. The concept in Latter-Day Saint theology that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother create their spirit children by means a divine procreative act of love is unnecessary and ludicrous.

[CV75]

On 2/22/2025 at 10:37 AM, GoCeltics said:

Are there angels solely created by God that were not born from the union of heavenly Parents?

Please be more specific: what angels, where, and what do you mean by "angels"?

[GoCeltics]

On 2/22/2025 at 11:10 AM, InCognitus said:

You ask this and then wonder why I know you are the same user as theplains, TheTanakas, telnetd, or marineland?   

"Solely created by God", what do you mean by that exactly? 

Did you provide an answer to them?

[GoCeltics]

On 2/22/2025 at 11:53 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that glory here refers to the conditions and nature of those that are in that kingdom. When the text says that there is "one glory" it means that in that kingdom, everyone has the same conditions

Like environmental conditions?   

Regarding nature, how does the nature of Heavenly Father (believed to have a resurrected and physical body of flesh and bones) compare with those believed to be his spirit children prior to them coming to Earth in a mortal body?

[GoCeltics]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please be more specific: what angels, where, and what do you mean by "angels"?

By angels, I mean beings who are not offspring of what people believe are referred to as our heavenly parents.  They are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4.

[GoCeltics]

On 2/22/2025 at 12:03 PM, teddyaware said:

As you well know, the Catholics and Protestants believe everything that exists outside of God himself was created ex nihilo, or created from nothing solely by an act of the will of God. This being the case, Catholics and Protestants believe all the angels that exist were created out of nothing, without any need for God to create the angels by engaging in a loving procreative process with his divine female counterpart. For these, all the angels in heaven that existed prior to the creation of the earth were created from nothing. and all of earthly mankind is created from nothing as well. For these, God has all the knowledge and power he needs to create anything he wants without having to engage in a “messy” and “cumbersome” male/female procreative process. The concept in Latter-Day Saint theology that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother create their spirit children by means a divine procreative act of love is unnecessary and ludicrous.

@InCognitus

Exactly, that’s what I was thinking. Beings who aren’t the result of a procreative process. Given God’s infinite power, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that he could create beings ex nihilo.

If LDS theology holds true, I would describe the heavenly parents as embodying ‘beauty’ and ‘joyful excitement’.

.

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 2/22/2025 at 7:37 AM, GoCeltics said:

Are there angels solely created by God that were not born from the union of heavenly Parents?

Fantastic question!

From the Bible Dictionary:

"                Cherubim

Figures representing heavenly creatures, the exact form being unknown. They are found in the Holy of Holies, on the Mercy Seat of the Ark (Ex. 25:18, 22; 1 Kgs. 6:23–28; Heb. 9:5), and in the visions of Ezekiel (Ezek. 10; 11:22). In the account of the Fall, cherubim are represented as keeping “the way of the tree of life” (Gen. 3:24)."

** So it seems that there may be some allowance of some other type of angels that are outside of the God lineage. **

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Like environmental conditions?   

No, I don't think that LDS theology has any sort of detailed description of that sort. What I mean is what is described in 2 Nephi 2:26 -

Quote

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

What I meant is that in the Celestial Kingdom, all are "free to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." It is this freedom that characterizes the nature of God.

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

Regarding nature, how does the nature of Heavenly Father (believed to have a resurrected and physical body of flesh and bones) compare with those believed to be his spirit children prior to them coming to Earth in a mortal body?

I don't think that we have any real idea - because our understanding of the pre-existence is so limited. But, in continuing with the idea I provide above, I would suggest that in the pre-existence, we did not have the same sort of freedom that Lehi ascribes to both God and to those who are resurrected.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

By angels, I mean beings who are not offspring of what people believe are referred to as our heavenly parents.  They are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4.

Animals and other forms of life are created (more accurately, organized) by God. Our doctrine does not focus on their eternal parentage and path to eternal felicity and exaltation as it does ours, but they are part of our stewardship. If there are mortal counterparts to the visionary beasts John saw, I haven't come across any, but I have seen this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/77?lang=eng&id=p0#study_summary1

I suppose one can consider animals in God's service as a kind of angel, but they are of a different eternal genealogy than human beings no matter how far back one wishes to identify a hypothetical LUCA.

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Did you provide an answer to them?

We haven't discussed angels yet.

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Given God’s infinite power, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility that he could create beings ex nihilo.

That's what some people imagine about God based on later tradition, but God never really describes his creation that way, only people do later on in tradition.  Creation ex-nihilo was a doctrine that was contrived later on (the latter half of the 2nd century AD).  Christians prior to that time described God creating all things from unformed matter, that God made "manifest the eternal fabric of the world" (as one of them put it).

4 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

By angels, I mean beings who are not offspring of what people believe are referred to as our heavenly parents.  They are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4.

But this has been the track on my responses to you in this thread all along (focusing on the meaning of what is an "angel").  Can you find where those four beasts of Revelation 4 are ever called "angels" in scripture?  Or any other non-human creature mentioned, for that matter?  As teddyaware pointed out, calling any of those other things "angels" is a product of tradition, not biblical teaching.  See for example the video below:

 

Edited February 24, 2025 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

On 2/24/2025 at 1:38 PM, InCognitus said:

We haven't discussed angels yet.

That's what some people imagine about God based on later tradition, but God never really describes his creation that way, only people do later on in tradition.  Creation ex-nihilo was a doctrine that was contrived later on (the latter half of the 2nd century AD).  Christians prior to that time described God creating all things from unformed matter, that God made "manifest the eternal fabric of the world" (as one of them put it).

But this has been the track on my responses to you in this thread all along (focusing on the meaning of what is an "angel").  Can you find where those four beasts of Revelation 4 are ever called "angels" in scripture?  Or any other non-human creature mentioned, for that matter?  As teddyaware pointed out, calling any of those other things "angels" is a product of tradition, not biblical teaching.  

Aye, there is no instance in the Bible of any one thing being created from nothing. The earth already contains preexisting things and uncreated materials in which everything the world was made from. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) might had some foundation only if one translates its first verse as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and understands it to refer to some comprehensive creative act on the first day.

Instead, on the first day the world pre-existed as water without the heavens nor the earth. The light was "created", said to be forged out of a pre-existent darkness. The psalmist says that God took existing light and stretched it out (Ps 104:2). Isaiah says God “formed [yotzer] light and create [borei] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7). The light was formed out of the darkness. If you form something from something that already exists means that what you created already existed inside of it.

Instead, the "heavens" were created on the second day from the pre-existing water to restrain the waters, and the "earth" came forth from the pre-existing waters on the third day, “Let the water below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear” (Gen 1:9). Genesis 1 gives the impression that the earth existed but was in the water until the third day, when the water was drained to expose dry land. Psalm 104 states the waters already existed when God created his heavenly palace, before God created the heaven and the earth.

Thus, the world started as a "formless waste" with a sea that already existed on day one with the Spirit hovering over it, and everything on the planet that God made came from something. Jewish sources think the water itself was the primeval material that the land was made from, that the water solidified to become earth. (Genesis 1:1, 9; Job 37:6; 2 Enoch 28:2). The earth was made Creato Ex Materia, from "formless matter" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17)

The Apostle Peter believed this like every Jew, that the waters preexisted the creation and that this preexisting material was utilized to make everything. God created "the heaven and earth" by "forming" them out of the "water", "by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (2 Peter 3:5).

As First Century Jewish scholar Philo said God shaped the world from "formless matter" (Philo, Her. 134, 140), the "earth and water being mingled together and knead like a mass of dough, into a single element, without shape or distinction of its parts" (Philo, On Creation 38).

Pope Clement stated, "Thou . . . didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create the earth." The terms used asserts that God did "make manifest" the "everlasting fabric of the world" referring to His view that God had created from an eternally existing substrate, creating by "making manifest" what already existed in some form. It appears to have been a generally accepted belief in the early Christian church. (1 Clement 60.1, in Apostolic Fathers, 1:112. Cf. also Clementine Recognitions 1.27 and 8.16, in ANF, 8:85 and 169ff)

Justin Martyr (110 AD) said, "...we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received-of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.”

And “by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.” (Justin, First Apology 59, in ANF, 1:182)

Clement of Alexandria, (200 AD), also taught creation out of primal matter, " O King... Maker of all, who heaven and heaven’s adornment by the Divine Word alone didst make; . . . according to a well-ordered plan; out of a confused heap who didst create. This ordered sphere, and from the shapeless mass of matter didst the universe adorn." (Clement, The Instructor 3.12, in ANF, 2:296)

Clement of Alexandria's declarations that the world is made “out of nothing” occurs three times in the Stromata (his miscellaneous notes), it maybe referring to Philo, the ordering of formless matter. The phrase he employs is "ek mē ontos", not the Maccabean "ex ouk ontos"; that is to say, it is made not from that which is absolutely non-existent, but from relative non-being or unformed matter.

Irenaeus formulates Creato Ex Nihilo from 2 Maccabees' use of "ex ouk onton", but Judas Maccabee also said human beings were made the same way. Humanity/Adam was created from pre-existent dust, not from nothing. Dust and a pre-existing spirit created a soul from non-being. As "ex ouk onton", is a term for "art", things that exist after not existing. But in all art, the potter makes a bowl exist when one had not existed, but it's not to say the bowl was not made from pre-existing matter, the clay pre-exists but the bowl did not, it was made from non-being, not nothing.

Nowhere does God "create" the angels in heaven in Genesis because they already exist, and they are first mentioned saying they were "begotten" in Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations [begettings] of the heavens" (See also Psalm 104:4). 

El the Baniyu, God the Begetter, or God the Father. El Elyon is the "possessor [qua (H#7069)] of heaven and earth" (Genesis 14:18-20), rather he was the "procreator" of heaven and earth, or a "creator" in the same sense that one is 'created' by their father (Deuteronomy 32:6). Because God created all things through Christ, but not things uncreated that preexisted the Creation. Christ is uncreated in the sense that his existence predates The Creation (1 Peter 1: 20; Revelations 13:8).

Jesus was the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and inherited God's name, make him equal to God so that angels had to worship him. Hebrews 1:2 "[Jesus], whom [God] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. [God's name of Yhwh, El made him his begotten son, and later Lord of Israel] 5 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee [Before he was born of Mary, this is an old tale Jews deleted from Deuteronomy 32:43, of an angel who was made a God, the original was in 4Q44 Deuteronomy "bow down to him, all gods", Septuagint "let all the angels of God worship him... and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him"] 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him [and then Lord-Jesus created earth] 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth..."

Edited February 25, 2025 by Pyreaux

[GoCeltics]

On 2/24/2025 at 2:38 PM, InCognitus said:

But this has been the track on my responses to you in this thread all along (focusing on the meaning of what is an "angel").  Can you find where those four beasts of Revelation 4 are ever called "angels" in scripture?

I didn't say the four beasts are angels.  I said "they are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4".  Unless you believe they are also offspring of heavenly parents.

So getting back to the question - are there beings, however you define angels, which are not offspring of heavenly parents?

[GoCeltics]

On 2/24/2025 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, I don't think that LDS theology has any sort of detailed description of that sort. What I mean is what is described in 2 Nephi 2:26 -

What I meant is that in the Celestial Kingdom, all are "free to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." It is this freedom that characterizes the nature of God.

Is 2 Nephi 2:26 (knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon) also applicable to the pre-mortal life in the Celestial Kingdom?
 

On 2/24/2025 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that we have any real idea - because our understanding of the pre-existence is so limited. But, in continuing with the idea I provide above, I would suggest that in the pre-existence, we did not have the same sort of freedom that Lehi ascribes to both God and to those who are resurrected.

What differences in agency (freedom of choice) existed between spirit children and God in that context?

Edited February 26, 2025 by GoCeltics

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Is 2 Nephi 2:26 (knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon) also applicable to the pre-mortal life in the Celestial Kingdom?
 

What differences in agency (freedom of choice) existed between spirit children and God in that context?

We must, in some level, had a sufficient knowledge that our decisions there justified either progression (coming to earth) or condemnation (becoming a son of perdition).

Excellent question!

[Benjamin McGuire]

46 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Is 2 Nephi 2:26 (knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon) also applicable to the pre-mortal life in the Celestial Kingdom?

Not really. This text in the Book of Mormon includes an expansion and interpretation of the narrative of the Garden of Eden from Genesis. The knowing good from evil comes as part of that narrative -

Quote

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I think that you could make the argument that in modern Mormonism, the Council in Heaven in the pre-existence replaces to an extent the narrative of the Garden of Eden, and has all of humanity participating in the choice to enter mortality (the eating of the fruit becomes a figurative representation of that choice in that view). But, what Lehi teaches is that true agency (the ability to act and not be acted upon) requires a knowledge of good and evil, and that knowledge comes only through mortality. The ability to experience agency, for Lehi, is limited in mortality (there is no absolute agency where men act and are not acted upon in mortality). So only through the fall, mortality, death, resurrection and eventual glorification at the final judgement does the limited agency that man experiences in mortality transform into this absolute agency described here. There is a lot more in the text than this, but this is the quick summary relevant to your question.

46 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

What differences in agency (freedom of choice) existed between spirit children and God in that context?

I think that in that context (pre-mortal life), our circumstances could be described as similar to that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden - which has been the subject of an awful lot of speculation. There is some sense that there is the ability to choose - to act. But notice in that story that there are significant (and potentially immediate) consequences of that act. Adam and Eve can act, but they are also acted upon. It is a limited agency in which the choices that they can make create consequences over which they have no control. But to more directly answer your question, the idea of knowing good and evil isn't directly applicable in its entirety to the pre-mortal life - because it directly involves the experience of mortality. And the process of learning (experiencing) evil isn't something that can really occur in the context of a pre-existence in the Celestial Kingdom (or perhaps even a post-mortal existence in the Celestial Kingdom) in the presence of God. We become separated from God to allow for this knowledge and its resulting agency to come into existence. The atonement then becomes the process that brings us back to God's presence.

I think that Mormonism's shift of the decision from Eden to the pre-existent Council/War in heaven helps with certain theological questions (and raises some new questions). Among other things, it shifts the decision to enter mortality onto the entirety of the human race (and doesn't leave it with Adam and Eve). It reveals the tree as figurative and suggests that it is the experience of life in mortality that teaches us to know good and evil (and forces us to make decisions based on that knowledge). The question at the center of the war in heaven for Mormonism is this question of agency. This goes hand-in-hand with Mormonisms temple liturgy which also adapts the Eden narrative in similar ways - adding to this a covenant theology. The Book of Mormon itself seems to have only a very limited view of the pre-existence (by modern Mormonisms standards).

On a different note, my favorite interpretation of the Genesis narrative comes from Mordecai Kaplan's journals. He was writing about his reading of Midrash HaGadol:

Quote

"Tell me," Reb Yerachmiel asked his students, "who was expelled from the Garden of Eden?"

"Adam and Eve," the class replied.

"Are you sure," he asked. "Look again. Does the Torah say that God drove them out, or only that God drove the man out? It is only Adam that is exiled. The woman leaves of her own volition. Why? For she knew that only in the world is truth to be discovered; that the Garden is for children and she wants to grow up."

[Kaplan:] I think that Torah is telling us something important about the woman, and perhaps women in general. Why not simply say the tree was good for eating? Because it was not her appetite that drove her to eat. Why not simply say the tree was pretty? Because it was not her sense of he beautiful which drove her to eat. What caused her to knowingly violate the one law of the garden? She saw the tree was a source of wisdom, she decided to risk everything in pursuit of wisdom. Was this an act of weakness, or supreme courage? Was this an act of seduction or was it the quintessential affirmation of the human quest for truth?

Where is Adam in all of this? Torah implies that he is standing around, and yet does not include him in the exploration of the tree's qualities. Torah says only the woman saw the tree was a source of wisdom. And Adam? He is offered food and he eats. No question. No
angst. No forethought. Just appetite. Is Torah telling us that woman is driven by wisdom and man by appetite?

Edited February 26, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I didn't say the four beasts are angels.  I said "they are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4".  Unless you believe they are also offspring of heavenly parents.

Well, in context it sure looked like you were saying that the four beasts in Revelation are angels.  This is your complete quote:

On 2/24/2025 at 8:18 AM, GoCeltics said:

By angels, I mean beings who are not offspring of what people believe are referred to as our heavenly parents.  They are beings created by God, like the four beasts of Revelation 4.

I'm glad to know you don't believe the four beasts of Revelation 4 are angels (they're not).  But it makes me wonder, why did you bring up the four beasts of Revelation 4 at all in this context?

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

So getting back to the question - are there beings, however you define angels, which are not offspring of heavenly parents?

I'm not sure how to understand this question.  Are you asking about "beings" (of whatever kind) that are not the offspring of heavenly parents, or "angels"?  

And how the scriptures define "angels" is what's important (not how I define them).  All the angels that we know about from scripture are humanoid personages, which would be the same kind of basic being as God (either spirit beings, mortal beings, resurrected beings, translated beings), but working in the capacity as a messenger (an angel).  A king can send out messengers (angels - biblically speaking).  So not all messengers in scripture are God's messengers (angels).

There are other creatures that have no relationship to God that he created.

Edited February 26, 2025 by InCognitus

[GoCeltics]

On 2/26/2025 at 10:46 AM, InCognitus said:

There are other creatures that have no relationship to God that he created

I believe angels are a type of these other.

As you mentioned before, angels can also refer to human messengers (ex. Revelation chapters 2-3 and Malachi 3:1). I don't see a reason to identify the angel in Luke 1:13 or 1:30 as a human being. Similarly for Revelation 14:6.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

On 2/26/2025 at 8:46 AM, InCognitus said:

There are other creatures that have no relationship to God that he created

I believe angels are a type of these other.

I was referring to other creatures above, like animals that God created.  There aren't any angels that are in the "other" category as far as I see from scripture.

What biblical basis do you have for saying that angels are a different category of beings than human spirits, mortal humans, or resurrected humans that are given power by God?  Certainly they may be in a different state of progression than mortal humans (at times), like human spirits or resurrected humans, but what else sets them apart?

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

As you mentioned before, angels can also refer to human messengers (ex. Revelation chapters 2-3 and Malachi 3:1). I don't see a reason to identify the angel in Luke 1:13 or 1:30 as a human being. Similarly for Revelation 14:6.

I don't find anything in Luke 1:13 or 1:30 or Revelation 14:6 to indicate these angels are not humans that are given the power of God to work as his messengers.  Do you?

[GoCeltics]

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I was referring to other creatures above, like animals that God created.  There aren't any angels that are in the "other" category as far as I see from scripture.

I don't see the angel Lucifer being a child of a father and mother from scripture.  Do you?    

20 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What biblical basis do you have for saying that angels are a different category of beings than human spirits, mortal humans, or resurrected humans that are given power by God?  Certainly they may be in a different state of progression than mortal humans (at times), like human spirits or resurrected humans, but what else sets them apart?

I don't find anything in Luke 1:13 or 1:30 or Revelation 14:6 to indicate these angels are not humans that are given the power of God to work as his messengers.  Do you?

I’ll reverse the question for you - what scriptural basis do you have for angels created by God, without the involvement of a wife, being of the same category as humans?

Humans on earth can be viewed as angels as messengers sent by God, but what earthly human appeared in Luke 1:13,30 and flew in Revelation 14:6?

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I don't see the angel Lucifer being a child of a father and mother from scripture.  Do you?    

I don't see the Bible as referring to Lucifer as an angel at all, do you?

As for how he came about, the early Christian Father Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD) had this to say about him:

"Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world, -- in asmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness, -- in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father.  But how He willed that, I will endeavour to show in the forth book.  Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain.  Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name.  From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy.  For he envied his predecessor, who through his stedfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.  This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks "diabolus": we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us.  God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related by us."   (Lactantius, "The Divine Institutes" - Book II, Chap. IX)

10 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I’ll reverse the question for you - what scriptural basis do you have for angels created by God, without the involvement of a wife, being of the same category as humans?

I'm not aware of any verses in the Bible that teach anything about God creating angels (as beings).  He organized people into the job description of "angels" (messengers), but it doesn't say he created them.

10 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Humans on earth can be viewed as angels as messengers sent by God, but what earthly human appeared in Luke 1:13,30 and flew in Revelation 14:6?

Philip: After preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch, it says of him, "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more" (Acts 8:39).

Elijah: "behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

Angels (messengers) of God act by the power and authority of God.  Men who are prophets of God (and thus are God's messengers acting under the power of God) pronounced plagues upon Egypt, parted the Red Sea, called down fire from heaven, and caused the earth to open up and swallow all the men of Korah and their houses and goods.  Prophets of God are called the "angels" (messengers) of God:  "Then spake Haggai the LORD'S messenger [mal'ak, "angel"] in the LORD'S message unto the people, saying, I am with you, saith the LORD." (Haggai 1:13)

With faith, anything is possible:  "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:20)  And for an angel of God, acting as an agent of God, anything is possible.

Edited March 2, 2025 by InCognitus

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

I don't see the angel Lucifer...

In Ezekiel 28:14-16, Satan is referred to as an "anointed cherub" rather than an 
"anointed angel."  Additionally, Ezekiel 1:5-11 portrays these beings with multiple 
faces and wings (+ Exodus 25:20; Ezekiel 10:20-21).

[GoCeltics]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

In Ezekiel 28:14-16, Satan is referred to as an "anointed cherub" rather than an 
"anointed angel."  Additionally, Ezekiel 1:5-11 portrays these beings with multiple 
faces and wings (+ Exodus 25:20; Ezekiel 10:20-21).

Satan can be referred to as an angel.  Guide to the Scriptures (Angels), “There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated".