Angelic Hierarchy

[John]

There was an angelic hierarchy created by dionysus, supposedly a convert of Sha'ul, that is very much like this one. But here is my angelic hierarchy:

[Notice that the posting levels are based on the body types of Angels (mal'ak) and the positions are names of staff groups.]

Body types of angels

• Seraphim: These angels are mentioned in Isaiah. They each have on head, all of them different. (4 seraphim are mentioned in the bible). They also have six wings and praise YHVH for who He is.
  
• Cherubim: These angels are mentioned in Yechezkel and each have 4 different heads. They have 4 wings and guard the throne of YHVH. These are also known as the Chayyoth (hebrew.) or Zoa (greek) meaning 'living creatures.
  
• Ofan: These angels are always mentioned with Cheruvim. They are wheels with lots of eyes and act as thrones to angelic creatures and chariots to YHVH
  
• B'nai Elohim:These are angels that look just like humans. No wings. No anything. More on them later on another thread. (They are very interesting.) These are also known as Ishim. They are ressurected humans.
  

Positions of Angels

• Archangels: These angels are generally the angelic generals and spirital messangers. They may lead the Powers.
  
• Powers: This is the Angelic army in heaven
  
• Virtues:This is the angelic army for humans. they are very close to gaurdian angels and fight personal spiritual battles.
  
• Dominions: these angels make up the heavenly court. They vote on rules and enforce laws in heaven. (yes you CAN sin in heaven--- a different dabate for a different time).
  
• Principalities: These are the spiritual leaders that rule the earthly kingdoms. They often parallel the earthly kings.
  

Off groups

• Elohim: These angels help YHVH with ihs creation
  
• Elders: These angels help YHVH judge. They are speculated to be the 12 sons of Ya'akov (jacob) and the 12 disciples. Or at least represent them.
  
• Morning Stars: These angels praise YHVH for his creation. Yeshua is implied to be one of these, or an elohim (since Yeshua formulated the blueprints of the earth for YHVH). HaSatan was privelaged with the title of Hallel (praise in hebrew)... the title of the Morning stars leader.
  

Last notes

Any body type can take any position in the angelic hierachy. A seraph could be an archangel. A cherub could be a power. But an ofan cannot be a b'nai elohim. That is like saying a cat can be a dog. They are two different body types.

Tell me what you think. Hope the information is useful.

Shalom- John

PS... here i gave the easy to read names. if a dominion was called something more complex, than i just stuck to dominion. please remember that i am only using one version of the name. also know that many angelic hierarchies confuse seraphim and charubim and such. They also seperate groups that are actually the same type of angel. For example: the bene elohim are sperate from the ishim in the maimonades hierarchy, yet they are one and the same type of angel. On the same hand, some hierarchies say that there are two classes of seraph: one with 4 wings, one with 6. then they claim that the chruv are men with wings. This is incorrect. Cheruv have 4 wings and 4 heads. Seraph have 6 wings and each of the four have a different head.

NOTE ALSO: the heads of cheruv each represent a gospel writer: the eagle represents Johns gospel because he is trying to show the heavenly origin of Yeshua.

The man is Marks symbol because he is trying to show that Yeshua was the perfect man.

The bull is lukes symbol because he is showing that Yeshua was a sacrifice and our priest.

the lion is matthews symbol because he is showing that eshua is our king.

There is a christological connection to alot of things in the bible.

[Never Looking Back]

What Scriptures are you using to support this?

Chapter? Verse?

And where do you get that "Elohim" is an angel category?

[Never Looking Back]

And where are you getting that Yeshua is an angel?

[John]

not all of the angelic categories come from the canonized scriture-- some just come from extra biblical books. you cannot say that i should not use those as sources either--- the onl reason why they werent included in the bible is because some curropted people wouldnt put it there. i do not let the defined canon limit me to my sources.

on top of that, Yeshua need not be an angel to be a morning star. i do not think that Yeshua was an angel,but i dont think he was YHVH, of God either. see my thread 'is metatron Yeshua' under 'genesis'...

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 2, 2009 16:31:27 GMT -5 John said:

not all of the angelic categories come from the canonized scriture-- some just come from extra biblical books. you cannot say that i should not use those as sources either--- the onl reason why they werent included in the bible is because some curropted people wouldnt put it there. i do not let the defined canon limit me to my sources.

on top of that, Yeshua need not be an angel to be a morning star. i do not think that Yeshua was an angel,but i dont think he was YHVH, of God either. see my thread 'is metatron Yeshua' under 'genesis'...

So you think Yeshua was something between being an angel and being YHVH?

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 2, 2009 16:31:27 GMT -5 John said:

.

on top of that, Yeshua need not be an angel to be a morning star. i do not think that Yeshua was an angel,but i dont think he was YHVH, of God either. see my thread 'is metatron Yeshua' under 'genesis'...

If you are up for it, would you care to debate this in a thread?

[John]

go ahead... i am willing to discuss my beliefs. just keep in mind that a debate and argument are not the same thing. i will not reply to your posts if you start arguing. just debate your topic. but yeah i would love to discuss this.

yes i think Yeshua is higher than the angels, but lower than YHVH. He is only second to YHVH.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 3, 2009 13:55:32 GMT -5 John said:

go ahead... i am willing to discuss my beliefs. just keep in mind that a debate and argument are not the same thing. i will not reply to your posts if you start arguing. just debate your topic. but yeah i would love to discuss this.

yes i think Yeshua is higher than the angels, but lower than YHVH. He is only second to YHVH.

Very well.

I look forward to our conversation.

[John]

so firstly... what are your immeadiate problems with the angelic hierarchy?

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 3, 2009 21:54:32 GMT -5 John said:

so firstly... what are your immeadiate problems with the angelic hierarchy?

It is not based on Scripture, and some of what you have written actually contradicts Scripture.

Example:
the angel category you called Elohim

Elohim is, from what I understand, simply means "god" or "gods." It was used for YHVH and used to speak of other "gods." (I put gods in quotes because these other gods were not true gods. They were, in reality, demons.)

[John]

let me give you my sourcces for this. one of the main source is Dionysus' angelic hierarchy. Dionysus was an apostle of sha'ul and sha'l even approved of this hierarchy because he mentions the name of some of these angels in ehesians and other books!

seraphim (is. 6:1-3, enoch, maimonides angelic hierarchy) cherub (gen, ex, nu. maimonides doctrine, enoch other extra biblical books) ofan (always mentioned with cherub in scripture)
b'nai elohim (gen 6, job, enoch, book of giants)

archangels (most extra biblical books, judah) principality, power (eph, collosians) dominion (not metioned by name, but mentioned in enoch, apocalypse of sha'ul and peter) virtues (1 clement, christian and jewish tradition [ie, the talmud, etc])

since you have such a big problem with the angelic group of Elohim, i will do a study on them proving this is an angelic group. Note: if you read the bble, you will becaome perplaexed if you think only God can be referred to as Elohim. angels and even man are referred to as elohim.

elders (revelation) morning stars (job, psalms)


i hopee this helps a little bit.. its all i can do so far. i will get to the elohim discourse later.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 4, 2009 9:04:50 GMT -5 John said:

let me give you my sourcces for this. one of the main source is Dionysus' angelic hierarchy. Dionysus was an apostle of sha'ul and sha'l even approved of this hierarchy because he mentions the name of some of these angels in ehesians and other books!

seraphim (is. 6:1-3, enoch, maimonides angelic hierarchy) cherub (gen, ex, nu. maimonides doctrine, enoch other extra biblical books) ofan (always mentioned with cherub in scripture)
b'nai elohim (gen 6, job, enoch, book of giants)

archangels (most extra biblical books, judah) principality, power (eph, collosians) dominion (not metioned by name, but mentioned in enoch, apocalypse of sha'ul and peter) virtues (1 clement, christian and jewish tradition [ie, the talmud, etc])

since you have such a big problem with the angelic group of Elohim, i will do a study on them proving this is an angelic group. Note: if you read the bble, you will becaome perplaexed if you think only God can be referred to as Elohim. angels and even man are referred to as elohim.

elders (revelation) morning stars (job, psalms)


i hopee this helps a little bit.. its all i can do so far. i will get to the elohim discourse later.

But where does Scripture say that these things are angels or categories of angels?

And do you believe that extra-biblical books are equal to Scripture? It seems that you do.

I have noticed there seems to be a great deal of fascination with angels with both believers and non-believers. Watch out that your interest in them does not become your main focus. There are certain evil angels (AKA demons) who would love you to focus on them instead of YHVH. These demons would love to teach you things and give you revelations about themselves.

I'm not saying that I think you're falling for them or would fall for them, but I just felt that I should say this.

[John]

i like that you are moderating my focus.

i think that some extra biblical books have the authority of the talmud and brit chadashah-- commentary and history. the Torah and a good pertion of nevi'im have the highest authority of scripture. everything else is really just history of YHVHs working with man, or commentary on the neviim and Torah.

What do you propose these things are if they are not angels?

i have been fascinated with angels to a dengerous point in the past, yes. i did a HUGE study on them., this is why you dont think what i have to say is based on scripture- i did such in depth studies most people havent heard of what i have to say before. i almost delved in to the qabbalic stage which i was not ready for then, or now for that matter. i agree that you shouldve followed your consince and moderated the angelic discussion.

plus, fallen angels are fallen angels, not demons. demons are a whole other creature.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 4, 2009 20:20:17 GMT -5 John said:

i like that you are moderating my focus.

i think that some extra biblical books have the authority of the talmud and brit chadashah-- commentary and history. the Torah and a good pertion of nevi'im have the highest authority of scripture. everything else is really just history of YHVHs working with man, or commentary on the neviim and Torah.

What do you propose these things are if they are not angels?

i have been fascinated with angels to a dengerous point in the past, yes. i did a HUGE study on them., this is why you dont think what i have to say is based on scripture- i did such in depth studies most people havent heard of what i have to say before. i almost delved in to the qabbalic stage which i was not ready for then, or now for that matter. i agree that you shouldve followed your consince and moderated the angelic discussion.

plus, fallen angels are fallen angels, not demons. demons are a whole other creature.

First, tell me what passages that you are speaking of in Ephesians and Colossians, and any other passages that you are using from Scripture itself.

That way we can actually discuss the passages that you have in mind, and so that I can see where you're getting this teaching from. We can take a look at these passages together, and I will tell you how I would understand them.

After we are done with the passages from Scripture, we can move onto other things. I think that whatever you are quoting from that is extra-biblical will need to be compared with Scripture to see whether or not it lines up what the Bible itself says. If it does not (especially if it directly contradicts Scripture), I would not view it as authoritative in any sense.

Whatever you wish to call them, evil angels should not be listened to. There are demons who pretend to be angels who are working for God. New Age channelers get their doctrines from these things, as do other people. Even people in some circles of Christianity are getting led astray by the worship of angels. (These people are those who are into certain renewal and revival movements associated with the likes of people such as Patricia King, Bob Jones, Joshua Mills, John Crowder, Kim Clement, Dutch Sheets, Todd Bentley, C. Peter Wagner, Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, Rick Joyner, Stacey Campbell, Paul Cain, James Goll, and others like them).

[John]

well, give me a while... i am going to have to look these scriptures up.

btw: Yeshua is called a Morning Star in Rev. 22:16. i know this refers to an angelic category, and not just a comparative title, from other scriptures in Job and Pslams especially.

as for the extra biblical books. some of the canonized books contradict each other. remember that it was not YHVH who canonized certain books. it was men. they could have accidentally left things out, or even added things that should not have. if they knew that 2 peter was written 120 AD, way after Kefa himself, they probably would not have accepted it a canonized scripture. if they knew that Hebrews was written by Bar-Nabba, who was led astray and wrote the epistle of barnabas later, they probably would not have accepted him into the canon. and do you honestly think that 2 and 3 john or phiilemon contribute at all to our modern theologies? no. neither does laodiceans, an epistle of Shaul, mentioned in another epistle of his that is canonized. laodiceans was left out because it didnt contribute to theology. and Revelation was not included in most early canons of scripture. and 1 john is suspected to be a gnostic text. ephesians, collosians and other books are suspected to have been written by someone other than shaul, along with other books of the bible. Polycarp is suspected to have writen all the pastoral letters, except philemon.

my point is that even the canonized scripture is able to have been corrupted and you should not be bbiased against the exra biblical books simply because it is not "official" scripture.

[Jonatan]

Good answer, John. I also started to like extra-biblical books, like Enoch, Jubilees or Jasher. However with Macchabees I have heard there are problems misused by RCC - regarding prayers to dead which is spiritism (that's sin worthy of death considered by Torah) or maybe something else also. Some books /especially Torah/ must be taken without any fault - undeniable Word of God. I am afraid you don't think Torah or Neviim or B'rit Chadasha contradicts self. It is Yeshua who told that no yod (or yota in greek) may fall from His word - rather world will disappear than His word! Well the canonization was useful for something, wasn't? To prevent believers from spiritual poisons as were gnostic writings.
Some books should be labeled as the products of our days: Not recommended for children up to 3. In this case it would be for "spiritual children up to 3"

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 5, 2009 13:39:28 GMT -5 John said:

well, give me a while... i am going to have to look these scriptures up.

btw: Yeshua is called a Morning Star in Rev. 22:16. i know this refers to an angelic category, and not just a comparative title, from other scriptures in Job and Pslams especially.

as for the extra biblical books. some of the canonized books contradict each other. remember that it was not YHVH who canonized certain books. it was men. they could have accidentally left things out, or even added things that should not have. if they knew that 2 peter was written 120 AD, way after Kefa himself, they probably would not have accepted it a canonized scripture. if they knew that Hebrews was written by Bar-Nabba, who was led astray and wrote the epistle of barnabas later, they probably would not have accepted him into the canon. and do you honestly think that 2 and 3 john or phiilemon contribute at all to our modern theologies? no. neither does laodiceans, an epistle of Shaul, mentioned in another epistle of his that is canonized. laodiceans was left out because it didnt contribute to theology. and Revelation was not included in most early canons of scripture. and 1 john is suspected to be a gnostic text. ephesians, collosians and other books are suspected to have been written by someone other than shaul, along with other books of the bible. Polycarp is suspected to have writen all the pastoral letters, except philemon.

my point is that even the canonized scripture is able to have been corrupted and you should not be bbiased against the exra biblical books simply because it is not "official" scripture.

There is also more theologically conservative scholarship that would show that 2 Peter was written by Peter, that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, and that 1, 2, and 3 John were written opposing gnosticism rather than promoting it. Also, that John indeed was the author of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation.

My point here is that just because a scholar says something does not necessarily make it true. Some people like John Shelby Spong pretend that there are no conservative scholars. But there are! Liberal scholars tend to promote themselves, almost to the extent of being the only scholarly viewpoint available. Please also note that not all liberal scholars agree. People tend to take what a scholar as if it is the truth. These individuals are merely human. Yes, they have studied, but many scholars also do not look at all viewpoints available.

As a friend of mine has said, we are living 2000 years after the Messiah. Wouldn't you think that people living closer to His time (and indeed in His time), have a better understanding of who wrote what books than we do?

[John]

i do not believe everything that i posted on the books, and i am aware that there are other opinions on it. my point was that there is no reason to reject the extra biblical books simply because they are not canonized.

and Jonotan... i agree that age limits should be put on certain books, which many jews actually do. Jasher is one book that i think should SO be reconsidered for canon. but honestly, i dont think there should be a canon. i thik that the books should come with knoweledge of its origins (gnosticism, unknown, ebonites, essenes, etc) and thats it. I think that the only books that should absolutely be in a persons household are Torah, and possibly neviim.

i am going to stop here in the middle of my thought. i really cannot reveal the way i regard boooks that are supposedly scripture. we can talk about this more in the other thread 'authority or not' ... lets get back on what this thread was started for.

[John]

i made modifications to present more information on the thread.