tbaangel-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Re: The Angel of Angels Re: Ages of angels Re: The Angel of Angels Re: The Angel of Angels Re: TBAA/PL Crossover ep Reply To Quote Re: Real Angels Re: RE: John on Promised Land Arch Angel Michael ADMIN: Reminder - All this angel talk Roma on "Fox After Breakfast" extra TBAA ep tonight, Thurs. Amy's Masterstroke re: Re: The Angel of Angels re: Reply To Quote Re: The Angel of Angels and Ages of Angels Re: Amy's Masterstroke ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 18:27:05 -0500 (CDT) From: gryphon @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: The Angel of Angels On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Signpraise @ .addy.com wrote: >I am sure that Michael is the Archangel. He's *an* archangel, according to Christian (and pre- and non-Christian) theology. But he's not the only one, according to Medieval Christian tradition, at least. There are at least four Archangels, also known as the Guardians of the Quarters (for the four quarters of the world). Each, according to Mideival Catholic doctrine, has a particular color, cardinal direction (compass point), primal element, and heavenly job description associated with him. (People used to believe everything was made up of Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, the four elements, with spirit or "soul" sort of a bonus element for us humans.) <> The following is according to Medieval Christian tradition as I understand it: Raphael is the Guardian of the East. His Element is Air, his color gold or yellow, and he is traditionally associated with Healing. Michael is the Guardian of the South. His Element is Fire (remember the fiery sword?), his color red, and he is traditionally Commander of the Heavenly Hosts-- a warrior. He's also supposed to be the one who holds the Scales of Judgement at the end of the world. Gabriel is Guardian of the West. His element is Water and his color blue. He's the Messenger, the Annunciator. Traditionally, he's the one who told the Virgin Mary she was pregnant. He's also supposed to be the one whose Trumpet will call souls to judgement when the world ends. Uriel (or Auriel) is Guardian of the North. His Element is Earth, his color green, and he's traditionally associated with Death (but not in a negative way). So, if we assume the traditional four Archangels exist in the TBAA universe, Andrew would work for Uriel (angel of Death), Monica worked for Gabriel when she was on loan during the flashbacks in "The Sky Is Falling" (annunciations), Search and Rescue would probably be Michael's department (defending/protecting/doing battle for), and Raphael... well, I guess you could call what the caseworkers do "healing", right? Although you could also call it "defending", I suppose... So maybe who the Angel of Angels is depends on what department you're in. Interesting thought, no? Diane E # "Hydrogen. A light, colorless, odorless gas which, given # # enough time, turns into people." _The Astronomers_ # # D Echelbarger gryphon @ .addy.com # # WWW HomePage: . # ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:45:57 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: Ages of angels In a message dated 97-04-30 09:14:03 EDT, Mike wrote: >There are plenty of hebrew/greek/aramaic books out >their to decifer what the true meaning of the words But no matter how much someone studies, these languages are now *dead*, and so the word "decipher" describes exactly what people are doing. In the end, even the best linguistic, historical, and Biblical scholars are making their best guess. It is very possible that these scholars are right. However, there are too few books/texts preserved from the time when they were written/recorded to be one hundred percent certain that the texts themselves are uncorrupted. It's sort of like what Tess said about progress being an excuse for tearing things down from "Indigo Angel" (?) --whenever time passes, things are destroyed and "improved" away, and the pieces that are saved are sometimes (that far back, read: often) damaged. It is also quite frankly impossible to be absolutely certain of a meaning of words that have gone out of usage in the world; language is too malleable and there are too many ways to play on words and too many euphemisms and figures of speech--none of which we have a recorded definition of--to absolutely determine precise meaning. And although there are a great many ways to interpolate meanings for some words by comparing other occurrences in other sources, there will always be some things that we don't know. Old Testament references are particularly difficult as Hebrew also had the unfortunate and difficult to translate attributes of having no articles (definite--the, or indefinite--a/an), being written with no spaces or punctuation, and I'm sure you know what a difference punctuation can make in meaning, as well as the differences that can come of word breaks happening in varying places (causing there to be various readings of which words are actually in the passage). I'm sure you've noticed the italicized words in your Bible; those are the words that were inserted to "aid comprehension"--and without them, there is a huge difference in meaning. Even the individual biases of readers and translators will affect the outcome of the translation. As we discuss TBAA on this list, we see how different people can have vastly different reactions to and interpretations of the same scenes and episodes. We just all bring different things to it and therefore take different things away with us. "The Journalist" was an excellent example of how different people can see the same thing and come to totally different conclusions. >However, when the Bible gives a description of what a certain >thing is, that should be enough. Not for all of us, Mike. :-) And, at any rate, there is not an actual *description* of the cherubims in Gen. 3:24; it merely says that they were the guards to the entrance to Eden. The flaming sword is listed separately, not as something inherent to the nature of cherubims. Neither is there much of a description in Ex. 25:18-21, where the cherubim are named as the creatures with wings outstretched that grace either end of the Ark of the Covenant and look toward the mercy seat. This utilisation, imo, lends credence to the idea that the cherubim are *not* fearsome, fierce creatures, as they are the ones gazing on the very place which symbolises God's mercy. This particular slant is very much, I believe, like what we see on TBAA; the angels on the show are very much there to give messages about God's love and mercy. Chapter 10 in Ezekiel gives us description of cherubims with four faces, but this does not appear to be the norm, as, "...the first face was the face of a cherub" (v. 14) and the others were different sorts of faces. This seems to imply that a typical cherub would have a particular *type* of face, but what this would be is not described. About the only physical description we get from the Bible about cherubims is that they have wings. As someone mentioned, the tradition of portraying angels and cherubims in the way we are now used to seeing was an artistic convention. And it is that image that has become the one most in the minds of average people everywhere, and the one which is found in your Webster's (1. any kind of angel, often represented as a chubby, rosy-faced child with wings; 2. an innocent or lovely child). Interesting that TBAA has angels with no wings, pretty much indicating that they are not related the Biblical cherubims. >All I said was that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that >cherubs are baby angels. You're absolutely right about this; as near as I can tell, in the King James translation at least, cherub is the singular and cherubims is the plural. (Webster's agrees with this as well.) At any rate, the Biblical definition and description of "cherub(ims)" apparently does not have bearing on the TBAA definition of "cherub" as per Monica's comment in "Fear Not". I suspect that, in this case, the show was drawing on the popular (secular) conceptualization of a "cherub", which is also interesting, since Martha Williamson places so much stock in being very Biblical in their representations and definitions (hence, no wings on angels, as that is not Biblically supportable). In the case of the cherub(ims), however, it seems that TBAA diveres from Biblical definitions. When discussing the show, we really, I believe, must work from their definitions of their own terms. Saying they're "wrong" because they're using different definitions than another source is like saying that one science fiction show is "wrong" for using an unproven scientific theory differently than another sci-fi show. Bright Blessings, Amilyn ---- Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:54:07 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: The Angel of Angels In a message dated 97-04-30 19:47:16 EDT, you write: >But biblically speaking, and I am not sure where it is but I can >look it up. I am sure that Michael is the Archangel. Jude 9. Bright Blessings, Amilyn ---- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:24:24 -0500 From: Trek Tech To: gryphon @ .addy.com, tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: The Angel of Angels At 06:27 PM 4/30/97 -0500, gryphon @ .addy.com wrote: >On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Signpraise @ .addy.com wrote: >>I am sure that Michael is the Archangel. > >He's *an* archangel, according to Christian (and pre- and >non-Christian) theology. But he's not the only one, according to >Medieval Christian tradition, at least. There are at least four >Archangels, also known as the Guardians of the Quarters (for the four >quarters of the world). Each, according to Mideival Catholic doctrine, I agree totally with everything here, it's the same that I remember I was taught. :) I would like to add one point, also from the Catholic doctrine. While the four archangels *could* be called "Angels of Angels", Michael has traditionally been known as *the* Angel of Angels. If I remember Sunday school right, Lucifer (now Satan) was at the right hand of God, and Michael on the left. (This was "before" Christ, somewhere before or during Genesis) Lucifer was the most powerful angel, and Michael was the second. Then, Lucifer decided he wanted to become God. All that power wasn't enough, he wanted more. So, God cast Lucifer out and Lucifer became Satan. Michael was then placed at the right hand of God. Now, with the birth of Jesus Christ, Jesus is at the right hand of God, so I guess Michael is back at his beginning post. :) Michael is still technically the Angel of Angels, since Jesus *is* God according to Christians. Now, I don't know whether all of this is stated specifically in the Bible, all I know is that this the Catholic Church's belief and what I was taught at in a Catholic school. Can anyone else confirm it? But I do think that Diane is correct. And it does make sense that "our" angels would have different "head angels", as in the (at least) four archangels. However, since I believe there is only one Angel of Angels (hence the singular Angel ;), and that the Angel of Angels is Michael, I would have to assume they were talking about him. But of course, this is all IMHO. :) -TT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (-|-) TIL--TAOS-L--IPAPCT--KID--ONE--LOVEU--J/AiA--DMFW--MFWC ->--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Join "Star Trek Top Ten List of the Day!" Info: jcgibson @ .addy.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Join the TrekScoop newsletter and get the latest news in Star Trek! mail: majordomo @ .addy.org with message: subscribe mplite_qp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Super Star Trek page: http://www.addy.net/~jcgibson/index.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I asked Jesus "How much do you love me?" And He answered, "This much" And He stretched out His arms And died. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 21:10:33 -0500 From: Karen_Savage @ .addy.EDU To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: TBAA/PL Crossover ep On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:20:15 -0500 (CDT) gryphon @ .addy.com wrote: So, what *are* Mr. >Greene's good points? He's the hero of PL; he must have *some*. I've only seen PL a couple of times, (mostly the tbaa crossovers :)), but I think, IMHO, his main good trait is his willingness to follow wherever God leads him. Karen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 19:52:21 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Meil" To: "Trek Tech" , , Subject: Reply To Quote >Now, with the birth of Jesus Christ, Jesus is at the right hand of God, so >I guess Michael is back at his beginning post. :) Michael is still >technically the Angel of Angels, since Jesus *is* God according to >Christians. You know, NOW I'm confused. I don't believe that Jesus is A "GOD", I have no information to prove that, (I have not gone to Sunday School in a Very Long time, nor have I read the bible, except for Genesis for a english essay I did. :-)) I believe that Jesus exsisted to die for our sins, (DUH!! :-)) and was, and is, a great being, second to GOD, I guess. Just to let you people know, I WILL read the bible soon, just when will be the time is not known, hopefully this summer. :-) I will get more info when I do. IMHO :-) Andrew D. Meil age 15 El Cajon, CA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:21:31 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: Real Angels In a message dated 97-04-30 22:37:55 EDT, TT wrote: > I do NOT believe, this is where I disagree with the above >books, that they can or would tell us what >to do. God gave us free will, what we do is up to us. Because I believe >this, I cannot believe that angels will answer questions about the future >without being a hypocrite. Actually, I think it makes very good sense that angels, being messengers by definition, would perhaps offer suggestions or advice. They could tell us what to do till they were blue in the face and we would still have the free will to disregard them. I think we see that happen on the show all the time; Monica will tell someone what they need to hear and will have to simply go away and allow that person to make the decision. She did it with Jason this week--gave him advice about what she (and/or God) thought he ought to do, then he had to decide. Telling him what to do didn't make him do it. In "Sins of the Father", Tess had told the father what to do and he had ignored her and therefore kept his life on a path that destroyed him. Kevin had said: >>I'm sure a lot of them are nut cases, but I can certainly believe that some >>of them are real. (A lot like Lourdes). TT replied: >Oh, I agree totally with you. There are always nut cases, but I believe at >least some of them are real. Well, within the belief system, it would make sense; Biblically there is "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Heb. 13:2). I think that a lot of the real life stories that people tell are things that they only realize in retrospect could be considered to be angelic intervention. Now that I mention that....I'd kind of like to see an ep of the show where they *don't* do the "I am an Angel sent by God" bit....and where they help the person without having their "angel reveal" moment--I think that those kinds of occurrences are more common and I would like to see if such an anonymous assist could be worked into the show. Of course, I *do* always prefer the episodes where they are putting a different spin on their typical formula. :-) >Yes, that is great. But, I have heard people give *all* the glory to the >angel. That is what is wrong. In your opinion. There are perhaps a lot of people who believe they are implying what you would consider appropriate credit simply by crediting an angel, whom, they believe, is inherently sent by God and therefore thanks to him as well would be understood. Just a thought. And certainly on TBAA, the angels do accept thanks and feel proud of the work that they do--because, sent by God or no, they are doing the actual work themselves. ::rant mode on:: I do have a personal issue with this particular idea though--where you (or, in this case, the angels) can't accept any thanks or compliments because of the idea that it is *God* who permits all good things to happen. Of course, you can't *blame* him for the bad things, and you can't take credit for the good....so either you're being turned by this doctrine into a marionette at the mercy of God and the devil, or you're this bad person who can't do anything good unless God is in a particularly good mood and helps. Grrr. Never have liked that. Sorry. ::rant mode off:: Okay...I have to go read Julius Caesar and True Grit now. Night, all! Bright Blessings, Amilyn ---- May the spirits stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you walk. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:11:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Finabair @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: RE: John on Promised Land Kevin Brown posted, regarding next week's PL: >Only to discover that it's just an actor trying to get invited to talk >shows. Oh, yeah...I'm sure it's every actor's *dream* to spend all his time talking to Oprah and Kathy Lee instead of acting...*giggle*, *snort* Later! Jennie finabair @ .addy.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 21:59:32 -0700 From: marlis ostermann To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Arch Angel Michael > Marlis, > I thought that was who they meant too. Remember, Monica telling Tess and > Andrew how concerned he was about her posture. Get it the Arch angel...Arch > your back..I guess..stand up straight and don't slouch. I thought it was > Michael. Judy, I Love this!! I never thought about the play on words - how clever! :-) By the way, for those who are interested, there is a good book by Ron Rhodes called Angels Among Us, and it talks about the current angel craze, what's biblical, what's not, and the different roles and types of angels, biblically speaking. It's quite interesting. Cheers and GB's Marlis :-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:50:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Finabair @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: ADMIN: Reminder - All this angel talk I've seen a couple of posts that were *completely* off topic. This is a no-no. Just remember, folks, that the topic is TBAA, *not* angels in the Bible or whether or not talking to them is OK in your personal religious beliefs. So make sure you're relating your posts to TBAA, OK? Take care, Jennie finabair @ .addy.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:10:33 -0400 (EDT) From: SunbirdSE @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Roma on "Fox After Breakfast" For anyone who may have missed Roma on the Fox talk show, "Fox After Breakfast", you really missed a treat. She was on Wed. morning, and was excellent, as always. She mentioned that She, David, Reilly, & Vanessa were flying to Ireland during the summer hiatus to introduce Reilly to her family in Ireland. Also, I liked the little "care package" that the staff gave her, of goodies from Ireland. Also, much thanks goes to Sue (SMGMN) for being ever dilligent to alert us to when a TBAA star is going to be on anything. Thanks, Sue!!! Jan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:30:18 -0400 (EDT) From: SunbirdSE @ .addy.com To: tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: extra TBAA ep tonight, Thurs. Everyone, don't forget, there's an extra TBAA ep, "The Sky Is Falling" airing tonight, Thurs, 5/1/97 at 8:00 central time Jan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:54:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Kevin To: AmilynH @ .addy.com, tbaangel @ .addy.com Subject: Amy's Masterstroke >I do have a personal issue with this particular idea though--where you (or, >in this case, the angels) can't accept any thanks or compliments because of >the idea that it is *God* who permits all good things to happen. Of course, >you can't *blame* him for the bad things, and you can't take credit for the >good....so either you're being turned by this doctrine into a marionette at >the mercy of God and the devil, or you're this bad person who can't do >anything good unless God is in a particularly good mood and helps. Grrr. > Never have liked that. Sorry. BRAVO, that was brilliant. I'd been grasping for a way to tell TT that angels are capable of thought and emotion. You did it for humans, and I think it works for both types of creature. Well done. Jennie, I promise I'll cool the real angel stuff, but I wanted to publicly express my admiration for Amy's insight. Kevin IWAAOTRTICH ============================================ Kevin D. Ashman Phone: BEEP! Department of Chemistry Fax: BEEP! .addy. e-mail: kda1 @ .addy.edu .addy. .addy. .addy. *** The opera ghost really existed. - G.L. *** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 97 9:27:15 EDT From: "Michael Miller" To: Subject: re: Re: The Angel of Angels >If I remember Sunday school right, Lucifer (now Satan) was at the right hand of God, and >Michael on the left. (This was "before" Christ, somewhere before or during Genesis I realize this is off-topic of TBAA, but I had to respond to this. There is no "before" Christ. Christ always was. Evening in the beginning He was with God. If you read Genesis you will note that. Mike ************************************************************* Only the individual sender is responsible for the content of this message, and the message does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Education Association or NEA Member Benefits. ************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 97 9:30:34 EDT From: "Michael Miller" To: Subject: re: Reply To Quote >You know, NOW I'm confused. I don't believe that Jesus is A "GOD", I >have no information to prove that, (I have not gone to Sunday School in a >Very Long time, nor have I read the bible, except for Genesis for a >english essay I did. :-)) I believe that Jesus exsisted to die for our >sins, (DUH!! :-)) and was, and is, a great being, second to GOD, I guess. >Just to let you people know, I WILL read the bible soon, just when will >be the time is not known, hopefully this summer. :-) I will get more info >when I do. IMHO :-) There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These three are one. ************************************************************* Only the individual sender is responsible for the content of this message, and the message does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Education Association or NEA Member Benefits. ************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:30:41 -0700 (MST) From: Dorothy E Tinkler To: tbaa Subject: Re: The Angel of Angels and Ages of Angels Everyone: Diane: I loved the way you tied everything together with the archangels. Also, I was the one who asked about the angels appearing as a child. I really was wondering that if Monica could appear as an old woman, could an angel appear, and that is the key word here, appear as a child. I wasn't refering to a child or baby angel only the appearance of the angel. So, could an "adult" angel appear as a child was my question. Would the show do that? I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I just wanted to clarify. Dorothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:43:35 +0000 From: "Ray Simard" To: TBAAngel @ .addy.com Subject: Re: Amy's Masterstroke > Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:54:33 -0400 (EDT) > To: AmilynH @ .addy.com, tbaangel @ .addy.com > From: Kevin > Subject: Amy's Masterstroke > >I do have a personal issue with this particular idea though--where you (or, > >in this case, the angels) can't accept any thanks or compliments because of > >the idea that it is *God* who permits all good things to happen. Of course, > >you can't *blame* him for the bad things, and you can't take credit for the > >good....so either you're being turned by this doctrine into a marionette at > >the mercy of God and the devil, or you're this bad person who can't do > >anything good unless God is in a particularly good mood and helps. Grrr. > > Never have liked that. Sorry. > > > BRAVO, that was brilliant. I'd been grasping for a way to tell TT > that angels are capable of thought and emotion. You did it for humans, > and I think it works for both types of creature. Well done. A good example of both is in "Groundswell," when Monica misleads the agents chasing Scott Walden (Robert Hays) to give him time to escape. She showed thought in how she devised the trick, but also emotion that overrode her better judgment and got her into some very hot celestial water. God gives us free will and the intellect to make the free will meaningful. Whatever we do, it is by His power that we have the ability both to do it, and to have any understanding of what it is we're doing, and what the consequences may be. When we choose well or choose badly, the responsibility for the choice is ours. We really can take a certain degree of credit for our better choices, but if we at the same time give thanks and praise to Him who granted us the power to make the choices and the abilities that allow us to act on them. -- Ray Simard rsimard @ .addy.com "Who you are is more essential than that. It comes from God. And what you make of yourself, that is what you give back to God." Monica (from The Quotable Angel) -------------------------------- End of tbaangel-d Digest V97 Issue #55 **************************************