thnx Tom, yu to.

The norse civilization was born in the South of the Scandinavian Peninsula, the land of the fjords, lit by the boreal sun and swept acros by the winds of long and cold winters. The formation of this people began around the 10th century BC, and the iron age started rather late on these lands, about the >>>>>5th century BC.<<<<< The first certain proofs of a norse culture date from the time when these people began crafting iron objects. The first representations of the gods Odin and Thor, as well as the first runic inscriptions also date back to this period.



so if it was te 5th Century BC as to the developement of the mythologies, then it does not supercede the angels of monothestic thought. correct?

dates please - when did the norse people originate any idea? was it before the egyptians? after? dates are important here to know for sure? -

was norse mythology before or after monothistic mythology? dates please

The true meaning of love, as defined in the Bible, has been corrupted in the common usage of our English language and society. Most often, love is confused with infatuation - that elated, "high" feeling we get when we "fall in love." This kind of "love" is something that lasts typically less than a year, and unless replaced by true love, results in broken relationships.

Origin of Love The Bible indicates that love is from God. In fact, the Bible says "God is love."1 Love is one of the primary characteristics of God. Likewise, God has endowed us with the capacity for love. This capacity for love is one of the ways in which we are "created in the image of God."2

Different Kinds of Love The Greek language (the language of the New Testament) uses two different words to describe and define love. The most commonly used Greek word translated "love" in the New Testament is "agape." This love is represented by God's love for us. It is a non-partial, sacrificial love probably best exemplified by God's provision for our rebellion:

"For God so loved (agape) the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

The gift3 of God's son as a provision for sin4 was given to all humans,5 regardless of who we are.6 God's love is unconditional.7

In contrast, our love is usually conditional and based upon how other people behave toward us. This kind of love is based upon familiarity and direct interaction. The Greek word "phileo" defines this kind of love, often translated "brotherly love." Phileo is a soulish (connected through our emotions) kind of love - something that can be experienced by both believers and non-believers. This is in contrast to agape, which is love extended through the spirit. Agape love requires a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, since the non-regenerated soul is unable to love unconditionally. Agape love gives and sacrifices expecting nothing back in return.8

Those who have studied the Bible and know about Peter's character know that Peter was ruled by his emotions and often responded to situations emotionally, rather than thinking before acting. Sometimes this kind of response lead to good things (e.g., Peter walking on the water to meet Jesus - Matthew 14:25-33), whereas at other times, Peter's response was inappropriate (He was interrupted by God while suggesting that he build three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration - Matthew 17:4). Peter was quite proficient at expressing phileo love, and was probably very popular because of his dynamic character. However, God wants us to express both phileo love and agape love. Peter expressed this idea in his first epistle:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love [phileo] of the brethren, fervently love [agape] one another from the heart, (1 Peter 1:22)

Believers in the churches of Asia Minor had already expressed phileo love, but Peter was encouraging them to fervently express agape love as well. If you are a Christian, you are encouraged to express both soulish, familiar love and spirit-led unconditional love. The goal of the Christian is to become "partakers of the divine nature."9 In Peter's second epistle, he says that we are to behave with moral excellence. However, this is not enough. Christians tend to be characterized by non-believers as telling other people how they ought to behave. However, the Christian life should not be restricted to just moral excellence, but, above all else, should include both phileo and agape love:

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness [phileo], and in your brotherly kindness, love [agape]. (2 Peter 1:5-7)

The most famous biblical chapter on love is from 1 Corinthians:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

This is a description of agape love. It is described as being patient, kind, truthful, unselfish, trusting, believing, hopeful, and enduring. It is not jealous, boastful, arrogant, rude, selfish, or angry.

""tribo comment"" - and yet we see god being these thing's and saying these things even about himself??? HMMM??? does he not boast of himself? does he not say he is a jealous god? Does he not show himself being selfish- wanting what he wants and how he wants it? as well as others listed here also? - interesting huh? MTCW!!




True love never fails. The description perfectly fits God's love toward us, and should be the way we love each other and God. However, >>>>>>I have never met any person who perfectly fulfills this biblical definition of love.<<<<<< The Bible says that this unconditional love is more important than everything else (a partial list includes oratory ability, prophecy, knowledge, faith, philanthropy and hope). All of these things, which are "good" things, will pass away. Only love is eternal, since love will be the basis of eternal life. In fact, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He said, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." (Matthew 22:37)9 He then added that the second most important law was "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Jesus said that the entire law was dependent upon these two commandments.9

.10

Interesting, this is what we should do but yet author says no one has? it's a command then that no one can obey? commandments that cant be met? interesting??

NO!!! it was pretty much what you were saying -

no he could not make us love him to "make" anyone do something against there will would not be love. no one would love god if it was an act of having to or being made to.

hmmm? then it seems strange to me if this is the case that if the book is true that there would be no mention of angels in other civilizations that were before the monotheistic beliefs. if angels were supposedly known from the first days of creating man then would not A&E have passed on this info to those who became other civilizations? why did not the Sumerians or others know of the existence and write of these beings if they were handed down by word from the earliest times? surely A&E would have mentioned them to their children if that were the case? having seen the one that guarded the gates of Eden with a fiery sword, long before mankind made swords. the talk of swords in the book leads one to have to contemplate historically when we as humans first came up with these weapons, was that about the time of moses or before? interesting subject this angels with swords and chariots and bows and arrows which would have been the ultimate weapons of those early days. you would thing a god that knew of future weapons would have used future weapons NO? why stick with ancient weapons when he could have outfitted them with M-16 and rocket launchers and machine guns. strange this all knowing god seems so limited to have to use the most common ancient war items to fight with huh?

of course i guess it makes no difference since angels cant be killed even with atomic bombs anyway. thus my point - why the need for any weapons what so ever?
for cutting seat bolts in cars? doesn't make sense Deb - they could have just as easily pulled you from the car unscathed without any weapons at all.

i have searched for an hour looking for mention of angels in pre-monotheistic religious cultures and have come up empty!! it seems [at least until someone points me to other sources] that angels have there beginning woth monotheistic beliefs, anybody dispute this?

all answers welcome.

"love"
interesting word actually.

what type do you speak of?

agape? Philio? Eros? other?

Unti lyou've determined which love you speak of, the question can't truely be answered.

OK- i see this, but that does not explain why the angels fought with swords amongst each other or why they would need swords to do battle with one another, such as [even though its not stated] between the fallen angels and Micheal and his army- and is it not called an army?


Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


so we see a "war taking place where? "in heaven"

so again the question, since angels cant be killed, they have no flesh and blood bodies, don't you think its stupid for spiritual creatures who cant kill/murder one another to be fighting one another? Would not god himself be stupid or at least much less than omniscient to go through such wars in heaven? it seems to me he does not have "control" over these things - as i have said here we supposedly have an almighty god/creator that can bring everything into existence in a matter of days that on the other hand cant control his creation and has to resort to wars amongst the angels to bring about what he desires when in all actuality could he not have just spoken and been done with them [the fallen angels] instead of recruiting an army to do so? and fight a battle with swords or any weapons that we know from the book would be ineffectual as to slaying that which can't be slain - spirit?

it makes no sense at all. it puts this god in the position of looking like a commander and chief, a war lord of heaven, who has less power than he or others claim him to have.Again if he spoke the angels into existance, he could have just as easily have spoken them out of existance, no wars - no weapons, no need for disharmony of any kind, which he also could have done with us or any of the rest of his creation, - yet this violent streak is shown of him throughout the old testament and even into the new?

explain please?

Another account of the power of an angel can be seen in Num. 22:22-23, 33: And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand.

thnx for that deb, here you go Miles, this is within the book as you know it, without the aide of Enoch.

deb cherubims and seraphims are angels and they do have wings, we see this in exodus 25, so your mistaken as to angels not having wings it is talked og elsewhere also as to these two types of angels - if your meaning a lower class of angels then make that specific, thnx.

Eze 10:8 And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man’s hand under their wings.
Eze 10:8 ¶ And I saw the cherubs having the likeness of men’s hands under their wings.


here again we read that both cherubims and cherubs have wings and hands like mans.

Eze 10:19 And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD’S house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.
Eze 10:19 And the cherubs lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went forth, the wheels were also {1} beside them, and they stood at the entrance of the {2} front gate of the house of the Lord; and the glory of the God of Israel was upon them above. {1) Or, joined to them 2) Gr. opposite}


as to my original question though - why do angels need swords??

So many thoughts, so many replies, what to do, what to say, - hmmmm? how about nothing -

nah, so i will say this - we all have our opinions be they good or bad, right or wrong, provable or not, we tend to cling to them till something changes our mind - that = growth - and this is what lifes all about.

thnx for your participation,

join the club you old hippy you -

are you sure your not a puppet? sure sounds like it? were you -> Pinnochia<- possibly in a former life? do you like to crach nuts? do you sometimes feel like your a piece of furniture or other wooden object?

I would like to see those scriptures >>>Tibe.<<< Shalom...Miles


I'll pass thaT request on to "tibe" the next time i see him.

Your friend "TRIBO!!!" -

i don't know how to decipher that - can you expand?

you'd be impressed if i told you Methuselah said the ark was made out of dill pickles - get a grip monkey -

then you have both Jude and James[brother of Jesus] to count as witness that it was accepted that Enoch was a prophet and his words used in the NT.if his words are used in the cannon then by default they are canonical are they not?

Or - if every word in the bible is to be believed to come from the mind of god written by inspired men, then there is no choice but to believe the words of Enoch are god breathed - correct? Otherwise, gods people have made a grave mistake and no words can be believed or taken as canon.

The whole book is then a lie. WHY - it means men not guided by god allowed his book to be corrupted on purpose by putting things there and leaving them there for hundreds of years as gospel truth.and makes Jude, James, Paul, and the early church fathers who quoted from or mention Enoch, hypocrites and liars. correct?

This in turn, would make every other saying or written word suspect to its truth, and the whole book collapses under this weight. whether the book is included or not, then the early fathers, Paul, Jude, And James are guilty of not knowing by the holy spirit or Jesus or god that they were telling lies to others by using Enochs words. the book then falls and can no longer stand on any merit what so ever. it could be found to be nothing but lies or hearsay at best. Thus it's demise.