Was it God's will for Israel to have a king?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I was taught old school. I wonder why John didnt say to the “angels” of the church _____? Why did he say, “to the Angel” of the church, just one.

You also have failed to offer any scripture to support the notion that the angels of the churches were pastors.

Please do so.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One angel of a church is one person.

Yes, but why weren’t they all addressed?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yes, but why weren’t they all addressed?

No.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, you have given zero scripture for evidence that the angel of any church in Revelation was a pastor. Do you believe all angels are pastors, and all pastors are angels?

You are once again missing the forest for the trees.

You are against ONE pastor because you are claiming ONE MAN should not lead a congregation. In your mind, ONE pastor means ONE MAN LEADING the congregation. You were not against the issue of a pastor leading a congregation but moreso against ONE MAN leading it. And you admitted that Rev 2-3 shows ONE MAN being addressed on behalf of the congregation. You admitted angel is MESSENGER. You admitted it's a man. So who is the MESSENGER of a congregation? How would Rev 2-3 fit YOUR idea of who is the messenger that gives the messages from God to the congregation?

Technically, I think that single human angel could be any one of the five-fold ministries. Some people that are known as "pastors" due to tradition are not technically pastor of the church but may be a teacher, a prophet. Etc., and it is clear that God set them so. It is self-evident. But all of the five ministries should be present in a church ideally. That just cannot be the case in all of them .

Let's not fool ourselves. People WILL NOT FOLLOW someone they do not want to follow. If they DO FOLLOW someone in the kingdom of God and not some cult or counterfeit, it's obviously because God set that person so. Pastors lead sheep. So, once again, I await YOUR answer... why not a single pastor lead a congregation? I've seen sheep follow one shepherd.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are once again missing the forest for the trees.

You are against ONE pastor because you are claiming ONE MAN should not lead a congregation. In your mind, ONE pastor means ONE MAN LEADING the congregation. You were not against the issue of a pastor leading a congregation but moreso against ONE MAN leading it. And you admitted that Rev 2-3 shows ONE MAN being addressed on behalf of the congregation. You admitted angel is MESSENGER. You admitted it's a man. So who is the MESSENGER of a congregation? How would Rev 2-3 fit YOUR idea of who is the messenger that gives the messages from God to the congregation?

Technically, I think that single human angel could be any one of the five-fold ministries. Some people that are known as "pastors" due to tradition are not technically pastor of the church but may be a teacher, a prophet. Etc., and it is clear that God set them so. It is self-evident. But all of the five ministries should be present in a church ideally. That just cannot be the case in all of them .

Let's not fool ourselves. People WILL NOT FOLLOW someone they do not want to follow. If they DO FOLLOW someone in the kingdom of God and not some cult or counterfeit, it's obviously because God set that person so. Pastors lead sheep. So, once again, I await YOUR answer... why not a single pastor lead a congregation? I've seen sheep follow one shepherd.

Please. I don’t believe I ever said it was a human. If I did I never meant to. My contention is that we never have believed, to my knowledge, that others in the Bible referred to as angels, were humans. Were the two angels that warned Lot to leave, human? I don’t believe the angels in Revelation are pastors. I see no scriptural evidence that they were.

Please tell me what I said, to make you think that I believe that.

In reference to the statement in bold; where did I admit that the angels in Revelation were human?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, I assume that it is a messenger from God. As it is in other places in the Bible. I see no scriptural evidence of it being a pastor. I know some believe it, but the evidence is pretty weak.

Answer your own question. I’ll be checking back for your answer.

The angels of the churches were prophets to those churches. Revelation 22:9 tells us exactly who this messenger is. John goes to worship the angel, but as did Peter with Cornelius, John is stopped. Acts 10:25-26. Any form of worship towards man is idolatry. Acts 14:12-14 Paul is mistaken for being god in the flesh, and called Mercury, because Mercury was the mouth piece of god, a messenger like an angel. At hearing this Paul and Barnabas tear their clothing in mourning. Then saying the words we are men like you, Peter tells Cornelius the same. The angel to John, basically the same but adds more information, that he keeps the sayings of the book. Pastors were never singular, nor any of the other church governing titles. All was done by elders. Which Peter tells us that he was an elder 1 Peter 5:1. The whole one man over a large group is primarily a Catholic clergy model, which goes back to the priests of the temple Saturn. The main temple of Rome.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Please. I don’t believe I ever said it was a human. If I did I never meant to. My contention is that we never have believed, to my knowledge, that others in the Bible referred to as angels, were humans. Were the two angels that warned Lot to leave, human? I don’t believe the angels in Revelation are pastors. I see no scriptural evidence that they were.

Please tell me what I said, to make you think that I believe that.

In reference to the statement in bold; where did I admit that the angels in Revelation were human?

Sorry, I thought you said they were human.

If you feel these angels are not human, then please elaborate. I believe they can only be human. Is a heavenly angel lin need of repentance as most of the letters to the church claim they are?

If it was not a human messenger, then why did Jesus tell John to write the letters to the churches for the angel to read? Did an angel require a physical book to read from John to get the message that he had to repent?