Archangel Michael

[Michelle Mosca]

I read in a book about saints that archangel Michael was one of the angels who went down to get Lot from Sodom, but when i read the story in Genesis there is no mention of who the angels were. Was the book wrong? And if not, how would we know who the angels were?

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

According to tradition, it was Arch Angel Michael that was sent to save Lot. He was also sent to save the son of Abraham from sacrifice. He was also the angel that was send to Isaac, to Balaam and to Joshua son of Nav. He was the angle that guided the people of Israel out of Egypt.

According to tradition Arch Angel Michael –whose name means “he who looks like God” – is the Angel of mercy and repentance. He is the leader of all angels and archangels, and he is considered the General of the angelic army that confronts evil.

Another Arch Angel is Gabriel. The name Gabriel means "the strength of God". Gabriel is also called Angel of Truth and he is the angel that will call dead and alive in Judgement day to come forth and face Judgment. Arch Angel Gabriel is the angel that brought the good news of incarnation of Christ to Virgin Mother of God.

You can find some information about angels in the following sites:

http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/feasts/11-08.htm
http://www.iconograms.org/sig.php?eid=279
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ab/e218ab32.html
http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/ang_host.html

Much information about Angels is preserved through Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

[Patrick Walsh]

Jude 9 9 Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"

Although this is mentioned in the New Testament, no where it is mentioned in the Old Testament. This is one of many, many New Testament references to the events in the Old Testament of details preserved only in Oral Tradition.

[Marie-Duquette]

Patrick,
Peace of Christ!

Perhaps a miss-print, or double striking of the 9 9 in your post 26. The Letter of Jude has only one chapter; and the verse you refer to is Jude 1:9 A footnote in my Jerusalem Bible refers to Jude 1:9 as "almost certainly a reference to the apocrypha Assumption of Moses.

[Olga]

Dear Leandros

A correction needs to be made as to the meaning of the name Michael. The proper meaning is "Who is like God?" or "Who could be as God is?". The question mark is crucial to the meaning, as not putting it in will give the meaning you provided. (Easy enough mistake to make!) http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Olga,

Your right there, about Michael meaning "Who is like El?" in other words "Who is like God?" ; El being a supposed abreviation of God, Elohe or Elohyim, as taken from Strongs Dictionary.

But it is evident that the first part of God's name (El) means mighty.

So Micha-el is most likely, also, a reference to God's power...hence "Who is as mighty as God?"

This means that Michael is not God, Michael is an Angel of God, a messenger. (I say this because i think some Protestant groups think that Michael is God.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear Michelle

To answer to your question above about Michael not being mentioned in the OT Bible as the one who fought for the body of Moses could probably be found in some lost Holy Scripture used by the Hebrew Tradition around Jesus' time or even before. We have to remember that the Bible did not exist until the Church of Christ and His Apostles decided to gather Holy Scripture used by the Hebrew faithful and the Christian, including the Septuagint translation of the Bible together with the Gospels and letters by the Apostles.

I suspect that although this tradition survives today out of "Oral Tradition", (as Fr Leandros correctly pointed out), it would have also existed somewhere in a lost piece of papyrus which was inaccessible at the time when the Bible canon was being formalised for the sake of preservatiion more than anything else.

This perhaps underscores the significance of Church Tradition as being almost equal to Holy Scripture.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
Peace to you
In Christ,

Kosmas

[Michelle Mosca]

when things get passed down orally, sometimes things tend to change. i'm not saying it's not true, but when was all of this first written down? (i truely am looking for answers i'm not trying to nitpick and disprove anything)

[Patrick Walsh]

My point is that some things held by the Church, even today, are not written down, but carried forward by oral tradition. St. Basil said, "Without Holy Tradition, the Gospels are merely letters on the page." St. Augustine wrote, "I would not believe even the truth of Gospels, had not the Church proclaimed it."

Even the Holy Gospels themselves cannot stand in isolation from Tradition, oral or written. Things that are written down are things that are written down--they are not the truth itself.

I gather that since this is your patron Saint (from your name) you want to verify everything that is written about Him. Pray to the Archangel Michael to reveal Himself to you.

Patrick

[M.C. Steenberg]

when things get passed down orally, sometimes things tend to change.

When things get passed down textually, they also sometimes tend to change.

INXC, Matthew

[Michelle Mosca]

ya, but not something as reliable as the Bible. God wouldn't let that change.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Ya, but not something as reliable as the Bible. God wouldn't let that change

The bible is the without question the clearest example of textual change in the Christian tradition. There is almost no single chapter within it that cannot be demonstrated to be different from the original as penned by its scribe -- whether old testament or new. This goes not only for the project of translation (which is notable, with differing translations in various languages, but even different translations within a single tongue such as English, providing at times distinctly different texts), but also to source text in Greek and Hebrew. It takes only a few hours of study of the New Testament textual tradition, for example, to realise that there are hundreds of versions of this collection, and the 'critical edition' from which most modern translations into English are made is but an invention of
the 19th and 20th centuries.

The bible changes constantly. The more fundamental question is why we are prone to think, today, that 'change' of this sort equates to error, weakness, fallibility or otherwise.

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

can I say that the difference between the versions is just terminology because the difference in linguistic expression of each tranclator but this difference not of deep sort that to say about it is error or weakness, fallibilty or otherwise.

i.e. I can say it is superfecial difference not more and there is no error no weakness no falliabilty

forgive me if this question is simple

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Theopesta,

Your comments are certainly true in general terms: most (though not all) of the textual differences in scriptural books over the course of history are minor. A few are more significant (i.e. alternate endings of books; longer and shorter versions of Mark's Gospel, etc).

But a question: what if the Gospels, and indeed all the scriptures and all references to scripture in other texts, were to vanish one day. Would this pose a problem to the Church?

INXC, Matthew

[Theopesta]

Dr. Matthew I ask your forgiveness for my simple question I want to know more.

studing the end of st. Mark Gospel (mark16: 8- 16) I am not find any satisfying reason to say it is add, these few verses are very compatible with biblical facts generally, and with the orthodox dogma specially.

I find that no question about the new testament we are knowing now from the time of st. Athanasius specially the four Gospel.

the question about the ending of Mark's ending Gospel nearly appear in the 5th cencury but it is present from time of Eusebius bishop of ceasarea he that was the 1st one said that about the Gospels
we know that Eusebius bishop of ceasarea supported arianism.

if at any time God will allow vanishing of th Gospels, I feel it is present vitally of practically in the orthodox church life and dogma

If your REV. not has time to correct my thougts please forgive me for my simplicity
I am very gratful many thanks {euxaristw}
in CHRIST
theopesta

[nurse-aid]

that what it is all come from...Mary MAgdalene...Mary of Egypt...and on...all posseset, all sinfull...then healed...but all Apostols so pure and innosent theat HE chooses them and didn't cast demons from them...it was none? so later it is all come to us women...we have to be guiet in church, listen only what husbad said and on...becuse it is looks like that we are all sinfull and needs to be healed, man are not...

well example of the Theotokos no one can apply...She was ONE and for all...well monastic...yes...they may be qualify...virginity and on...right way from the beggining...so they are might...rest of us is a second brand...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

if at any time God will allow vanishing of th Gospels, I feel it is present vitally of practically in the orthodox church life and dogma.

Was it Archbishop Kallistos Ware that said something like this- that if the entire Gospel was lost to the Church the Church would be able to re-write the Gospel anew-in its essential message if not the exact words.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Was it Archbishop Kallistos Ware that said something like this- that if the entire Gospel was lost to the Church the Church would be able to re-write the Gospel anew-in its essential message if not the exact words.

I'm sure many people have said this, Bishop Kallistos among them. The most famous quotation to this effect is by Metropolitan Antony of Sourozh, who said that Christians should live life such that, should the Gospels vanish, they could be re-written from our lives.

INXC, Matthew

[Michelle Mosca]

The Bible may not be essential to the church, however it is essential to the average Christian life. God filled it with wisdom for us to use. He did not give it to us and say "Use it if you want, it's really not that important".

Human error only occurs in the gospel when they try and change things on their own. It says that if words are added or taken away then it becomes usless.

The Bible was guided by the Holy Spirit, by God. It is essencial because God says it is. Be grateful for what He has supplied to us, questioning His word is destructive to faith, which is part of your armour.

[Michelle Mosca]

Anyway, my question was not answered, when were all the stories of the saints first written down? Again, i'm not questioning the validity of it, I would actually like to know so i can do some research and maybe find something good to read on it all.

[Patrick Walsh]

Well, we seem to have mastered the art of sidetracking the topic. Anyway, I believe the stories of the Saints are written down by various authorities in relation to the Saint in question.

For example, the life of St. Patrick of Ireland was composed by himself in his autobiography, his famous "Breastplate of Patrick."

The "Life of Antony the Great" was composed by none other than the great St. Athanasios.

Some saint's lives are composed by someone in later times gathering information and stories about that saint, and compiling them into a single tract. This is done when the person is proclaimed a Saint by the Church.

My understanding is that when a Saint is proclaimed, the "Hagios Bios," or the Holy life of the Saint in question is then proclaimed as well.

I imagine the Life of St. Michael and other personages from the Bible itself have had a story created based on Scripture combined with what was known from Tradition which was proclaimed when his Holy Day(s) was proclaimed by the Church.

This is my understanding of how the record of the Saint's lives come into being, and it is a general rule. I am sure there are saints whose lives were not so proclaimed, Holy Martyr St. Patriki of Vladimir," for example.

Those who are saved are all saints. But by the grace of God, the Church chooses to proclaim some of these saints, Saints of the Church, to make our way straight by the light of their example for us.

Patrick