Anna is wrong about angels
Mar. 19th, 2009 07:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feliciakwI make this post mostly for myself, to highlight details of Show that I have gut feelings about, but can't point immediately to why I have those gut feelings.
In "Heaven and Hell," Anna says that only four angels have ever seen God. This is one of the points that set my teeth on edge, but it was more of an instinct thing (throne room full of angels, how could only four have actually seen God?).
Well, today during my Bible study (which deals with something entirely different), I read a verse that made me say to myself, "Ha. Anna is wrong. Here's what Scripture actually says."
Matthew 18:10 . . . "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
I'm not going to get into the idea of personal guardian angels, for which I don't think there's any actual Biblical support. But the above referenced verse indicates that angels do watch over children, and said angels do have constant access to God.
Now, I know Show is taking (huge) liberties with Scripture (like the Revelation(s) reference in last week's episode). But angels are a topic I apparently don't know enough about to be able to sort through the literary license on more than gut instinct. I'm trying to remedy that.
In "Heaven and Hell," Anna says that only four angels have ever seen God. This is one of the points that set my teeth on edge, but it was more of an instinct thing (throne room full of angels, how could only four have actually seen God?).
Well, today during my Bible study (which deals with something entirely different), I read a verse that made me say to myself, "Ha. Anna is wrong. Here's what Scripture actually says."
Matthew 18:10 . . . "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
I'm not going to get into the idea of personal guardian angels, for which I don't think there's any actual Biblical support. But the above referenced verse indicates that angels do watch over children, and said angels do have constant access to God.
Now, I know Show is taking (huge) liberties with Scripture (like the Revelation(s) reference in last week's episode). But angels are a topic I apparently don't know enough about to be able to sort through the literary license on more than gut instinct. I'm trying to remedy that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this
Date: 2009-03-20 10:31 pm (UTC)The Apocryhpa was (IIRC) put back by the Council of Trent: Reformation/Counter-reformation, and all that committee decision making.
Yes, Maccabees gives the world an excuse for Hanukkah: chocolate candy, filled doughnuts. All good. ;)
I've never been to a con (except a Pokemon one when my kids were wee little). Went to an academic conference in Melbourne that turned into a con, but that's it. I'd rather meet them (anyone) over coffee or Guinness. Smelly, screaming fans give me indigestion. ;)
Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this
Date: 2009-03-20 10:36 pm (UTC)Word. I'm am totally with you on that one.
Re: They should have a trivial pursuit on this
Date: 2009-03-20 10:59 pm (UTC)And we totally should do that in a fan-neutral place. Which would be ... Shaker Heights? St. Clairesville -- great cafeteria there? Just not the northwest corner. I have nightmares about working national parks between Maumee and Defiance (even worse 'cuz there's a town with my family name nearby). OOOhh -- Sandusky...