M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Do any Protestants believe there is an angel Raphael?
- Status
C
Ces280
Guest
Yes. It’s in the Bible, but I am one who believes in the validity of Tobit.
S
Syele
Guest
I believe there are many many angels. No way to know all their names. 
As for Raphael specifically, I believe Tobit is not “inerrant” but is still a good book. He probably exists.
As for Raphael specifically, I believe Tobit is not “inerrant” but is still a good book. He probably exists.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Those that are familiar with the book of Tobit that’s in the Catholic bible know of the angel Raphael, Tobit is not in the King James Version of the bible that most Protestants read. Angels is one of those Christian topics that the lay protestant Miss out on the tremendous teaching of Angels in the Catholic Church, for instance the 9 choirs of angels. Although Jews are familiar with Raphael the arch angel.
I
IrishAm
Guest
Tobit is not in the Protestant version of the Bible. I had never of it, and wondrous Raphael, until I converted. Then suddenly it seemed he was everywhere; even the patron of the parish at which my second daughter was baptized. I like his role of guide, healer, companion and matchmaker.
M
moondweller
Guest
I for one will go on record that I do not believe the angel “Raphael” exists. The only way we can know any names of angels is if they are divinely revealed. I do not accept the book of Tobit as Divinely inspired writing, hence, the so-called angel by that name was never divinely revealed to us - like Michael and Gabriel. For all we know “Raphael” is the product of the author’s imagination.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Really? Have some Jews written about him?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
If you believe in Gabriel and Michael then you follow the Catholic faith, It was the Catholic Church that canonized our scriptures that contain Gabriel and Michael as inspired of God, to which you just attested too. Its not just Catholics who believe in Raphael so do Jews. Tobit got taken out of your bible the king james version. the book of Tobit has always in the holy bible as inspired of God before the protestant reformers took it out.
The most beautiful things in the universe are not seen with the eyes but felt with the heart.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yes, and many other angels are named from Jewish tradition. The book of Enoch (Jewish tradition) reveals them, Enoch even names the fallen angels during Genisis.
M
moondweller
Guest
No “church” wrote Scripture. Individual men, inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself, penned each word.
No, I don’t “follow the Catholic faith.” I agree with Catholicism on the list of N.T. Books, but disagree with its list of O.T. Books.
The books of the Apocrypha were added to the Septuagint but were not in the HEBREW O.T. They were written after O.T. prophecy, oracles and direct revelation had ceased. Even Josephus rejected them as a whole. Nor were they ever recognized by the Jews as part of the HEBREW Scriptures. They were never quoted by Jesus, nor anywhere in the N.T. Nor were they recognized by the Early church as of cannonical authorty, nor as of divine inspiration.
When the Bible was translated into Latin in the 2nd century a.d., its O.T. was translated not from the Jewish, HEBREW O.T. but from the Greek Septuagint, hence the Apocryphal books were carried over into the Latin translation, and from there into the Latin Vulgate, which became the common version in Western Europe till the time of the Reformation.
Protestants, basing their movement on the Divine Authority of God’s written Word, at once rejected the Apocryphal books as did the Early church and the ancient Hebrews. It wasn’t until the council of Trent that the books were officially declared by the Catholic church to be canonical.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The only early Catholic Christian church never rejected the books only argued them as did many other writings (Letters) before including them in the bible.
**There were many other councils before Trent that had already approved the List (Canonized) books of the bible. All these early councils prior to Trent authorized the same books as we have them today in the Catholic Bible. It took the Catholic Church 400 yrs to finally say no more councils needed to dispute the Canonized (list) of books, and closed the bible as is today.
Peace be with you
**
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Moondweller, We kind of got off topic, in any case the Angel Raphael is in the disputed books and the Jewish religion, still believe in the Angel Raphael. So I ask you, how does the Jewish Religion believe in an Angel that is recorded in the book of Tobit, a book the Jews in 100 a.d rejected and so did the Reformers 1500 yrs later, Still believe in the Angel Raphael?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Are you sure about that?
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Could you elaborate on this?
M
Mystic_Warrior
Guest
Yes. He is an archangel. I call upon him frequently to help. I got my information from Tobit and various Christian and non-Christian sources. It’s apparent that with the references available that he exists just like Gabriel and Michael.
You can find listings of the archangels all over the internet.
Peace…
MW
M
moondweller
Guest
“Canonization” is not divine “inspiration.” Divine inspiration refers only to the writing of Scripture.
Here’s the quote directly from the Jewish historian Josephus. He considered the Jewish O.T. canon fixed from the days of Artaxerxes, the time of Ezra:"We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded, but these recent records (referring to the Apocrypha) have not been deemed worthy of equal credit which those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; for, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully lay down his life in their behalf."His testimony as to the Jewish canon of Scripture is of no small value. His words are unquestionable testimony to the belief of the Jewish nation of Jesus’ day as to what Books comprised the Hebrew Scriptures.
IOW, that collection of books had been completed and fixed for 400 years preceding his time (and that of the time of Jesus).
Josephus said 22 books because the Jews combine the 2 books each of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles into one, Ezra and Nehemiah into one, and the twelve minor prophets into one. These 24 books are the same as the 39 books of the O.T. Josephus combined Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah; making his number 22. Nevertheless, collectively, they comprise the 39 Books of the O.T. The Apocryphal books were never considered inspired writings.
O.T., direct divinely, written revelation ceased with the last Hebrew prophet Malachi. It starts out with “The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi (“my messenger”).” “I have loved you,” says the Lord.
If some Jews believe in such an angel then their belief is based on Jewish legend, not divine revelation. I must reject belief in such an “angel” because his existence is based only on legend and not direct, divine revelation. Judaism believed many traditions which even Jesus had to correct. Christendom has followed suit.
M
moondweller
Guest
The Apocryphal books originated in the 1st to 3rd centuries B.C., mostly of uncertain authorship. Malachi was the last recognized Hebrew prophet to prophesy (in writing) directly to the newly restored Jewish nation to the land after the captivity. The nation that would experience Messiah’s first Advent. As a divine link, Malachi contains the prophecy of John the Baptist’s ministry (3:1; cf. Matt. 11:9-10; Lk. 7:26-27).
In Luke 24:27 it says, "And beginning with Moses (from Genesis) and with all the prophets (to Malachi), He explained the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. Jesus did not include the Apocryphal writings because although they were written between the Testaments, they contain no prophetic link between them. Prophecy, oracles and direct revelation had ceased. The Jews recognized the Apocrypha to be non-inspired, inferior writings.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Moondweller,
How many named Angels do you accept?
How many named Angels do you accept?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
From Catholic Answer Tracts by Jason Evert:
Source: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
Quoting Rev. 22:18 against Catholics is ineffective. For one thing, the next verse could be used by the Catholics against Protestants with the same opposite force: “[A]nd if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:19).
But neither verse applies to this debate. John is speaking only about the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. None of the apostles knew the Bible. The books that comprise Scripture were not canonized until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Guttenburg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.
Besides, the Greek word here for “book” is more accurately translated as “scroll.” The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.
God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon—especially among Jews.
The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.
If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.
Source: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp
- Why did the Catholic Church add seven books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith—to the Old Testament? John forbids this: “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev. 22:18).
Quoting Rev. 22:18 against Catholics is ineffective. For one thing, the next verse could be used by the Catholics against Protestants with the same opposite force: “[A]nd if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:19).
But neither verse applies to this debate. John is speaking only about the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. None of the apostles knew the Bible. The books that comprise Scripture were not canonized until centuries after Christ. Even when that list was established in A.D. 382, the writings were not collected into a single book until after the printing press came into existence. Even Guttenburg’s Bible was published in more than one volume.
Besides, the Greek word here for “book” is more accurately translated as “scroll.” The book of Revelation likely was written on a scroll, but it would have been impossible for the entire Bible to be.
- Since the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), shouldn’t we have the same Old Testament canon as they do?
God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon—especially among Jews.
The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.
If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
- But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.
Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
Luther had a tendency to grade the Bible according to his preferences. In his writings on the New Testament, he noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible.
- Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?
Though there are no quotes, the New Testament does make numerous allusions to the deuterocanonical books. For one strong example, examine Hebrews 11:35: “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release that they might rise again to a better life.” Nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament can this story be found. One must look to a Catholic Bible to read the story in 2 Maccabees 7.
- But the book of Judith says that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians, when he was really king of the Babylonians. If a book has errors, it can’t be inspired.
The same goes with the book of Judith. “Judith” means “lady Jew,” and she personifies the nation of Israel, as “Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians” personifies the enemies of the nation. The Jews of the time were aware that Nebuchadnezzar was not the king of the Assyrians but that the Babylonians and Assyrians were two of the nation’s worst foes joined into one by the author of Judith for the sake of parable.
- Which translation did the first Christians use?
- Didn’t Jerome and Augustine disagree about the deuterocanonical books?
Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.
Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”
Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.
Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
- Status