Do any Protestants believe in the angel Raphael?

[Mannyfit75]

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).

The last OId Testament Prophet is John the Baptist. He is the voice crying out in the wilderness. Malachi is not the last prophet.

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.

Actually, the NT cites 2/3 of the Deutrocanonical Books.

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html - Deutrocanonical Books

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html - Septuagint Books

Though they are not worded verbatim, they are referred too. Many Biblical Scholars believe that many of the NT cite the Septuagint and the Deutrocanonical Books.

I also like to add the Dead Sea Scroll have the Hebrew translation of the Sirach and the Book of Tobit.

Two texts preserved from the Apocrypha are the books of Tobitand Sirach, also known as the Deuterocanonical books, preserved in the Roman Catholic canon. Their discovery among the Dead Seas Scrolls is evidence of the Jewish origin of these texts.

Source: myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/AncientTexts/deadseascrolls.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

I see a few problems here.

• If need to know the author is your measure, then you can throw out the book of Job, parts of Isaiah, and others.
• If being quoted by Jesus is your measure, then you can throw out Ezra, Esther, and others.

And how does Jesus’ explanation that “begins” with Moses and the prophets and proceeds to explain the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures, exclude in any way books that are not of the Pentateuch or the Prophets? What do we do with the historical books like Chronicles or Samuel? What do we do with the Psalms? What do we do with wisdom books like Proverbs? You see what I mean?

As well, with few exceptions, the early Church recognized the Divine inspiration of the Deuterocanonical books.

So I think you should believe in Raphael.

 

[inthecloud]

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.

There are plenty fo Jewish sources that mention Raphael, is well known in rabbinic literature.
Raphael was the healer of God, Lilith and Asmodeus archenemy.
Im reading a Jewish study Genesis and Raphael is mentioned a lot.

About the deuteros, there are plenty of threads in this forum.
The protestants apologists keep confusing the “JEWS” with the Pharisees.
The Pharisees canon was allegelly closed during the years 500 to 400 bc. In the time of Erza and confirmend by Hillels teachings.

But modern scholarship has proven that Daniel, Esther and maybe the Song of Solomon are not much older that Maccabees.
They kept that fiction to discart the non Hebrew books from the OT, the books that were written in Greek and Aramaic because YHWH only speaks in Hebrew. Thats was very convenient to discard the NT books.
So if the Pharisees were right about G-D not talking in Aramaic or Greek and stoppend talking after 400 BC (allegedy) them why they are not right too about the NT and Jesus?
That is the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=moondweller;3250415 as much as I would love to discuss in detail our differences, I would just ask you to read the above posts by Mannyfit75. He/she has done a wonderful job of explaining both our views from a nuetral position. It helps from repeating alot of what Iam going to write to you. Please look into the 9 choirs of angels that our Christianity has to offer, I think you would be enlightened on how God works mysteriously in our lives and the universe.

Respecting you Zeal, soldiers in Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would like to commend you Mannyfit75 on your discourse of your posts.Great Job:thumbsup:

Thank you for your clarafication and detail answers. All Iam left with after reading your posts is DITTO!

PEACE AND LOVE ALWAYS IN CHRIST JESUS

 

[moondweller]

So I think you should believe in Raphael.

Sorry, but my faith is not based on myths. Only in the Word of God. And “Raphael” just doesn’t exist there.

 

[moondweller]

The last OId Testament Prophet is John the Baptist. He is the voice crying out in the wilderness. Malachi is not the last prophet.

I didn’t say he was. But John the Baptist didn’t write any prophecy and he’s a N.T. character.

 

[moondweller]

Actually, the NT cites 2/3 of the Deutrocanonical Books.

No it doesn’t. I looked at the article. You can force anything if you want to believe it badly enough.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Sorry, but my faith is not based on myths. Only in the Word of God. And “Raphael” just doesn’t exist there.

I would ask do you believe that Michael and Gabriel are the only angels?

If not then I ask is the only reason that you reject Raphael is because he is mentioned only in Tobit?

Other angels are mentioned throughout the Bible I have no problem believing that Raphael was more that likely on of these unnamed angels for other books of the Bible.

I mean we do no from other sources of scripture the names of 2 angels other than Raphael. Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. So I this leads me to believe that all of them have a name.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I don’t think that any Protestants believe in St. Raphael the Archangel even though it is in the Bible. They decided it would be fun to throw out the things they don’t like. The book of Tobit was one of them.

“So Raphael was sent to heal them both: to remove the cataracts from Tobit’s eyes, so that he might again see God’s sunlight; and to marry Raguel’s daughter Sarah to Tobit’s son Tobiah, and then drive the wicked demon Asmodeus from her. For Tobiah had the right to claim her before any other who might wish to marry her.In the very moment that Tobit returned from the courtyard to his house, Raguel’s daughter Sarah came downstairs from her room.” (Tobit 3:17)

 

[Syele]

Sorry, but my faith is not based on myths. Only in the Word of God. And “Raphael” just doesn’t exist there.

While I agree with you that Tobit isn’t “inspired”, can’t other books hold truth? there are millions of books that say true things, even if God didn’t send them to us. If I write “God exists” that phrase isn’t in the Bible letter for letter, but that doesn’t make it false. If I later write “My first name is Carla,” you cannot say it is definately false jsut beacuse it isn’t “God’s inspired declaration.” You don’t know me or if that is my first name or not. There is nothing in scripture to prove or to disprove my first name. You would have to look at other sources to verify it.

This is the same with the angel Raphael, Unless inspired scripture says "there was no Angel called Raphael, or something that conclusive. Then you have no basis to declare it false jsut cause it’s in Tobit and you don’t believe Tobit is inspired. We can learn from Tobit the same as we learn from modern day history books. They aren’t guaranteed to be 100% accurate but that doesn’t negate their usefulness. You can look to other sources to verify accuracy.

Since there are many references to Raphael outside of Tobit, I see no reason presented to deny Raphael exists.

Arguing about if Tobit is God inspired is beside the point.

 

[natsclem]

1. 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.

inerrancy of the bible does not include factual inerrancy. it is limited to things pertaining to salvation.

 

[Zooey]

While I agree with you that Tobit isn’t “inspired”, can’t other books hold truth? there are millions of books that say true things, even if God didn’t send them to us. If I write “God exists” that phrase isn’t in the Bible letter for letter, but that doesn’t make it false. If I later write “My first name is Carla,” you cannot say it is definately false jsut beacuse it isn’t “God’s inspired declaration.” You don’t know me or if that is my first name or not. There is nothing in scripture to prove or to disprove my first name. You would have to look at other sources to verify it.

This is the same with the angel Raphael, Unless inspired scripture says "there was no Angel called Raphael, or something that conclusive. Then you have no basis to declare it false jsut cause it’s in Tobit and you don’t believe Tobit is inspired. We can learn from Tobit the same as we learn from modern day history books. They aren’t guaranteed to be 100% accurate but that doesn’t negate their usefulness. You can look to other sources to verify accuracy.

Since there are many references to Raphael outside of Tobit, I see no reason presented to deny Raphael exists.

Arguing about if Tobit is God inspired is beside the point.

I happen to believe that Tobit is inspired Scripture… and that there is an angel named Raphael.
And, I have to say that Syele makes a** lot** of sense here. :thumbsup:Especially the part I have bolded…
The idea that, just because something isn’t mentioned in Scripture, makes it untrue, would mean that 2+2=4 is untrue, also…
The existence of Raphael is not dependent upon the status of the book of Tobit. Indeed, the fact that a book exists which tells a story about an angel named Raphael, and that this book has been accepted as either (A) Scripture, or (B) good reading for Christians, is in and of itself proof that there has been a long tradition of the existence of said Raphael.

Unless someone wants to :whacky:argue that Benjamon Franklin & Thomas Jefferson never existed…They’re not in the Bible, either,after all… Then we have to admit that, we all accept sources outside of Scripture as factual.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I would ask do you believe that Michael and Gabriel are the only angels?

If not then I ask is the only reason that you reject Raphael is because he is mentioned only in Tobit?

Other angels are mentioned throughout the Bible I have no problem believing that Raphael was more that likely on of these unnamed angels for other books of the Bible.

I mean we do no from other sources of scripture the names of 2 angels other than Raphael. Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. So I this leads me to believe that all of them have a name.

I think you have some good points here. Why would we only believe in Michael and Gabriel? The Bible mentions that there are multitudes of angels in heaven. They wouldn’t be nameless.

My personal opinion is this: There’s an angel for every characteristic of God. Raphael is a healer. Jehovah-rapha (name for God) means, “The God who heals”. Notice “rapha” is the root for “raphael”. Michael is the warrior and protector, another characteristic of God. One could go on and on.

There are demons that mirror their leader. Ones of lust, murder, suicide, etc. They work out the Devil’s plans in whatever area their speciality is.

I don’t see why we would have to limit our respect for God’s angels to the only two mentioned in the Protestant Bible. What’s the harm?

Peace…

MW

 

[moondweller]

I would ask do you believe that Michael and Gabriel are the only angels?

Of course not.

If not then I ask is the only reason that you reject Raphael is because he is mentioned only in Tobit?

Yes. And the fact that Tobit is not a divinely inspired book. So neither the angel nor the name assigned to him by the author of the book are from a divine source.

Other angels are mentioned throughout the Bible I have no problem believing that Raphael was more that likely on of these unnamed angels for other books of the Bible.

And that would be quite convenient for you.

I mean we do no from other sources of scripture the names of 2 angels other than Raphael. Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer. So I this leads me to believe that all of them have a name.

I have no doubt that all angels have names. But for me to know what they are they must be divinely revealed. Otherwise they’re just a matter of fiction, the product of another man’s imagination.

Men have no authority to assign names to angels anymore than angels have authority to assign names to men. And before you go there; no, Gabriel did not assign Jesus His name (Lk. 1:31). Gabriel was only the messenger from God.
.

 

[moondweller]

While I agree with you that Tobit isn’t “inspired”, can’t other books hold truth?

Names of angels must have a divine source. Certainly you must understand this.

 

[inthecloud]

1. But the seven deuterocanonical books were added at the Council of Trent (1546) in order to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions.

It seens that lying for Jesus is a acceptable fundamentalist practice.
Them how the Coptic Christians that broke with Rome in 450BC have them, almost 1050 years before Trent?
Or the Eastern Orthodox who broke from Rome in 1050 BC.?
Please if you are going to criticize the Catholic Canon stick to historic truth. Do not repeat lies. That is a sin or used to be.
Protestants took those books out of the Bible. Is a demostrable Historical Fact.
Protestants can challenge on legitimate ground the decisition for the inclusion of those books in the canon but do not lie about historic facts.
Of course that opens a Pandora’s box.
Like why Esther is in the Bible, or Qohelet, or Daniel, or Revelations? Or Hebrews? All those books were much more polemical that many of the deutericanonicals.
For example is Qohelet more inspired that Wisdom or Ben Sirach? Just by reading them.
Is Esther or Jonas more historical that Judith or Tobit?
Is Daniel more legitimate than Maccabees? The Essenes did not think so.

Another detail, the Pharisees believed and many Jews do believe today that only the Torah is Godbreathed, that the others books the Prophets and the Writtings are “legitmate sources of doctrine” but not Godbreathed.
Of course the Saducees were Sola Torah.
I almost forgot, I heard that Raphael is mentioned in the Jewish ritual of circuncition.

No it doesn’t. I looked at the article. You can force anything if you want to believe it badly enough.

And of course you cannot believe in something that is real if you do not want to believe it badly enough.
Like the creationists for example, who make a living of deniying reality.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sorry, but my faith is not based on myths. Only in the Word of God. And “Raphael” just doesn’t exist there.

Well, I appreciate you striving for what you believe…and I’m still not sure why you accept Job or Proverbs… But that’s up to you!

And FYI…you should probably change your use of “myths” to “inconclusive”. Otherwise you are making an affirmative statement that the Deutercanonical books are entirely false (not just that they aren’t Scripture…but FALSE). For that you’ll need to provide some evidence. Do you think Judas Maccabees existed? Is he a myth too? It sounds to me like you think it’s “myth” simply because it’s in books Catholics recognize. No?

Did you know that the book of Jude quotes 2 different apocryphal books? Books that are neither in Protestant NOR Catholic Bibles.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I happen to believe that Tobit is inspired Scripture… and that there is an angel named Raphael.
And, I have to say that Syele makes a** lot** of sense here. :thumbsup:Especially the part I have bolded…
The idea that, just because something isn’t mentioned in Scripture, makes it untrue, would mean that 2+2=4 is untrue, also…

I appreciate some of you who don’t accept the Deuterocanonical books as uninspired, but still at least respect their value.

 

[Mannyfit75]

inerrancy of the bible does not include factual inerrancy. it is limited to things pertaining to salvation.

I never said that the Bible has inerrancy. Second, the Book of Tobit has been a part of the Christian Scripture. If you bother to look and read at the citations I gave, these Deutrocanonical Books and the Septuagint were cited in the Old Testament. I have even look into it.

In fact if you read the parable of the 7 husbands and one wife that is in reference to the Book of Tobit.

In the parable, the Sadducees told Jesus there was a woman who married seven men. Each of died, on the the day of the resurrection, who’s wife will she be? This story itself is the story found in the Book of Tobit with Sarah and Tobias. For Sarah had seven husbands and all died.

Tobit 3:7-9

On the same day, at Ecbatana in Media, it also happened that Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, was reproached by her father’s maids, because she had been given to **seven husbands **and the evil demon Asmodeus had slained each of them before he been with her as his wife.

I don’t know about you and any Jew who lived at Jesus time is very familiar with the storyline of the Book of Tobit.

There is also a similiar in these following passages. In Luke 2:29 Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

See the parallel:

Then Anna ran to meet them, and embraced her son, and said to him, “I have seen you, my child; now I am ready to die.” And they both wept. (Tobit 11:9)

29 "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word. (Luke 2:29)

The Gospel of Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

I don’t know how much credibility you have when it comes to the development of the canon or have investigated this issue.

I like to add though there have been Protestant biblical scholars who agree the canonicity of the Deutrocanonical Books or the Septuagint. In fact the sources I read came from a Protestant. He made this chart.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/ntchart2.gif

The source of my information is
geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

I seriously think you need to investigate your claims that these books aren’t inspired because right now, I find your argument extremely weak. You are basing them on your opinions and you have not provided any facts or supporting statements to support you claims.

You want to proclaim these the be erroneous Scripture, then prove it. So far you haven’t.