PDA

View Full Version : Is it a good idea to invoke Saint Michael?



jcaternolo
16 Aug 2014, 18:01
I turned my life back to Jesus, and I don't believe in the Bible as the word of God, so I don't see any problem with using witchcraft. However, I mainly want to invoke Saint Michael so I can find out whether or not the Bible is accurate, what God's name is, and if demons are really against God (I think not, demon was taken from daemon which has another meaning entirely, but you never know) and if it's possible for any of them to be saved (I read there are demons that want to go back, and some deliverance minister believes they are capable of being saved due to one experience with one he had to exorcise often, although it turns out the guy was a fraud and never successfully exorcised any (they would pretend to be, then gloat while the client was driving home).

The main red flag in this line of thinking is would Saint Michael (or more importantly, Jesus or God) approve of me talking to angels this way? I know there are many Christian witches, but I have never read of any personal experiences with invoking angels, I've only seen videos on how to invoke them. I've tried praying to Jesus for guidance for something else before, but I can never seem to hear or see him so figured invoking could help.

thalassa
17 Aug 2014, 06:55
In this instance, how are you meaning the term "invoke"? I see it used often, and usually incorrectly...and I think most advice in this matter will depend upon that.

Doc_Holliday
17 Aug 2014, 07:19
Heres the deal J. If what you were looking for could be found here then the world would have found the answers long ago. There are millions of people trying to find out those things, some of the smartest minds on earth in fact. If we had that info sitting around here at PF I'm pretty sure it'd be out.

Ophidia
17 Aug 2014, 08:00
Millions of people who consider themselves Christian, Catholic or some variant thereof, pray to saints & angels every day. If God was bothered by it, there would probably be a lot less people on the planet.

jcaternolo
17 Aug 2014, 08:11
What I mean by invoking is doing a ritual where I invite Saint Michael to appear in an invocation circle. Although now that I think of it, if he wants to be visible, then he could very well make himself visible without any effort on the part of the one who calls on him needed.

MaskedOne
17 Aug 2014, 08:24
You're describing evocation not invocation.

monsno_leedra
17 Aug 2014, 09:57
What I mean by invoking is doing a ritual where I invite Saint Michael to appear in an invocation circle. Although now that I think of it, if he wants to be visible, then he could very well make himself visible without any effort on the part of the one who calls on him needed.

Truthfully have never heard of any of the arch-angels being summoned in any sort of circle. However as Maskedone says what your describing is evocation vice invocation. I always remember it as In = inside or internal and En = outside of you yet enclosed in a circle.

MaskedOne
17 Aug 2014, 10:59
I think I'd probably pass on the idea. If you don't then be very, very careful about how you set up the summoning. Michael's employer has been known to hold grudges. I would not put it past the general of his armies to do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Be exceptionally polite and make it an invitation and request, not a demand.

Satu
17 Aug 2014, 11:59
From what I understand, St. Michael is okay to at least contact. So you're probably okay reaching out to him at least.

For what you want, though, I'd be careful. I mean, how experienced are you with evocation? How much study have you done of St Michael and the mythos surrounding him? Have you spoken with those who work with him? Personally, I'd avoid trying evocation and instead go for a very polite invocation like MaskedOne recommended.

Personally, St Michael sounds like one of those entities you'd invoke or evoke in your senior year of Magician's University, if such a thing existed. Not that he's necessarily mean, but in the sense that he's pretty high up on the totem pole of high and mighty entities. He's apparently a prince of some sort, for goodness sake.

And why St Michael? If you look at his associations, I don't see anything about the information you want to know. Not that I doubt he'd know, but wouldn't it be better to do some research and look up a saint, angel, or other entity who's more directly associated with the types of information you want to know? I'm not overly familiar with the mythology of your religion, of course, it just seems to me like you might have more success approaching someone who actually patronizes your desired area of learning.

Munin-Hugin
17 Aug 2014, 15:10
As Satu said, if you're bent on asking an archangel, for this sort of thing I'd look to Gabriel, as he is the messenger. I sort of see that realm as closest to what you're looking for, as an extension of clerical duties and record keeping. Plus, there is also less ... aggression and harshness associated with him than Michael.

Azvanna
17 Aug 2014, 17:46
I know this sounds really corny.. but have you ever tried asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, teaching and counsel? That is that particular spirit's role. I know you've tried talking to Jesus and it hasn't worked, so try this avenue! The Holy Spirit is the spirit mandated by Jesus be His representative on earth and lead His disciples into truth. The Holy Spirit can illuminate scripture as you read it, bring it to mind at special moments to teach you full meaning and can reveal things to you that aren't spelled out in the Bible. S/he is a very powerful spirit and very open to contact, and I feel is very less bothered by ritualistic correctness and more interested in an inquisitive, open heart/mind. The Holy Spirit is not high and mighty and enjoys contact with people.

However, I feel that the questions you are asking sound like the beginning of a life-long learning experience. I think that any spirit you contact may not give you a direct answer as a direct answer would do you a disservice as there is deep learning to be achieved in the answers.

I know this doesn't answer your question 'is it a good idea to evoke St Michael' but if you are working within a Christian scaffolding, why not start at the top? It is up to you what you choose but I'm confident the Holy Spirit will talk with you and you won't have to worry if it's the right thing to do or not, or whether you will offend or not. You can inbox me if you would like help with how to connect with the Holy Spirit.

I understand it's totally your choice which way to go, but I just wanted to suggest another option to you that would be guilt-free.

MaskedOne
17 Aug 2014, 18:04
I don't think Michael necessarily objects to being called on (there's a standard prayer requesting his aid after all) It's more that I think if you try and treat him like a number of ceremonials try to treat demons (i.e. demanding that he appear and trying to stuff him into a containment circle) that he will take the opportunity to explain in pointed detail the old saying about pride and falls.

That said, he may not be the best option for your query and Azvanna's suggestion of the Holy Spirit has merit.

Larix
21 Oct 2014, 22:50
There is nothing wrong with Saint Michael.

Why should one ignore him?

DON
10 Dec 2014, 12:07
I agree that the likelihood of you successfully summoning Michael is slim to none. Besides, if you did, you may wish you hadn't.
Michael is the principality of Israel, and the second in command of the armies of God. He is one fearsome warrior and belongs to the highest class of created entity there is. The only created entity more powerful than him is Lucifer.

Michael is also a very busy dude, and angels are typically not in the chatting mood when they have work to do.

So fearsome, powerful, busy, and in no mood for a chat pretty well sums up Michael IMHO. Might as well rock on up to a grizzly bear and kick it in the nads.

Like has been mentioned previously, Gabriel has been known to speak to humanity. Again, I don't know if anyone has successfully summoned him though.

FWIW, considering the amount of effort you are likely to put into it, you might as well put into validating the scriptures to your satisfaction, and seeking the truth through much easier means. For all you know, you may successfully summon something that tells you it's Michael, and then go on to feed you all sorts of rubbish.

If I were you, I'd make a list of questions I need answered. Since you are most likely not well versed in the scriptures, I would advise that you sincerely pray in a heartfelt petition to the most high God that he show you directly, or lead you to the people who can answer these key questions.

Do this and you will get an answer. Let me put it this way - YWH has stated (in the scriptures) that he will respond to you if you legitimately seek him, so test his word. If there is nothing there then you will get no response.
While you're at it, be very specific so that there is absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not you got an answer so you can talk yourself into dismissing any response that might come.

You should be prepared though. Have you considered carefully the implications of receiving a clear and undeniable message from the king of the highest heaven? Once you become aware of something like that, you can't just unaware it again...

I'll repeat... be really specific, and make it big. So many people (Christians in particular) make these vague, non specific requests because they desperately want a preconceived answer, and then they match whatever life event subsequently fits and call it a miracle.

This is life changing information you are seeking so it warrants an equally momentous sign. You are not being cheeky, insolent, or "testing God" by doing this if you are sincerely seeking the truth. I have personally petitioned God in this way over a very important topic I knew was in line with his will (actually I was struggling with how do I know the god I pray to is not an imposter). I asked for proof via a supernatural sign of his choosing that only the most high God is capable of performing. That was a huge ask, but it was answered to my satisfaction.

So summoning Michael isn't really necessary. If you're seeking some sort of physical manifestation of a being that tells you the scriptures are true or not then petition God for that. Not only is there scriptural president for this, but I know people who have experienced this themselves. The clincher for you (as with everyone) is that at some point you have to step out in faith because whatever you experience you can also explain away eventually. This is the nature of man.

habbalah
10 Dec 2014, 12:23
In my experiences with Michael, if he did choose to come, he'd probably be rather...shouty. And irritated. I don't see why physically asking him to come to you is necessary. Wouldn't speaking to him be enough? Others have suggested Gabriel, and he is a little kinder to speak to. You may consider speaking to Uriel, as one of his realms is knowledge, but (to me, at least, I know everyone's experiences are different) he tends to be quiet, with a dark energy, and might be annoyed you evoke him. I think summoning angels to the physical realm is a bad idea, but that's only my feeling.

I do wonder about you saying that you've turned your life back to Jesus, but you don't believe in the Bible. I understand that the Bible was written by man, but the word of Jesus says to follow the scriptures:

"This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success." - Joshua 1:8

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," - 2 Tim 3:16

And there are several more quotes by him along those lines. If you don't believe in the central dogma of a religion, perhaps you may wish to meditate on whether or not that path is truly for you?

MaskedOne
10 Dec 2014, 12:27
The only created entity more powerful than him is Lucifer.


Is Lucifer ever unequivocally stated as more potent?

habbalah
10 Dec 2014, 12:30
Is Lucifer ever unequivocally stated as more potent?

Considering Lucifer and Satan are separate entities? I don't think so. The only mention in the Bible that people take to mean Lucifer refers to a fallen king. That doesn't mean Lucifer doesn't exist. There's just no scriptural evidence, to my knowledge, that Michael and Lucifer have interacted, let alone fought.

Rae'ya
10 Dec 2014, 15:22
The only created entity more powerful than him is Lucifer.

I always find it ironic when people who take Biblical scriptue very seriously make comments like this.

Are you saying that Lucifer and Satan are the same being? Because Biblical support for that hypothesis is spurious, at best.

DON
11 Dec 2014, 10:07
No, Satan is a title. Lucifer is the name of the angelic being that was created to be the keeper and protector of Gods glory. The book of Ezekiel goes into this.
The archangels are the most powerful of all created beings, with the ability to enter into any plane of existence. But it seems that within this group, there are different levels of power which makes sense if you think about it in relation to the various roles they were created to fulfil.

To get a deeper understanding of who Lucifer is, then you need to refer to extra-biblical references that are not part of the official canon.
are some people who claim some sort of coup went down at some point in the past and that the title was transferred to another. Then there is the logical argument that a title can be held simultaneously by multiple individuals. The title of father or mother is a good example of this. Since the title describes a role or activity then this might indeed be the case. If it was a title of power (like king or queen) then I'd be inclined to belief it is a singular entity who holds this title.

However the title translates to "the accuser" which implies that there is only one (as opposed to "an accuser") so I'm inclined to think a single entity holds this title. Scripture also states that the holder of this title petitions God all the time, and that they also inhabit the natural. To petition God, one naturally needs direct access to the throne room. It's a fair deduction that the throne room of God exists in the highest realm, and so whatever being it is that holds this title must be powerful enough to freely enter any plane of existence. That rules out every entity apart from a seraphim, and an archangel.

Noir
29 Dec 2014, 05:43
The main red flag in this line of thinking is would Saint Michael (or more importantly, Jesus or God) approve of me talking to angels this way? I know there are many Christian witches, but I have never read of any personal experiences with invoking angels, I've only seen videos on how to invoke them. I've tried praying to Jesus for guidance for something else before, but I can never seem to hear or see him so figured invoking could help.

Because angels aren't omnipresent as Yahweh is, summoning them may cause disruption in their daily assignments, causing them to seem moody. From my personal experience, this isn't the case, and I deal with 5 archangels on a regular basis. It's simply the fact that they do not have all the time in world to answer what they see as a human's trifling questions. It's best simply to do what I call a prayer chain, for the matter that queries are answered quicker and without the disruption of the deities. However, answers aren't always presented to us on a silver platter. Most of the time they come in the form of omens, or scripture, so searching the bible is very important.

Now this is just my suggestion to you, so you are free to use it if you wish. Burning incense and herbs that correspond to each angel would be recommended during the prayer. Ask for guidance, for the opening of your third eye, and the answers you seek. When you are finished, end the prayer with 'let Michael raise it, Raphael inspire it, Gabriel sing it, Uriel strengthen it, Phanuel bless it, and may the Holy Spirit seal and deliver it to the ones on high.'

As for you not believing in the bible, I agree with Habbalah bringing up those scriptures. There are many scriptures quoted by the Christ that clearly state that the bible is a sacred guide and anything else written or quoted by man was wisdom bestowed to them by God. If one is to worship him properly, the bible must be incorporated into the path.

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 09:04
I turned my life back to Jesus, and I don't believe in the Bible as the word of God, so I don't see any problem with using witchcraft.

I'm writing a book about Superman but I don't believe the DC comics are a reliable resource so I'm just going to make shit up as I go using the name of Superman. Does that make sense?

Michael is Jesus.

thalassa
24 Jul 2015, 10:23
I'm writing a book about Superman but I don't believe the DC comics are a reliable resource so I'm just going to make shit up as I go using the name of Superman. Does that make sense?


Or...The Bible is a book of Man about their ideas of God. Its not the autobiography of God, or the Manual of Life written by God. And if it were, he should be fired.

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 10:32
Or...The Bible is a book of Man about their ideas of God. Its not the autobiography of God, or the Manual of Life written by God. And if it were, he should be fired.

I think the point is moot. I could say the same for Superman with more certainty. If I say to you that Gandalf was the Headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was a wizard in Middle Earth who rode a white horse named Ford Prefect you could correct me on that. If, however, your point is that God is a generic term that could be applied to many god's outside of the Bible, and as a student of it I have no monopoly as an authority on the subject given that, and even individual interpretation, I agree completely. However, I'm sure you would agree that the same applies to anyone else, including your well informed self. So, the statement that the Bible is a book of man about their ideas of God is subjective, equally conjectural to any argument I would supply, which is why you said "or...". I got that.

anunitu
24 Jul 2015, 10:41
So,that about wraps everything up...And I always thought life and time and nature was a complex mixture with no real way to completely understand the why or where ,or even the what...I stand corrected..

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 10:52
So,that about wraps everything up...

Oh, heavens no. We're just getting started! We have much work to do.


And I always thought life and time and nature was a complex mixture with no real way to completely understand the why or where ,or even the what...I stand corrected..

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Sarcasm? You don't even like the subtle hint of debate do you? I've visited a lot of forums in the last 20 years, and every once in a while you stumble upon a tightly knit community where everyone pretty much gets along. The suggestion of debate can be problematic to some of the more overprotective members of that community, so much so that they are the ones with the most fiercest conflict at the mere hint of debate. I kind of picked up on that with you and others in the Income Tax thread. I'm not here to debate, in fact, I would rather give my opinion (teach) and learn of others who may or may not disagree with me.

anunitu
24 Jul 2015, 10:58
What,me worry.....I think perhaps you mistake me for a "Rational human",trust me I can be far from rational..at least in the social mold of our civilization.

I myself "Might" be termed an image of "Loki"

I may or may not actually care about reality or even the state of the world or the Nation...

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 11:02
What,me worry.....I think perhaps you mistake me for a "Rational human",trust me I can be far from rational..at least in the social mold of our civilization.

I myself "Might" be termed an image of "Loki"

I may or may not actually care about reality or even the state of the world or the Nation...

See, now there you've confused me. Your mode of "speech" is sometimes difficult to follow, Earthling man.

anunitu
24 Jul 2015, 11:03
Make it so number one.....

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 11:07
Make it so number one.....

No! No! No! You can't go from the Bible to DC Comics, to Lord Of The Rings, to Harry Potter then to Hitchhiker's Guide to Star Trek in one swoop like that! Do it properly.

anunitu
24 Jul 2015, 11:10
Welcome to "Where everyone knows your name".............NORM!!!!!

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 11:16
Welcome to "Where everyone knows your name".............NORM!!!!!

When you find yourself in danger,


When you're threatened by a stranger,


When it looks like you will take a lickin',


(Bwak, Bwak, Bwak, Bwak)


There is someone waiting,


Who will hurry up and rescue you,


just Call for Super Chicken!


(Bwak, ack!)


Fred, if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it,


Besides you knew the job was dangerous when you took it


(Bwak, ack!)


He will drink his super sauce


And throw the bad guys for a loss


And he will bring them in alive and kickin'


(Bwak, Bwak, Bwak, Bwak)


There is one thing you should learn


When there is no one else to turn to


Call for Super Chicken!


(Bwak, Bwak, Bwak, Bwak)


Call for Super Chicken!


(Bwak, ack!)

Munin-Hugin
24 Jul 2015, 13:31
I'm writing a book about Superman but I don't believe the DC comics are a reliable resource so I'm just going to make shit up as I go using the name of Superman. Does that make sense?

Michael is Jesus.

While I see what you are trying to accomplish here, and to trigger off a debate about this, keep in mind that you have resurrected a thread that had been inactive since December, and you had done so in a rather condescending and insulting manner. Following that, and ignoring your further your attempt to completely derail this thread from it's original course, I'm going to actually give a response to what you initially wrote based off of the quote.

There is quite a bit more incorporated within the Abrahamic mythos than can be simply would within the pages of the Bible, both the New and Old Testament. Some of these things are the ranking of various forms of angels, interactions with those that had fallen, the mention and usage of magics, and all sorts of things that would seem strange and "forbidden" if just the writings within the Bible were considered. From those concepts, it is very simple to apply the basic formulae of spellwork, witchcraft, and ritual. For example, in the act of casting a circle, a Christian witch (or whatever label that is used) would call upon the Archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael) for the Quarters rather than forces of nature. Also, keep in mind that there are religions that are quasi-Abrahamic in nature, that call upon the Roman Catholic saints, such as Santeria, that very much incorporate magic and witchcraft in their practices.

Now, as Thalassa mentioned, the Bible, in it's own way, supports the idea that it is a book by Man about God. Many of the stories, teachings, and parables are either prefaced of footnoted by a statement of "the Gospel according to <enter name here>" which is indicative of it being the interpretation of Man. Keep in mind as well that much of various pagan beliefs function around UPG, and if that works for one faith there is no reason that it cannot work for another, regardless of how well "established" it has become. It is also generally accepted that God, big "G" little "od", is specifically used in reference to the Abrahamic deity, while little "god" is used for all the other divine beings out there and is the generic term.

As a statement "Michael is Jesus", you are wrong, at least as far as writings, clergy, and the teachings of two thousand years go. Michael is the warrior Archangel, while Jesus is the son of God.

Now, if you'd like to continue to debate things of this nature, feel free but keep a few things in mind please. 1) Keep it in line of the thread's topic as if the OP does return at some point he or she may wish to revisit this thread and to find it having turned into something totally different can be frustrating. 1a) If you feel the need to diverge it, start a new thread to continue. and 2) Do so in a polite, respectful manner rather than the way in which you have to this point. Debating something doesn't mean you have to be an ass.

MaskedOne
24 Jul 2015, 15:38
While I'm inclined to reject the premise of Michael = Jesus and think Michael would reject it emphatically. It isn't a completely unheard of idea

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/

The Jehovah's witnesses tend to go with that interpretation.

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 15:44
While I'm inclined to reject the premise of Michael = Jesus and think Michael would reject it emphatically. It isn't a completely unheard of idea


http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel-jesus/


The Jehovah's witnesses tend to go with that interpretation.


I'm always sort of surprised when Michael being Jesus is something unheard of questioned.


Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.


Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."


W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 64.


The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: "Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."


The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, page 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.


John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 page 369.


The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985


Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." Page 40.


Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, page 39.

MaskedOne
24 Jul 2015, 16:05
The idea is still considered to be a heresy in many if not most sects. Heresy isn't always taught early on. I came across the idea a few years ago largely by accident.

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 16:24
The idea is still considered to be a heresy in many if not most sects. Heresy isn't always taught early on. I came across the idea a few years ago largely by accident.

Oh, you picked up on the idea on your own? Cool. Does it or does it not make sense to you? It made perfect sense to me. In the Bible Jesus lived in Heaven long before he came here, in fact he was the first of creation and all things, including the angels were created through him. Who else would be God's son and prince of the angels? Other than Jehovah only two people are mentioned as having authority over the angels. Jesus and Micheal.

I think, maybe, this is just my uninformed opinion, that people reject the idea because Michael and the other fabricated archangels, how many archangels can you have? arch meaning above all others, but these other angels and Michael are considered to be some other personality they don't associate with Jesus. That's obvious, isn't it. What I mean is that they don't associate them as being the same. They picture them in their mind as different and so you can't convince them otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Munin-Hugin, my first reaction to your post was anger, so I decided to step back and think about it, which I did. Some time later I realized you were right. I should have been more considerate and respectful in expressing my opinion. I apologize and will try to do better in the future. Thanks for the advise.

MaskedOne
24 Jul 2015, 16:58
I understand the pieces of the argument that I've seen. I don't consider them to necessarily be compelling. I tend to think that the lore around Michael works just as well with Michael and Christ as separate and I've yet to see a need to combine them. With that said, I'm not a scholar of Christian theology so I may be missing arguments for or against. Christian theology is one of about a dozen subjects that I know just enough about to have an idea where to start looking for more if I become curious.

Pathway Machine
24 Jul 2015, 17:27
I understand the pieces of the argument that I've seen. I don't consider them to necessarily be compelling. I tend to think that the lore around Michael works just as well with Michael and Christ as separate and I've yet to see a need to combine them. With that said, I'm not a scholar of Christian theology so I may be missing arguments for or against. Christian theology is one of about a dozen subjects that I know just enough about to have an idea where to start looking for more if I become curious.

Not that this is an argument for it, but to me it was always cool that Jesus, as John 1:1 points out, being the "Word" i.e. spokesman for Jehovah, would have been the most likely candidate for being the angels who, in the past (in the so-called Old Testament of more accurately the Hebrew / Aramaic scripture), came down as a messenger (The Hebrew word for angel literally means "messenger"). It was very likely Jesus leading Israel out of Egypt, Wrestling with Jacob, one of those in Sodom who visited Lot, etc.