In my experience, the topic is divisive, despite being mostly unimportant. It's a "vain questions" thing.I have not encountered a subject best left alone. Why fear angelology?
Which part? The Bible speaks of cherubim, seraphim, wheels within wheels, multi-faced beasts, and thrones. That ought to be sufficient evidence of different classes of angels.
Here's the lexicon entry. It's definition 3.B.
"God can't" is almost always an error. That said, my understanding of end times is that God returns to earth, not that we fly off into space.Yes it is hypothetical. Glorydaz does not think God could have saved us without Christ dying, I think God could have, since God created angels without Christ having to die. So arose the question of how we differ from the angels. I say we have the same immortal, spiritual body since we will be in heaven some of the time, and need to be spirit to be there. Also the earth will be cauterised by fire, and we will need a spirit body to survive the fire which will engulf earth.
Angels can manifest as humans. But that is not their usual body.Which part? ...
That there are angels of a human form would seem evident from Abraham's visitation.
Here's the lexicon entry. It's definition 3.B.
You can, of course, point to the other definitions, but... I'm fairly sure I've studied this more than you. No disrepect intended. I found this topic fascinating, and I've read several books on it, including several of the philosopher's classical works, and done a study of comparative usage in literature contemporary to the Bible. Any chance you'll take my word for it?
I think we're just talking past each other now. That post had nothing to do with what I said. Like, complete non-sequitor. You spent a lot of words trying to disprove something that I didn't say in the first place.
I think I'll just call it a day, here. I find it frustrating when people don't understand what I'm saying.
Thanks for being civil. I wasn't trying to say that a spiritual body isn't different/superior from our current mode of existence. You spent some time refuting this point, but... I didn't say that in the first place.I thought that you were saying that in the resurrection we don't have a spirit body.
I would genuinely like to know what you were trying to prove.
And you said you have expertise in a certain area. Is that expert in language or something else?
However, a spiritual body is still a body (my original point). It isn't a disembodied aether. It doesn't belong only to some other dimension. It exists here in this plane of reality. It's still suited for earth.
I guess all I'm saying is... I didn't just make this up, and I'm not just holding some doctrinal position dogmatically. I actually studied this topic in depth.
I don't 100% know the answer to most of these. I could give you educated guesses, but frankly "it is NOT written."Thanks Wick Stick.
Just a few questions on a spirit body.
1) can a spirit body be hurt or destroyed?
2) does it need continual nourishment?
3) does it have eternal life inherent, or does it need an outside source (like God) to stay immortal?
4) can it travel instantly from one place in the universe to another?
5) does it need to breath?
6) do we have a spirit now, or will we become spirit later?
7) I presume spirit bodies are just like human ones, and can be imprisoned, or sit etc. i.e. are subject to forces and spirit barriers.
I don't 100% know the answer to most of these. I could give you educated guesses, but frankly "it is NOT written."
#3 - yes it needs God (though this is true even of our current bodies)
#5 - spirit and breath are the same word, so yes a spiritual body requires breath (though it may not be the respiration you are probably thinking of)
#6 - we clearly have a spirit now
I don't read Ezekiel 1 that way. I view it as an apocryphon/apocalypse. That is to say, when Ezekiel describes things, I take those images as clues to be interpreted by finding similar language in earlier books. What is spoken, either by the author or angel, I take as literal, meant to be explanations of the images.Thanks Wick Stick.
When you read, say, Ezekiel 1 do you see heaven as being like earth, with spirit beings like earthly beings.
In one sense, they are identical. But in another, fundamentally opposite. Having a hard time with yes/no, here. Let me try a parable instead.In other words, do you see the spirit world as being very similar to the material realm?
If you feel like telling me anything about the spirit realm I would be interested in hearing it.
I don't read Ezekiel 1 that way. I view it as an apocryphon/apocalypse. That is to say, when Ezekiel describes things, I take those images as clues to be interpreted by finding similar language in earlier books. What is spoken, either by the author or angel, I take as literal, meant to be explanations of the images.
In one sense, they are identical. But in another, fundamentally opposite. Having a hard time with yes/no, here. Let me try a parable instead.
A man decides to build a house. He thinks long and hard about all the attributes that will be part of the house. Then he sits down, and he draws everything out. He has some skill, and he finishes creating a set of blueprints.
Next he obtains material, and he builds his house. Since he is skilled, he creates a perfect rendering based on his ideas and blueprints.
The relationship between the blueprints, and the actual house that was built, models the relationship between the spiritual and the physical. The man does not live in the blueprints as a stick figure on the page. He lives in the physical, material house. Yet the blueprints and plan precede the building. Without them, the house does not exist. Everything that is created is made out of material, but it is made according to a form, a plan, a thought.
All of Creation has these two attributes - Form and Substance.
Now, let's try to apply that to a man. We exist as minds within bodies. That the body is material seems evident. But the mind belongs to the other category - it exists as thoughts and plans. When a man dies, the body wastes away, and returns to dust. But the mind returns to abide within The Mind - that is, God.
And I find in my Bible that God has promised us a resurrection - that is, new bodies, and I mean bodies of a material kind.
That doesn't meant they are identical to the former bodies. Our bodies now do not take their form according to our plans and thoughts. They thrive or perish according to other factors - entropy and environs and our appetites. The new bodies are said to be pneumatikos - that is, they are driven perfectly by the mind that inhabits them. It is the difference between being a passenger in the car, and driving the car.
Did that make any sense?
The "gods gave us technology" IS a theme in many myths. The Book of Enoch is foremost among them, although in this case it is the fallen angels. The Greek myth of Prometheus is another well-known myth on that theme.I was doing research on the idea that the gods gave cultures like ancient Sumer their technology.
All mainstream sources on ancient civilisations never say that the gods gave them their knowledge and science.
All I could find are folks like Zecharia Sitchin who say so.
This is what Wiki says of him.
"Zechariah Sitchin was an Azerbaijani-born American author of books proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts. Sitchin attributed the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to the Anunnaki, which he stated was a race of extraterrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru"
This reminds me of...
"Erich Anton Paul von Däniken is a Swiss author of several books which make claims about extraterrestrial influences on early human culture, including the best -selling Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1968. Von Däniken is one of the main figures responsible for popularizing the "paleo-contact" and ancient astronauts "
There is a fascination with the inexplicable technology of the ancients.
It is such a pity that one has people like Sitchin and Von Däniken as the ones explaining these mysteries.
Here is the main problem with ancient mythology. Try reading Greek, Roman or Sumerian mythology such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The writers of these ancient myths WRITE THE BIGGEST LOAD OF NONSENSE.
If one were to cull, from this nonsense, the theme that alien astronauts from the skies seeded humanity with knowledge, it is pure confirmation bias which energises these authors. Why do I say that?
Reading the epic of Gilgamesh, and from my memory of ancient mythology, it's like reading Terry Pratchet's "Diskworld". It's fiction. It's made up.
Every culture has its own mythology. And every culture tells a different story. Sure, they may have a flood myth mixed up in the story, but most mythology is gibberish. Because all mythology is different, if the gods gave them these stories, then the gods were liars.
Demons are liars. I do believe primitive cultures are very in tune with demons. Shamans and mediums everywhere tell stories. And the stories are all different. Surely, in creation mythology, there should be a common story. All mankind had a common origin. Yet the creation mythology gives completely different stories.
Thus I come away with complete frustration at mythology being able to add anything of value to science and technology origins. The Sumerians had very advanced technology, but my money is on it NOT coming from the gods. It's only recently that we have made technological progress, and that definitely did not come from "the gods". Primitive cultures throughout the world seem to have been held in the dark ages BY their gods.
Myths are written to have layers of meaning, which often are not captured in translations. Take note of the fact that this Epic was written in one of the first languages, and words simply didn't exist for things that were abstract. Instead, if one wanted to talk about... anger, desire, love, jealousy... they created a character (usually a "god") in the story which was an essence of that trait.One hears about the similarities in the flood record between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible.
But here is what is written in the first of 11 tablets telling the epic. Ask yourself if you would trust this tablet to tell you anything meaningful either about science, or morals? Or is this epic just like modern fiction, intended to entertain?
The story introduces Gilgamesh, king of Uruk. Gilgamesh, two-thirds god and one-third man, is oppressing his people, who cry out to the gods for help. For the young women of Uruk this oppression takes the form of a droit du seigneur, or "lord's right", to sleep with brides on their wedding night. For the young men (the tablet is damaged at this point) it is conjectured that Gilgamesh exhausts them through games, tests of strength, or perhaps forced labour on building projects. The gods respond to the people's pleas by creating an equal to Gilgamesh who will be able to stop his oppression. This is the primitive man, Enkidu, who is covered in hair and lives in the wild with the animals. He is spotted by a trapper, whose livelihood is being ruined because Enkidu is uprooting his traps. The trapper tells the sun-god Shamash about the man, and it is arranged for Enkidu to be seduced by Shamhat, a temple prostitute, his first step towards being tamed. After six days and seven nights of continuous lovemaking she takes Enkidu to a shepherd's camp to learn how to be civilized. Gilgamesh, meanwhile, has been having dreams about the imminent arrival of a beloved new companion."
The "gods gave us technology" IS a theme in many myths. The Book of Enoch is foremost among them, although in this case it is the fallen angels. The Greek myth of Prometheus is another well-known myth on that theme.
However, I do no remember anything like that in Babylonian myths. The axiom on which all of Babylonian mythology pivots is that "man was created to be a labor-saving device for the gods." Man serves the gods. Man worships the gods. That is his purpose.
You can probably see that this is precisely the opposite lesson. The gods laboring to give rest? Not in Babylon.
I know a Biblical scholar who holds that much of Genesis was written to be precisely the opposite of Babylonian religion. It's hard to argue the point. The conflict of Exodus happens because the Israelites are made to labor as slaves in Egypt. The 10 commandments specifically require one day of rest every seventh day. Even the NT reinforces this theme. "I will give you rest." "There remains a sabbath..." "Labor to enter His rest..."
I find this works as a good litmus test of churches. Do they want me there to serve and to worship? It appears that I am in Babylon, metaphorically speaking.
Or, are they there to give rest to the weary? This is true religion and undefiled, to look after orphans and widows in their distress.