How exactly is DNA purely physical when there are chemical elements? But regardless-- do angels bypass this when these spirits take physical form in an angelophany? Even if we limited DNA to physical, once they become tangible do they take on DNA? (& what is your evidence for what makes up a spirit--'not flesh & bone' is only limited to the statement not what elements are actually there) --& for that matter what studies prove what angels are compatible with? The Bible never says & the Matthew quote certainly doesn't contribute, especially when you actually take into account the context
The Resurrection Body and 1st Cor. 15
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Sep 15, 2014.
Page 3 of 4
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
Biblicist--I’m glad you actually answered—I love discussing this topic---& while I can admit the issue as a whole is not a 1st rate doctrine—accurately interpreting Gen 6 does have critical consequences on proper biblical angelology/demonology. And I say this with no disrespect---But--your counteraction has nothing but unverifiable assumption with statements that lacks any real scriptural or scientific evidence (in addition-you basically just paraphrased the original post with no new support.) The fact is--You’ve never studied the chemical make of an angelic ‘spirit’ or an angelic ‘spirit’ in physical form--& considering the Bible never clearly explains it—your entire premise falls short of any biblical credibility. Yet the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 has biblical credibility w/ the NT evidence of 2 pet 2 & jude 6—now I saw you try to sidestep this earlier—but the truth of the matter is-- every modern evangelical commentary acknowledges the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in these verses (ie. Baker Exegetical on NT; NAC; WBC; Pillar; Niv Application; & ect)—the primary support for this is found: in the context of the verses; the history of interpretation (no counteracting view until the 3rd century AD among Christians); & the fact that the only ‘chained angels’ commonly known during NT authorship were those from Gen 6 (no other historically known option). To add to this--the fact is-- the exact Hebrew phrase used in Gen 6 is only found in Job-- to say ‘its only used once in Job’ like this fact is somehow irrelevant--overlooks the uniqueness of the exact Hebrew phrase & the importance of systematics in accurately interpreting the original language (although I rarely use this support in my personal argument—it is relevant in this conversation). In all honesty, this is only the tip of the iceberg for supporting the angelic interpretation of Gen 6; however; I actually like hearing responses to these points & this discussion will actually help me with a writing—I look forward to your response—& I’ll check back in the morning—God bless
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
But since I do love discussing this with you (considering you do take the time to think) & the fact that I need to get back to work for now-- I do want to quickly clear a few things before we go any further.
When you say ‘‘You are assuming the appearances as men by God and angels demands actual creation of the human nature for that appearance’—No I’m actually not assuming this b/c a visible manifestation is different from creating—I’m only pointing out that when angels do visibly manifest there is scriptural proof that they can do similar functions to humans; functions that require them to be physical & humanlike. Does this alone prove they have the ability to procreate—of coarse not—but it does open the door to the fact that in their visible manifested forms they have taken on more human-like features than their purely spiritual form has (the very fact they are visible to the human eye & can eat demonstrates this).
Next you say ‘In Genesis 6 you are assuming that ministering "spirits" created their own physical human bodies for procreation whereby spirit "dna" was passed on in physical human beings’—This is not what I’m saying—b/c I’ve yet to address “how” the sons of God did the act in Gen 6—which could have been by angelophany or by possession of humans. Furthermore, while Scripture verifies that ‘spirits do not have flesh & bone’ it never addresses if they take on flesh & bone in a visible manifestation & if they are using possession for this act- then they do at least have access to flesh & bone.
On your incarnation/angel theory I find it intriguing (esp considering how it might impact one’s view on the 'angel of the Lord', although supporters here make sure to distinguish between function vs ontology)-- but when you say ‘The Second Person of the Godhead did not take upon the nature of angels but of men, thus distinguishing they are not compatible in nature but different’—how exactly does this show that they aren’t compatible in nature—such a statement is reading into Scripture; & overlooks what the author of Hebrews is actually saying; ie- that Christ was superior to angels, that he humbly lowered himself during the incarnation (lower than angels); & that the purpose of the incarnation was for human salvation-- not angelic salvation (Heb 2:14-18)—-nothing is ever said about his nature being incompatible with angels, if humans & angels have incompatible natures (eliminating their ability to conjointly procreate); or give any hint of addressing the ‘sons of God’ from Gen 6—thus—when we consider the actual context of the Hebrew passages; it becomes obvious your entire proposal is irrelevant to the Gen 6 debate. (But I would like to say more on this later—b/c the theory as a whole could potentially be useful for other angelology issues.)
But I do need to address one last point—when you say ‘Procreation is not a part of angelic nature as Jesus clearly states but is part of human nature, thus making procreation something foreign to the nature of both God and angels as both are equally "spirit" in nature.’—Jesus never clearly says anything about the procreative capability of angels-he only refers to the fact that angels are not designed for marriage (ie at the very least it could be deduced that angels are not supposed to marry, but Matthew never specifically says anything about procreative capabilities)—but even if angels aren’t supposed to marry (which I agree they are not)—we must not forget that these are rebellious angels that are being talked about in Gen 6 (either they were fallen or this event caused them to fall)--Scripture is clear that fallen angels don’t always obey God or do what they were designed/created to do (submit to & praise God)—b/c if they did they would not sin, would remain holy, & never be fallen in the 1st place. Thus for a fallen angel to do something they weren’t supposed to do—would not be out of character for what is known about rebellious angels.
In addition I’ll add 3 quick points that need to be considered about the context of Jesus statement-
1--the angelic beings referred to by Jesus are clearly elect and holy angels, whose home is “in heaven.” This qualifying phrase distinguishes the angels Jesus refers to from the angels in Jude 6 who “left their natural habitat” & were punished for it. Although, the angels in heaven do not marry, the angels referred to in Gen 6: 1-4 as sons of God were no longer in heaven as Jude 6 explains
2--one has to remember that Jesus is speaking of heaven & the resurrection life. Since fallen angels will not be in heaven they would not qualify for this comparison, thus only those who remained loyal & holy fit the description of not marrying
3--Jesus is speaking to Sadducees in these verses. Ironically, they did not believe in angels or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). For Jesus to include angels in the statement when the resurrection is the focus, probably hints at his attack on their faulty belief system, not his exegesis against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6
There is so much more I want to say-- but time is an issue right now—but I would ask you to consider something about this topic--- why do so many modern scholars admit the angelic Gen 6 reference in 2 Pet 2 & Jude 6 (see all the commentaries I previously listed by highly accredited theologians such as Schreiner, Moo, Bauckham, Davids, Green, Jobes, ect)—& why don’t hardly any modern scholars (if any) use the idea of 'DNA incompatibility' to attempt & disprove the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 (I’ll recheck this but I know it’s not a major argument addressed by Matthews or Walton who deny the angelic idea)-- I’m not saying just b/c scholars say it-it makes it automatically right/wrong—but considering their job credibility is on the line- they do have good, biblically credible reasons for making the points they do about the reliability of the angelic idea in Gen 6-& if it could be undeniable refuted w/ the DNA idea- they wouldn’t be so adamant about the angelic interpretation—thus (at the very least) it should be admitted that the angelic theory of Gen 6 does have genuine biblical possibility & should not be easily dismissed as some kind of illogical proposal----I look forward to your response & will try & get back with you when I can (& if need be-I will take the time to re-learn the break down quote feature on here—sorry about that- it’s been a while since I’ve posted-lol)—God bless -
God is a Spirit
So does that mean that the God, the Father, is not actually the Father of the Son of the God, born of woman.
Relative to the woman was Jesus a procreation? Did she believe a son had been created in her? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If God makes himself manifest to us where we can examine and see Him it is not His "spirit" but some other form he has adopted for our sake. Likewise, with angels or any "spirit" as the nature of "spirit" is INVISIBLE to the eye and NON-MATERIALISTIC. -
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
Noah was
(1) a just man, and
(2) perfect in his generations [genetically pure human], and
(3) Noah walked with God. Genesis 6:9
Noah was selected because his DNA was not corrupted by angelic hybridization.
Satan's attempt to prevent a savior of mankind was thwarted. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
We are talking about the ability to procreate are we not???? God cannot procreate another "spirit" God. He cannot procreate a PHYSICAL MATERIAL God as he is "spirit" as opposed to physical materialism. Angles are likewise the same substance as God - "spirit" and as Christ says they cannot procreate themselves as "spirit." The human "spirit" outside the materialistic bodily nature cannot procreate itself any more than God or angels can. Why Because NOWHERE does the Bible attribute "spirit" procreation, not even in Genesis 6. That is a function restricted ONLY to the human physical nature and to the physical nature of animals and plants.
Nowhere does God's word say to angels "their seed is within themselves" or "be fruitful and multiply" - Nowhere! Your position is purely speculative and speculation against all known Biblical facts about "spirit" and ability to procreate itself.
Second, "scientific" demands "repeatability" then "observation" and then you draw a hypothesis. It is impossible to conduct any scientific investigation on this matter as you cannot "repeat" or "observe" this. -
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite Supporter
-
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite SupporterWe are talking about the ability to procreate are we not???? God cannot procreate another "spirit" God. He cannot procreate a PHYSICAL MATERIAL God as he is "spirit" as opposed to physical materialism. Angles are likewise the same substance as God - "spirit" and as Christ says they cannot procreate themselves as "spirit." The human "spirit" outside the materialistic bodily nature cannot procreate itself any more than God or angels can. Why Because NOWHERE does the Bible attribute "spirit" procreation, not even in Genesis 6. That is a function restricted ONLY to the human physical nature and to the physical nature of animals and plants.Click to expand...
here is a quick summary of Gen 6
Gen 6:1-4- When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown
Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family classification)
Since “ha’adam” is used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in verse 1, it should also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of ‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of ‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the logical identity of the these daughters. However, this misses the point of the text. Basically all that it is saying is that more women were born in the pre-flood world, than one might expect based on the genealogies given in Gen 4-5. The Main focus of v 1 is: The multiplication of mankind (population expanse) and in particular the existence of women. Verse 2 explains what specific role these human woman played.
Who are the “sons of God”? Angelic/celestial beings (fallen angels or angels that fell b/c of this sin)
Evidence for angelic interpretation of “sons of God”:
The original language: ‘Sons of God’ (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps 29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)
The context of Gen 6:2, 4-In the Hebrew the phrases “sons of God” & the “daughters of men” are meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere) is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human view.
The NT evidence (esp 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6, & possibly 1 Pet 3:19, 1 Cor 11:10)-- There is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6 existed during NT authorship (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1; Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7; Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—some of these Jewish writings even describe the angels of Gen 6 as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6), while 1 Enoch actually uses the rare term Tartarus that is found in 2 Pet 2:4 (Greek tartarosas). There is no biblical or historical record of any other chained angels that would be relevant to NT readers besides the “sons of God” in Gen 6 (see the context here versus Rev 20). As Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Although Jude does not follow his description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 12-14; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on this, Jude should offer an explanation to his readers if he is referring to another group of chained angels. [ie, Jude talks about angels being chained—he then a few sentences later shows familiarity with 1 Enoch—considering the brevity of Jude’s letter & emphasis of the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in 1 Enoch, it seems most logical that Jude agrees with 1 Enoch’s identification of the sons of God in Gen 6 as angels]. Further, Jude follows his description with a reference to Sodom & Gomorrah, linking the sexual sin of the two with the Greek phrase: ton homoion tropon toutois or “in the same manner as these.” As Schriner explains, “this establish a parallel between the sexual immorality of the angels and the sexual immorality of Sodom.”
The History of interpretation- The angelic view can be dated back to the early 3rd century BC (with parts of 1 Enoch). It was maintained by Jews & Christians alike until late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. The Sethite view did not originate until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal. It was not popularized until the 4th century AD when Augustine favored it. Regardless, the angelic view dominated the first 300 years of Christian thought being supported by such thinkers as: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (to name a few). In addition, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) actually translates Gen 6 as angels, although some scholars question if this is original. -
Gabriel Elijah MemberSite SupporterNowhere does God's word say to angels "their seed is within themselves" or "be fruitful and multiply" - Nowhere! Your position is purely speculative and speculation against all known Biblical facts about "spirit" and ability to procreate itself.Click to expand...
And here is another issue that many modern scholars are connecting to the angelic understanding of Gen 6--its 1 Pet 3--here is a summary of the debate
(its a handout i use for teaching)
1 Pet 3:18-20, 22-For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in/by the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared..[Jesus] has gone into heaven & is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, & powers having been subjected to him
• V 18-detailed Christological statement--Peter once strongly objected to the thought of the Messiah suffering (Matt. 16:22), but now he firmly declares that it was through suffering that Christ achieved his ultimate victory. The apostle depicts Christ as the sin offering (Greek peri hamartion) whose one time sacrifice was sufficient for atonement, distinguishing him from the Jewish sacrificial system of his day (Heb. 9:24-28; 10:12). The plural "sins" points to the great mass of sins which Christ in His death bore for mankind. Furthermore his perfect obedience to the Father & sinless earthly life is highlighted by the phrase “the righteous for the unrighteous.” The reason Christ's death is sufficient is precisely because he was sinless. He could not have died on behalf of his people if he himself were stained by sin. However, his sinlessness also meant that Jesus’ personal suffering was undeserved. Finally Peter uses the aorist compound verb prosagage (might bring), which indicates that the purpose of Jesus suffering was to bring estranged sinners into an actual intimate relationship with God (ie reconciliation).
• being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit- ‘Put to death’ is the Greek thanatotheis & declares the violent death of Jesus, terminating His life as a man here on earth (ie the crucifixion). ‘Made alive’ is zoopoietheis (lit: being made alive). How one interprets this has great implications on the rest of the passage. Although there are various possibilities, the strongest argument is that it is referring to Jesus’ resurrection. This is b/c the same Greek verb is used to describe the resurrection in a number of NT texts & the connection of Christ’s death with his resurrection is a common NT theme (ie treated as one event). Although the Greek dative used for Spirit could allow this to refer Christ’s actions in the spiritual realm before his resurrection, it could also be interpreted as the Holy Spirit giving him life at his resurrection.
• in which he went & proclaimed- ‘he went’ implies that a real change of location takes place. Considering that the same Greek term is used in v 22 to describe his Ascension many scholars think that the timing of Christ preaching was when he ascended into heaven to take his place at the right hand of the Father. But in v. 22 the upward movement is indicated by the words "into heaven." Here there is no indication & considering the term is neutral the exact timing of v 19 is unclear. The Greek term for proclaimed/preached very often carries the idea of proclaiming the Gospel. However there are other instances where the term refers to the proclamation of judgment or the announcing of triumph. Context has to decide the meaning, but most scholars support the idea of judgment. (see 1 En 12)
V 19-the “spirits in prison” & the various theories
1. Descent of Christ into hell-The idea that Christ went on a divine rescue mission between his death & resurrection to save the OT saints has a long standing in Church history, even being a part of certain versions of the Apostles Creed. Potential support for this idea can be seen in Eph 4:8-9 which states "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?” Although there are other possibilities, the most likely explanation is that this refers to Christ going to the realm of the dead between his death & resurrection. His liberating OT believers is seen in Matt 27:51-53, when they came back to life after his own resurrection. Thus it is very possible that Christ did free these individuals in his postmortem state. Yet, for the immediate text, this theory is problematic, b/c even if 1 Pet 4:6 refers to the event (which is questionable), it is very difficult to link this to 1 Pet 3, b/c as v 20 explains the spirits in prison are connected to the pre-flood world, not OT times as a whole. While some have tried to say that Christ preached salvation to those that died in the pre-flood world, this idea has many difficulties. In particular it would have to uphold the doctrine of 2nd chance which clearly contradicts Scripture & runs the risk of Universalism.
2. Christ preached through Noah-As Schriner explains, “According to this view, Christ was not personally present but spoke by means of the Holy Spirit through Noah. The spirits are not literally in prison but refer to those who were snared in sin during Noah's day.” This theory is filled with difficulties, one of which being the fact that Christ does not really go anywhere if he preaches "through" Noah (an idea the Greek verb does not allow). Although a long list could be given as to why this theory is inaccurate, most believe this one piece of information makes the entire theory impossible.
3. Christ's proclamation of victory & judgment over evil angels- This is by far the most upheld view by modern scholars. First, the Greek term for “spirits" (pneumata) in the plural almost without exception in the NT refers to angels (the only exception is Heb 12:23 but this has a qualifying term). Second, the Greek term for prison is never used to describe humans in the afterlife but is used in Rev 20 for Satan’s future imprisonment. Further the idea of imprisoned angels is found in numerous places in Jewish tradition & is mentioned by Peter himself in 2 Pet 2:4 when he writes, ‘For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus & committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.’ In addition, the idea of sinning angels connected to Noah’s day is seen in Gen 6:2, 4 (see summary below). These evil angels, according to Gen 6, had sexual relations with human women & were imprisoned b/c of their sin (Jude 6, 14-15). Finally, this view has the contextual support of v 22, which speaks of Christ’s subjection & victory over evil angelic powers. Taken as a whole this view has Christ proclaiming his victory over the sinning angels of Gen 6. Why he made this proclamation only to this particular group can be debated, but it’s possible they represented all fallen angels or they were singled out b/c their attempt to disrupt Gen 3:15. Regardless, this idea is the best explanation for v 19. (also see the angel offspring view & the angel/human/offspring view)
V 20 broken down---the term ‘because’ explains why the spirits were imprisoned (ie they disobeyed), while the term ‘when’ locates the exact time of disobedience as being in Noah’s day. The Greek verb for disobedience involves deliberate defiance or conscious resistance to authority. In essence, they clearly knew the act was rebellion against God & they carried it out anyway, which corresponds to the angelic transgression of Jude 6. God’s attitude is described as “patiently waiting,” which in the Greek indicates an approach of "waiting it out.” What He was waiting for is not stated, but more than likely it is referring to God's patient forbearance with evil before judgment falls. The phrase, ‘during the construction of the ark’ is a present tense participle & indicates the prolonged activity extending over an unknown number of years before the great Flood (possibly Gen 6:3).
Now please address the Biblical issues I've posted--thank you--God Bless -
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑Now please address the Biblical issues I've posted--thank you--God BlessClick to expand...
It's sad that I will probably be banned by this post and (hopefully so) but I see a multitude of other posters including the Bib write the most degrading, immature, ad -hominen, "UN Godly" grade school verbally abusive crap and get away with it. This online board reeks as do the trolls that lurk here. Including myself. I am SO glad I don't live down here like you all do. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite SupporterGabriel Elijah said: ↑The Biblicist said: ↑.
components/elements make up a SpiritClick to expand...
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑No one even began to say he did or does--but angels as created beings are different than God their creator--God is omnipotent; omniscient; omnipotent--angels are limited in all of these categories--so God as spirit is not completely the same as angels--but regardless this is completely irrelevantClick to expand...
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑matt 22:30 'For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven'
Where in here is Jesus clearly saying that angels do not procreate--are you sure you actually read this b/c procreation is not mentioned once--& it is not clearly stated--remember this--Click to expand...
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑• the angels referred to in Gen 6: 1-4 ]Click to expand...
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑• Finally, Jesus is speaking to Sadducees in these verses. Ironically, they did not believe in angels or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). For Jesus to include angels in the statement when the resurrection is the focus, probably hints at his attack on their faulty belief system, not his exegesis against the angelic interpretation of Gen 6Click to expand...
Gabriel Elijah said: ↑For at least the 3rd time--spirits in visible form do have material qualities-- bc they can swallow food (Gen 18-19)--this is actually an old argument in theology & even scholars opposed to angelic idea of Gen 6 admitted there is a difference in angelic makeup in an angelophany compared to their normal form--why bc they could swallow food & could be seen by the human eye--thus your whole statement once again does not consider the change that happens to the spirit when it becomes material--And once again--when they possess humans they do have access to the materialClick to expand...Click to expand... -
Anyways,
Time to log off because of priorities (That are more important then my self and my own ego). Won't see me logging back in. :) :thumbs:
Page 3 of 4