Dizerner
Well-known member
Show us one passage where it says an angel has a soul?
Show me one that says it doesn't?
Show us one passage where it says an angel has a soul?
Only if it conceivably refers to their future... that is, within their lifetime or at least within that of their children or grandchildren --- and this is precisely my argument concerning the intent of prophetic texts. They are written to engender hope about an end to whatever crisis or suffering the author, their audience and/or their loved ones are currently experiencing. If these prophecies were understood to refer to something centuries from now, it addresses nothing and is pointless. Many humans rarely muster much concern for those outside of their own little bubble, a space that seems to be shrinking to the self as of late, much less for people hundreds of years from now whom they'll never meet...It might give the reader and author hope for the future...
This could take two forms... only one of which I could endorse. The first, which invokes the idea of long-term fulfillment, is typically the appropriation of a prophecy intended for a people in the distant past and assuming it refers to the contemporary historical context. In terms of particularly Christian prophecy, this has generally taken the form of being certain of Jesus' imminent return from the first century to this century and every one in between, sometimes with specific predictions, all of which have failed to materialize. The second form, one I could endorse, is the appropriation of these texts as offering more general instruction and comfort... crises do pass and acute suffering is not usually lifelong (though for some it could be). The biblical texts as inspiring rather than inspired...as well as instruction and comfort for us.
There will be no need to say so in that case. Why should we be told angels are not souls when it tells us enough times that they are spirits.Show me one that says it doesn't?
Jesus did not go about casting out evil souls..... Did he?Show me one that says it doesn't?
I think you are missing the bigger picture something important about prophecy and faith.Only if it conceivably refers to their future... that is, within their lifetime or at least within that of their children or grandchildren --- and this is precisely my argument concerning the intent of prophetic texts. They are written to engender hope about an end to whatever crisis or suffering the author, their audience and/or their loved ones are currently experiencing. If these prophecies were understood to refer to something centuries from now, it addresses nothing and is pointless. Many humans rarely muster much concern for those outside of their own little bubble, a space that seems to be shrinking to the self as of late, much less for people hundreds of years from now whom they'll never meet...
Okay, we disagree again.This could take two forms... only one of which I could endorse. The first, which invokes the idea of long-term fulfillment, is typically the appropriation of a prophecy intended for a people in the distant past and assuming it refers to the contemporary historical context. In terms of particularly Christian prophecy, this has generally taken the form of being certain of Jesus' imminent return from the first century to this century and every one in between, sometimes with specific predictions, all of which have failed to materialize. The second form, one I could endorse, is the appropriation of these texts as offering more general instruction and comfort... crises do pass and acute suffering is not usually lifelong (though for some it could be). The biblical texts as inspiring rather than inspired...
And we'll have to agree to disagree... I considered a point-by-point response to your post, but decided against it as we're touching on a subject that is, from what you've written above, a personal one --- I'm happy to debate the interpretation of texts and introduce critical approaches to the Bible, even if they might be challenging, but topics specifically revolving around one's dreams and expectations for their life and a hoped-for afterlife are not areas I'm comfortable subjecting to criticism. I appreciate you sharing...I think you are missing the bigger picture something important about prophecy and faith.
It took over 400 years to fulfill the prophetic promise through Moses and Joshua that God gave to Abraham. The interesting thing is that Abraham believed the promise without seeing it happen. His heart was focused on something more important. He didn't despair. He didn't see the wait as pointless.
Heb 11:10 For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God
Heb 11: 13-16 All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better homeland, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them.
Heb 11: 39 Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.
Another interesting thing is that God blessed and showed grace on those who had to wait. The found favor in the eyes the strangers around them. I'm thinking of Daniel and the 3 Hebrew boys that were cast in the fiery furnace while they lived as slaves. God moved upon Cyrus and he gave the Israelite leaders provision to go and build the temple again in Jerusalem. God didn't desert his people while they waited.
Then there are the prophecies of the Messiah. That was a much longer wait but it turned the world upside down.
There are prophecies that are given to specific people that happen in their lifetime. I'm waiting for one currently to happen.
Prophecies aren't pointless. They give people hope. My hope is that Christ will return in my lifetime but I know that death is not the end just as Abraham and all of the other people of faith. Even if I die before Christ come back to the earth, to be with Him is even better. I don't think future prophecies are useless. God is giving us a picture of something better to come. There is an end to this depraved world.
Okay, we disagree again.
No, I don't.Do you believe angels exist?
I don't have a problem with having my beliefs challenged. I respect your thoughtfulness and truly kind regards...the motives for your restraint. When someone has a strong argument (and I'm sure you do) and holds back from presenting it, it speaks volumes about their character. Many Christians (at least on the internet) are not able to behave in such a manner.And we'll have to agree to disagree... I considered a point-by-point response to your post, but decided against it as we're touching on a subject that is, from what you've written above, a personal one --- I'm happy to debate the interpretation of texts and introduce critical approaches to the Bible, even if they might be challenging, but topics specifically revolving around one's dreams and expectations for their life and a hoped-for afterlife are not areas I'm comfortable subjecting to criticism. I appreciate you sharing...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
How can you claim to believe the scriptures if you don't believe angels exist?
What truth have you learned so far?I don't have a problem with having my beliefs challenged. I respect your thoughtfulness and truly kind regards...the motives for your restraint. When someone has a strong argument (and I'm sure you do) and holds back from presenting it, it speaks volumes about their character. Many Christians (at least on the internet) are not able to behave in such a manner.
May the Lord richly bless you.
Angels are only messengers, Jesus was Gods messenger, Abraham was Gods messenger, Moses was Gods messenger, and so Arte all today who God has manifest Himself in for we walk as He walks in His same light with the same message as Jesus and these others had.Your still not getting it. Everything I've been posting is to show that Jesus Christ is "NOT" an angel. The Hebrew word for angel is "malak." Tell me, how is that word defined?
I'm a Trinitarian and have been for 59 years, so don't tell me I'm confused. I've been on carm for almost 23 years and people know me and will vouch for me.
And no, Jesus is "NOT" the person of the Holy Spirit who happens to be the third person of the Godhead. Here is my question for you? Who physically appeard to Abraham and swore the oath that he multiply Abrahm's decendants and never break his covenant? Was it the Father, Son or Holy Spirit?
IN HIM,
james
I don't recall claiming that I "believe the scriptures" (whatever that's supposed to mean). What I did claim in the post before last is that "[t]he biblical texts [are] inspiring rather than inspired." In other words, I reject divine inspiration and, as a corollary, inerrancy... I view the bible as an anthology of ancient texts written by numerous people stretching from the late second millennium BCE through the early second century CE as they wrestled with their place in the world and the presence of suffering in light of their beliefs in god(s) against the backdrop of successive dominating empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, the Hellenistic kings and finally Rome). These writings have inspired and continue to inspire hope in others experiencing similar circumstances on small or large scales... they culminate in the person of Jesus, whose ethic of love for one's neighbor and care for the poor and oppressed informs my praxis-based form of Christianity.How can you claim to believe the scriptures if you don't believe angels exist?
Nobody did... the destruction of a place called Sodom, along with Gomorrah and other "cities of the plain", narrated in Genesis 19:24-26 and ending with the remark that Lot's wife was transformed into a pillar of salt, is an etiological tale to explain the presence of natural salt formations around the southern shore of the Dead Sea.Who destroyed Sodom?
That's quite a tale!Nobody did... the destruction of a place called Sodom, along with Gomorrah and other "cities of the plain", narrated in Genesis 19:24-26 and ending with the remark that Lot's wife was transformed into a pillar of salt, is an etiological tale to explain the presence of natural salt formations around the southern shore of the Dead Sea.
I think on this one you need to get up to date on modern research. No one is seriously doubting that there was a thriving civilization on the banks of the Dead sea that was suddenly brought to an end by a catastrophic natural event. Thus I detect a degree of anti-biblical bias - doubting something just because it's written in the bible. This isn't good. I don't know where your prejudice is coming from, but the bible contains an awful lot of accurate historical record: just the names in the bible don't necessarily correspond with contemporary names always.Nobody did... the destruction of a place called Sodom, along with Gomorrah and other "cities of the plain", narrated in Genesis 19:24-26 and ending with the remark that Lot's wife was transformed into a pillar of salt, is an etiological tale to explain the presence of natural salt formations around the southern shore of the Dead Sea.
At least we agree that the angel of the Lord is only an angel. Do you believe angels exist?
To be academically gifted and knowing what is true are two different things. 1 Cor 1:16-31Even the Pharisees believed in angels. The Sadducees did not.
(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
Acts 23:8
The Sadducees were rationalists.... Academically they were gifted
That speaks of secular wisdom vs Divine viewpoint. The Sadducees were not working within the framework of secularTo be academically gifted and knowing what is true are two different things. 1 Cor 1:16-31
The Sadducees were trying to have Jesus killed and succeeded. They were also the ones who were against Paul. A weird bunch.That speaks of secular wisdom vs Divine viewpoint. The Sadducees were not working within the framework of secular
The Sadducees were involved with "religion." Not the secular.
Many of the Sadducees were in the sect of the high priests.
Like we see some who are academically adept with Scripture, but fail to grasp the life the words bring to those who are spiritually adept.
The academically adept will something show an interest in the Bible to get a foot in the door to try to influence others in a manner that runs contrary to the Spirit. Yet, claiming to be of God's power.
They also had minds that were adept and using Scripture to counter truth.... that is even weirder.The Sadducees were trying to have Jesus killed and succeeded. They were also the ones who were against Paul. A weird bunch.
You may wish to read both my post and your own source(s) a little closer, as well as orient yourself better to the geography of the ancient Levant. First, my comments were focused on the etiology of the salt formations on the southern shore of the Dead Sea rather than on the larger question of the region's (however we might define its contours) sustainability for human habitation. Second, the title of the article you linked to in The Times of Israel (hardly a reputable academic source) is predictably sensationalized and misleading to the credulous reader eager for anything that might seem to corroborate biblical stories that are otherwise lacking historical verification: "Evidence of Sodom? Meteor blast cause of biblical destruction, say scientists" --- that sounds impressive, but on closer examination is problematic on several levels.I think on this one you need to get up to date on modern research. No one is seriously doubting that there was a thriving civilization on the banks of the Dead sea that was suddenly brought to an end by a catastrophic natural event. Thus I detect a degree of anti-biblical bias - doubting something just because it's written in the bible. This isn't good. I don't know where your prejudice is coming from, but the bible contains an awful lot of accurate historical record: just the names in the bible don't necessarily correspond with contemporary names always.
Sure the meteor variation is speculative. There are other theories especially including volcanic and seismological events contextual to the description of the area as containing tar pits Gen 14:10, and widespread evidence of the event being associated with intense heat. These are addressed by David Rohl in Lost Testament &etc, and by many others.You may wish to read both my post and your own source(s) a little closer, as well as orient yourself better to the geography of the ancient Levant. First, my comments were focused on the etiology of the salt formations on the southern shore of the Dead Sea rather than on the larger question of the region's (however we might define its contours) sustainability for human habitation. Second, the title of the article you linked to in The Times of Israel (hardly a reputable academic source) is predictably sensationalized and misleading to the credulous reader eager for anything that might seem to corroborate biblical stories that are otherwise lacking historical verification: "Evidence of Sodom? Meteor blast cause of biblical destruction, say scientists" --- that sounds impressive, but on closer examination is problematic on several levels.
I don't accept that the biblical Sodom was located north of the Dead Sea. However the events associated with the middle part of the Dead sea may have had ramifications at the northern end also, but to a lesser extent, such that the remains of the buildings survived. However Sodom etc would have been turned into ash. This is reflected in the large quantities of ash and sulphur that permeate the western Dead sea region.The paper cited in the article --- Phillip J. Silvia et al., "The 3.7kaBP Middle Ghor Event: Catastrophic Termination of a Bronze Age Civilization" --- was presented at the annual meeting of ASOR in 2018 and suggests no connection whatsoever between the authors' findings and the biblical story of Sodom's destruction. ....
I really don't care about these gentlemen.As for Silvia, he is co-author of an article that was recently published in a peer-reviewed venue --- Bunch et al., "A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el‑Hammam, a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea" Scientific Reports 11 (2021) --- in which the authors speculate this alleged cosmic catastrophe may have given rise to the Genesis account. Refutations are already beginning to appear --- ex. Steven J. Jaret and R. Scott Harris, "No mineralogic or geochemical evidence of impact at Tall el-Hammam, a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea" Scientific Reports 12 (2022) --- and will no doubt continue in the coming years so I would implore you to keep your resources both current and reputable (ie. academic peer-reviewed).
Now, assuming for the sake of argument that Silvia, Collins and company will emerge unscathed from the mounting criticisms of the scientific....
Lot looked about him and saw how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it -- this was before the LORD had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah -- all the way to Zoar, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt. (Gen 13:10)
The author claims that the plain (Hebrew: ככר) stretches "all the way to Zoar", which is situated on the southern shores of the Dead Sea... thus the crescent-shaped region spans not simply the northern shore, as required by Collins' theory, but the northern, eastern and southern shores --- and pertinent for present purposes is that Sodom is situated in close proximity to Zoar:
When [the angels] had brought [Lot, his wife and their daughters] outside, one said, "Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed." And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords; your servant has found favor with you, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die. Look, that city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there -- is it not a little one? -- and my life will be saved!" He said to him, "Very well, I grant you this favor too, and will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there." Therefore the city was called Zoar. The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. (Gen 19:17-23)
Predictably, Collins evades any explanation for this incongruence in his BAR article... whether he provides one in his monograph is something I'll leave to you (or others) to document if you (or they) happen to have it (a non-academic book such as this is not available at my university and I don't waste money on popular books). Even if one were to ad hoc posit a second town named Zoar in proximity to a northern-shore area Sodom, the narrative is still incompatible with the effects of the blast proposed (underlined emphasis mine):
.
.