Angels are Corporeal, not spirits

[Alfred Persson]

Prior to The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 AD, some in the church believed angels had corporeal nature suited to the heavenly realm, that they were not immaterial spirits. Scripture depicts them eating and drinking with Abraham, pulling Lot into the house and shuting the door, wrestling with Jacob who held the angel fast and would not release Him, sitting under a tree with Gideon, waking Peter up and helping him rise to his feet. Angels can be unwittingly entertained by humans who believe they are helping strangers.

“So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.” Genesis 18:8

10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. (Gen. 19:10 NKJ)

24 Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day. Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, "Let Me go, for the day breaks." But he said, "I will not let You go unless You bless me!" (Gen. 32:24-26 NKJ)

"Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah" In Judges 6:11

Now behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the prison; and he struck Peter on the side and raised him up" (Acts 12:7 NKJ)

Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels. (Heb. 13:2 NKJ)

Hebrews 1:14 "ministering spirits" does not contradict this, metaphorically angels function as "ministering spirits", its not a statement about their essence. God wouldn't have to "make them "spirits" if they already were, neither is He making them literal fire (Hebrews 1:7). This is metaphorical language describing them as swift and powerful, not defining their essence.



The theory they "materialize" physical forms to interact with humans isn't taught in scripture and in fact contradicts God alone kills and makes alive (Deut. 32:39) and that He alone has creative power (Neh. 9:6).



Never does scripture depict angels or men changing their essence as they cross dimensions into the other realm. Jacob saw angels climb down a ladder, Elijah crossed over in a chariot through a whirlwind, Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration when the Kingdom was present in power, John went through a door:

Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. (Gen. 28:12 NKJ)

Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Ki. 2:11 NKJ)



And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power… And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. (Mk. 9:1, 4 )



After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this." (Rev. 4:1 NKJ)



Jesus appeared in the midst of the disciples, he didn't walk through doors or walls. He said He was not a spirit and they touched His body and He ate fish to prove He was physical:



36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Peace to you." But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, "Have you any food here?" So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence. (Lk. 24:36-43 NKJ)

Christ said resurrected believers would be "equal to the angels" and as they will rise physically from the dead in "supernatural bodies" it follows angels also have corporeal nature that is "equal" to them.



Moreover, when Paul was discussing the various types of heaven bodies that exist, they were all physical "soma", not spirit "pneuma". The resurrection body is a body infused with spirit, not immaterial spirit. It is the same "physical body infused with spirit" that Christ has:

There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory… It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (1 Cor. 15:40-42, 44)

Spirits don't get resurrected, physical bodies do.



For this reason Christians should not be surprised when Satan and his fallen angels appear in physically in a fleet of UFO ships. They use advanced technology to go from place to place. We see that in Ezekeil chapter 1, and scripture expressly declares the stars fought Sisera from heaven:

They fought from the heavens; The stars from their courses fought against Sisera. (Jdg. 5:20 NKJ)



Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves' feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. (Ezek. 1:4-7)

Regardless how one interprets the symbolism, the angel of the LORD is depicted as seated in a craft that moves.



This is why UFOs do NOT prove ancient alien theory at all. Angels use advanced technology. When Satan and his angels appear on earth after Michael and his angels cast they out of heaven, it’s a strong delusion they are extraterrestrial beings, a Big Lie deception of epic proportions.

 

[LeviR]

Prior to The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 AD, some in the church believed angels had corporeal nature suited to the heavenly realm, that they were not immaterial spirits. Scripture depicts them eating and drinking with Abraham, pulling Lot into the house and shuting the door, wrestling with Jacob who held the angel fast and would not release Him, sitting under a tree with Gideon, waking Peter up and helping him rise to his feet. Angels can be unwittingly entertained by humans who believe they are helping strangers.






Hebrews 1:14 "ministering spirits" does not contradict this, metaphorically angels function as "ministering spirits", its not a statement about their essence. God wouldn't have to "make them "spirits" if they already were, neither is He making them literal fire (Hebrews 1:7). This is metaphorical language describing them as swift and powerful, not defining their essence.



The theory they "materialize" physical forms to interact with humans isn't taught in scripture and in fact contradicts God alone kills and makes alive (Deut. 32:39) and that He alone has creative power (Neh. 9:6).



Never does scripture depict angels or men changing their essence as they cross dimensions into the other realm. Jacob saw angels climb down a ladder, Elijah crossed over in a chariot through a whirlwind, Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration when the Kingdom was present in power, John went through a door:


Christ said resurrected believers would be "equal to the angels" and as they will rise physically from the dead in "supernatural bodies" it follows angels also have corporeal nature that is "equal" to them.



Moreover, when Paul was discussing the various types of heaven bodies that exist, they were all physical "soma", not spirit "pneuma". The resurrection body is a body infused with spirit, not immaterial spirit. It is the same "physical body infused with spirit" that Christ has:






Spirits don't get resurrected, physical bodies do.



For this reason Christians should not be surprised when Satan and his fallen angels appear in physically in a fleet of UFO ships. They use advanced technology to go from place to place. We see that in Ezekeil chapter 1, and scripture expressly declares the stars fought Sisera from heaven:




Regardless how one interprets the symbolism, the angel of the LORD is depicted as seated in a craft that moves.



This is why UFOs do NOT prove ancient alien theory at all. Angels use advanced technology. When Satan and his angels appear on earth after Michael and his angels cast they out of heaven, it’s a strong delusion they are extraterrestrial beings, a Big Lie deception of epic proportions.

I had a discussion with a JW about the image and likeness of God that man was created in. I explained that the “us” and “our” image and likeness had reference to the angels of God.
That’s what many Jewish scholars believed.
However, that idea was supplanted by the Trinity.
And the Angel of the Lord who was believed to be a heavenly messenger of the Lord then became Jesus.

And not only that, but the words image and likeness which refers to a physical representation got changed to mean something else.
Now they can’t even decide on what that something else is.

Okay, take away the Trinity idea for a moment, and you’re left with the conclusion that the “us” and “our” must refer to angels. Who else?

And add to that the true meaning of the words image and likeness and you’ll arrive with the idea that the angels, or at least one of them, had the duty of creating man. He formed the man into his own image and likeness. A very good worker he was.

Then add to that idea the idea that angels can only be seen when they open the eyes of man to see them and not that they materialize into human form.

Well, that’s the way it is.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I had a discussion with a JW about the image and likeness of God that man was created in. I explained that the “us” and “our” image and likeness had reference to the angels of God.
That’s what many Jewish scholars believed.
However, that idea was supplanted by the Trinity.
And the Angel of the Lord who was believed to be a heavenly messenger of the Lord then became Jesus.

And not only that, but the words image and likeness which refers to a physical representation got changed to mean something else.
Now they can’t even decide on what that something else is.

Okay, take away the Trinity idea for a moment, and you’re left with the conclusion that the “us” and “our” must refer to angels. Who else?

And add to that the true meaning of the words image and likeness and you’ll arrive with the idea that the angels, or at least one of them, had the duty of creating man. He formed the man into his own image and likeness. A very good worker he was.

Then add to that idea the idea that angels can only be seen when they open the eyes of man to see them and not that they materialize into human form.

Well, that’s the way it is.

Impossible, we are made in the image of God, not angels. When angels sinned with women (Gen. 6:4), the abomination was mixing their image in with the image of God in man.

God is Spirit uniquely, He is not "a spirit" as the JWs and other polytheists believe. I hope you aren't counted among that number.

 

[hawkman]

This is why UFOs do NOT prove ancient alien theory at all. Angels use advanced technology. When Satan and his angels appear on earth after Michael and his angels cast they out of heaven, it’s a strong delusion they are extraterrestrial beings, a Big Lie deception of epic proportions.

Instead of advanced technology it could be a demonic/fallen manifestation to deceive us into thinking it is advanced technology .
I have seen things of this nature , have you ?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Instead of advanced technology it could be a demonic/fallen manifestation to deceive us into thinking it is advanced technology .
I have seen things of this nature , have you ?

Its obvious from Genesis 18 angels angels are a lot like men. Therefore, the symbolism of swords etc., likely have an actual counterpart in reality. Of couse Satan would use deception also. But some things do seen technological:

Then the Angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in His hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire rose out of the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. And the Angel of the LORD departed out of his sight. (Jdg. 6:21 NKJ)

I believe scripture is perfectly written to accomplish what God wants. That enough is in Scripture to make the Big Lie angels are exterrestrial plausible.

That could be by divine design. God will lift restraint on evil and the "strong delusion" will result. Its a test on whether we believe scripture, or not. In many ways scripture seems to separate the wheat reader, from the chaff. I think God wrote it that way to do exactly that.

God is called Elohim, but scripture makes clear He is unique, not like angels elohim. But part of the end time delusion is to claim God is like an angel, a Extraterrestrial Elohim. That lie is very popular in UFO cults, and is being preached by the "mediums in communication with evil spirits", or today known as "contactees."

 

[Hopeful 2]

Okay, take away the Trinity idea for a moment, and you’re left with the conclusion that the “us” and “our” must refer to angels. Who else?

The Word.

 

[Free]

I had a discussion with a JW about the image and likeness of God that man was created in. I explained that the “us” and “our” image and likeness had reference to the angels of God.

Why would you go and do that? They're already very confused about what the Bible says and so have erroneous beliefs. Why would you teach one of them an additional error? You can’t just divorce Gen. 1:26 from verse 27. This is one of the main problems on these forums--not understanding how context works.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

There is simply no way whatsoever to understand God referencing the image and likeness of angels. Verse 27 explains exactly what God meant in verse 26. That is how context works. God did the creating and it is only in the image of God that humans are created. Not once in the entirety of Scripture is it even implied that we are created in the image of angels. That means that God was only speaking to himself in verse 26.

That’s what many Jewish scholars believed.

Reference please.

And not only that, but the words image and likeness which refers to a physical representation got changed to mean something else.

Because it is fallaciously begging the question to assume that it means physical representation.

Now they can’t even decide on what that something else is.

So? What does that prove? There are any number of things, like the communicable attributes of God and all those intangible things that make humans human.

Okay, take away the Trinity idea for a moment, and you’re left with the conclusion that the “us” and “our” must refer to angels. Who else?

No, it doesn't, even if you take away the Trinity. It simply can't because the context doesn't allow it.

And add to that the true meaning of the words image and likeness and you’ll arrive with the idea that the angels, or at least one of them, had the duty of creating man. He formed the man into his own image and likeness. A very good worker he was.

All that despite the very clear statement that God himself did the creating. But, please, provide us with the "true meaning of the words image and likeness."

Then add to that idea the idea that angels can only be seen when they open the eyes of man to see them and not that they materialize into human form.

What is this supposed to show? What does it add?

Well, that’s the way it is.

Except that it isn't.

 

[LeviR]

Why would you go and do that? They're already very confused about what the Bible says and so have erroneous beliefs. Why would you teach one of them an additional error? You can’t just divorce Gen. 1:26 from verse 27. This is one of the main problems on these forums--not understanding how context works.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

There is simply no way whatsoever to understand God referencing the image and likeness of angels. Verse 27 explains exactly what God meant in verse 26. That is how context works. God did the creating and it is only in the image of God that humans are created. Not once in the entirety of Scripture is it even implied that we are created in the image of angels. That means that God was only speaking to himself in verse 26.


Reference please.


Because it is fallaciously begging the question to assume that it means physical representation.


So? What does that prove? There are any number of things, like the communicable attributes of God and all those intangible things that make humans human.


No, it doesn't, even if you take away the Trinity. It simply can't because the context doesn't allow it.


All that despite the very clear statement that God himself did the creating. But, please, provide us with the "true meaning of the words image and likeness."


What is this supposed to show? What does it add?


Except that it isn't.

I did a lot of research into Gen 1:26-27 some years ago.
A common understanding of the “Us” and “Our” has always been that God was addressing a heavenly court of divine beings. Angels.

I quickly pulled this up from google AI:

“The phrase “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26) is often understood as God addressing the heavenly court—a divine assembly of angelic or spiritual beings who serve Him (see Job 38:7, Psalm 82:1).Dec 11, 2024”

The idea is that God’s angels were created in God’s own image and likeness. And when God commands His angels to make man in His own image and likeness, it would be the same image and likeness of both He and the angels.
The only difference in that image and likeness would be that man was formed from the earth and mortal whereas the image of God and His angels is immortal.

Many Jewish commentators reject what is the natural reading of the text because it suggests more than one God.

But it actually doesn’t because the single God is the one by whom the angels exist and who operate under the one God’s power or Spirit and direction. And the angels being created in God’s own image makes the natural reading fit.
IOW, Both God and His angels have the same image and likeness, and when God commands man to be made in that image, the angels respond and do it.

The natural reading of the text suggests that at least one other is given the command. It could be more than one though. As “us” can refer to two or more.
However, “He” definitely refers to to only one.

 

[LeviR]

Free

Off hand, I recall the commentary by the Rev. John Skinner D.D. who contributed to the International Critical Commentary(1910). He mentions that the divine assembly of angels was the most common and widely accepted view of who the “Us” and “Our” referred.

Basically, the two views most accepted among Hebrew scholars are “the plural of majesty” or “the heavenly court or host”.

The Trinitarian view differs.

 

[Free]

I did a lot of research into Gen 1:26-27 some years ago.
A common understanding of the “Us” and “Our” has always been that God was addressing a heavenly court of divine beings. Angels.

I quickly pulled this up from google AI:

“The phrase “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26) is often understood as God addressing the heavenly court—a divine assembly of angelic or spiritual beings who serve Him (see Job 38:7, Psalm 82:1).Dec 11, 2024”

The idea is that God’s angels were created in God’s own image and likeness. And when God commands His angels to make man in His own image and likeness, it would be the same image and likeness of both He and the angels.
The only difference in that image and likeness would be that man was formed from the earth and mortal whereas the image of God and His angels is immortal.

Now you're adding to the text, taking away from the plain reading, in order for it to fit your beliefs. There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that angels were made in the image of God. It could be the case, but since nothing is ever even implied, we should not base our understanding of the text by reading that into it.

Many Jewish commentators reject what is the natural reading of the text because it suggests more than one God.

So, they understand, correctly, that the text could be speaking of multiplicity. They just couldn't understand how that works with one God.

But it actually doesn’t because the single God is the one by whom the angels exist and who operate under the one God’s power or Spirit and direction. And the angels being created in God’s own image makes the natural reading fit.
IOW, Both God and His angels have the same image and likeness, and when God commands man to be made in that image, the angels respond and do it.

Again, this cannot be a natural reading since you're adding to the text; you're taking away from the natural reading.

The natural reading of the text suggests that at least one other is given the command. It could be more than one though. As “us” can refer to two or more.

There is no command given; it's a dialogue.

However, “He” definitely refers to to only one.

Of course, because there is only one God.

Off hand, I recall the commentary by the Rev. John Skinner D.D. who contributed to the International Critical Commentary(1910). He mentions that the divine assembly of angels was the most common and widely accepted view of who the “Us” and “Our” referred.

Basically, the two views most accepted among Hebrew scholars are “the plural of majesty” or “the heavenly court or host”.

Here is why the "us" and "our" does not refer to "the heavenly court," based on a plain reading of the text.

First, right from the start, we see that "In the beginning God created." So, we know there is only one God and we know that he alone is the Creator. Second, we see the continuation of the Creator creating on each successive day. Third, when we get to verse 26, there is absolutely no reason to think this changes. So, when God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," there is no reason to believe he is speaking to anyone other than himself, because he alone is the Creator. Again, this is a dialogue, with himself, not a command to any other. Fourth, in verse 27, when God does the actual work of creating humans, it is clear that we are made in the image of God only and that he alone was the one who did the creating.

This is further supported by Gen 2:

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
...
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (ESV)

Again, who did the creating of male and female? God and God alone. In whose image were they created? In the image of God alone. Notice that this is a plain reading of the text, without reading anything into it.

No other being in the entirety of the Bible is said to be made in God's image, so that should never be read into Gen. 1:26-27.

The Trinitarian view differs.

Of course it does, but it makes the most sense. The NT brings further revelation on what is stated about the nature of God in the OT.

 

[LeviR]

Now you're adding to the text, taking away from the plain reading, in order for it to fit your beliefs. There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that angels were made in the image of God. It could be the case, but since nothing is ever even implied, we should not base our understanding of the text by reading that into it.


So, they understand, correctly, that the text could be speaking of multiplicity. They just couldn't understand how that works with one God.


Again, this cannot be a natural reading since you're adding to the text; you're taking away from the natural reading.


There is no command given; it's a dialogue.


Of course, because there is only one God.


Here is why the "us" and "our" does not refer to "the heavenly court," based on a plain reading of the text.

First, right from the start, we see that "In the beginning God created." So, we know there is only one God and we know that he alone is the Creator. Second, we see the continuation of the Creator creating on each successive day. Third, when we get to verse 26, there is absolutely no reason to think this changes. So, when God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," there is no reason to believe he is speaking to anyone other than himself, because he alone is the Creator. Again, this is a dialogue, with himself, not a command to any other. Fourth, in verse 27, when God does the actual work of creating humans, it is clear that we are made in the image of God only and that he alone was the one who did the creating.

This is further supported by Gen 2:

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
...
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (ESV)

Again, who did the creating of male and female? God and God alone. In whose image were they created? In the image of God alone. Notice that this is a plain reading of the text, without reading anything into it.

No other being in the entirety of the Bible is said to be made in God's image, so that should never be read into Gen. 1:26-27.


Of course it does, but it makes the most sense. The NT brings further revelation on what is stated about the nature of God in the OT.

The text makes no mention of angels, nor a Trinity.
It is just as reasonable to suggest God was addressing angels as it would be that He was speaking to Himself.

The Angel idea is not something pulled out of thin air. There are many text to support it and that’s why many believe it.

First of all, God is never said to be immaterial Spirit in the O.T. It is never implied that He Himself is without a body. In fact, the Hebrew scripture suggests He does have a body and that no mortal man is permitted to see Him lest they die on the spot.

Secondly, it is indicted that Adam met with and spoke to someone in the garden other than Eve. That someone was heard walking in the garden after Adam had sinned. He spoke directing to Adam.

That someone was not the Father because He can’t be seen by mortal man.
It is therefore most likely that someone was an Angel.

Thirdly, whenever angels are seen by man, they appear themselves in that same image.
And when they are seen it is because they open the eyes of man to see them. That’s what the scripture says. It never says they materialize into men.

I’ve studied this throughly because it interest me. I could write probably 100 pages on it.

One of the text I find most interesting is where the Angel of the Lord stood in the way of Balaam and his donkey. Neither could see the Angel. But the angel allowed first the donkey to see him, and then he opened Balaam’s eyes to allow him to see the Angel.

He who created the eye has control over it.

 

[Free]

The text makes no mention of angels,

Exactly my point. That means you're reading that idea into the text.

nor a Trinity.

Never said it did.

It is just as reasonable to suggest God was addressing angels as it would be that He was speaking to Himself.

No, it isn't, because verse 27's use of singular personal pronouns shows that God was speaking to himself with the use of "us" and "our." It also contradicts what you just said above, that "the text makes no mention of angels."

The Angel idea is not something pulled out of thin air. There are many text to support it and that’s why many believe it.

There are no texts that support 1) angels being made in the image of God, and 2) were involved in the creation of man.

First of all, God is never said to be immaterial Spirit in the O.T. It is never implied that He Himself is without a body. In fact, the Hebrew scripture suggests He does have a body and that no mortal man is permitted to see Him lest they die on the spot.

There are anthropomorphisms, but those don't mean or suggest that God has a body. God is spirit, Jesus tells us so. Jesus also tells us that spirits don't have flesh and bone, so we can rule out a material body. Spirits can also inhabit material bodies, so that too strongly suggests that spirits are immaterial.

Secondly, it is indicted that Adam met with and spoke to someone in the garden other than Eve. That someone was heard walking in the garden after Adam had sinned. He spoke directing to Adam.

That someone was not the Father because He can’t be seen by mortal man.
It is therefore most likely that someone was an Angel.

Which verse(s) are you speaking of?

Thirdly, whenever angels are seen by man, they appear themselves in that same image.

Why shouldn't they? Wouldn't it be less frightening than it already is for them to appear as a human?

And when they are seen it is because they open the eyes of man to see them. That’s what the scripture says.

Where does Scripture say that?

It never says they materialize into men.

Yet, they just might; it is within the realm of possibility.

I’ve studied this throughly because it interest me. I could write probably 100 pages on it.

It's very telling that you make a number of claims, but give no biblical support.

One of the text I find most interesting is where the Angel of the Lord stood in the way of Balaam and his donkey. Neither could see the Angel. But the angel allowed first the donkey to see him, and then he opened Balaam’s eyes to allow him to see the Angel.

He who created the eye has control over it.

Fallaciously begging the question. Perhaps I should use the same reasoning:

Luk 24:30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them.
Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. (ESV)

He who created the eye has control over it, right?

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

Luk 8:24 And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm.
Luk 8:25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?” (ESV)

Who is it that has control over the wind and the waves, but he who created them?

Mat 11:4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. (ESV)

Who is that can heal the human body, but he who created them?

Do you agree with all the above?

 

[LeviR]

Exactly my point. That means you're reading that idea into the text.


Never said it did.


No, it isn't, because verse 27's use of singular personal pronouns shows that God was speaking to himself with the use of "us" and "our." It also contradicts what you just said above, that "the text makes no mention of angels."


There are no texts that support 1) angels being made in the image of God, and 2) were involved in the creation of man.


There are anthropomorphisms, but those don't mean or suggest that God has a body. God is spirit, Jesus tells us so. Jesus also tells us that spirits don't have flesh and bone, so we can rule out a material body. Spirits can also inhabit material bodies, so that too strongly suggests that spirits are immaterial.


Which verse(s) are you speaking of?


Why shouldn't they? Wouldn't it be less frightening than it already is for them to appear as a human?


Where does Scripture say that?


Yet, they just might; it is within the realm of possibility.


It's very telling that you make a number of claims, but give no biblical support.


Fallaciously begging the question. Perhaps I should use the same reasoning:

Luk 24:30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them.
Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. (ESV)

He who created the eye has control over it, right?

Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)

Luk 8:24 And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm.
Luk 8:25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?” (ESV)

Who is it that has control over the wind and the waves, but he who created them?

Mat 11:4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. (ESV)

Who is that can heal the human body, but he who created them?

Do you agree with all the above?

Right. The idea of a Trinity God is nowhere to be found in the O.T.
It is only when that idea is believed that men see an allusion to it in the “Us” and “Our” statement. And without any evidence whatsoever.
That is also when men believe the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.

So, then men can see God and not see Him.
The idea is that men can see Jesus who is God but can’t see the Father who is also the same God.
But Job was optimistic. He said that in his flesh he would see God.
And Jesus put an optimistic hope in the believer that they would see God.

I would only hope you don’t decapitate me for sharing what I believe even if it differs from what you believe.

I’ve always been interested in what others have to share. One of my main goals was to listen to what others have to share down through the age. Both Trinitarian and not so much.
I don’t worry about it because I always have the Word to test the spirits whether they be of God or not.

 

[Whatever]

When angels sinned with women

I have problems with the "sons of God" in Genesis being angels.
I believe Jesus says that Angels do not marry. If so, why would Angels have all the male equipment to make a human woman pregnant? Not just the penis, but the human male DNA XY chromosomes?

I think every time an Angel appears in the Bible, they always appear as mature males. But they are always clothed. You cannot tell if they have any genitalia at all.

I'm pretty sure a human female will not get pregnant from a different species. The egg will not accept the alien sperm.

Somebody once told me that "once they transform in order to be seen, they can transform with all this male equipment." Kind of like a shape shifter I guess.

 

[Whatever]

I just read something in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online - Edited by James Orr, published in 1939 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The encyclopedia is here and free: https://www.internationalstandardbible.com

Anyhow it was talking about what I said in my last post about the fall of Angels.
It is under the heading: Nature, Appearances and Functions

References to the fall of the angels are only found in the obscure and probably corrupt passage Ge 6:1-4, and in the interdependent passages 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6, which draw their inspiration from the Apocryphal book of Enoch.

 

[Free]

Right. The idea of a Trinity God is nowhere to be found in the O.T.

That's fallaciously begging the question, but, again, that is not an argument I am making.

It is only when that idea is believed that men see an allusion to it in the “Us” and “Our” statement. And without any evidence whatsoever.

The "us" and "our" refer to God alone and which he used of himself; that is what a plain reading of the text shows us.

So, then men can see God and not see Him.
The idea is that men can see Jesus who is God but can’t see the Father who is also the same God.

Yes, but you have to be careful to understand what is meant by "seeing God."

But Job was optimistic. He said that in his flesh he would see God.

Which speaks to his resurrection body when the Messiah returns.

And Jesus put an optimistic hope in the believer that they would see God.

Jesus said to his disciples that if they had seen him, they had seen the Father. He is God in the flesh.

I would only hope you don’t decapitate me for sharing what I believe even if it differs from what you believe.

Why would I? People are free to believe what they want, God allows that, but they must also realize that if they deny the deity of Jesus, then they cannot be saved and God will judge them for it. This is the most serious and central issue in Christianity.

I’ve always been interested in what others have to share. One of my main goals was to listen to what others have to share down through the age. Both Trinitarian and not so much.
I don’t worry about it because I always have the Word to test the spirits whether they be of God or not.

Yet, you don't seem to have a good grasp on what the Word says.

 

[LeviR]

That's fallaciously begging the question, but, again, that is not an argument I am making.


The "us" and "our" refer to God alone and which he used of himself; that is what a plain reading of the text shows us.


Yes, but you have to be careful to understand what is meant by "seeing God."


Which speaks to his resurrection body when the Messiah returns.


Jesus said to his disciples that if they had seen him, they had seen the Father. He is God in the flesh.


Why would I? People are free to believe what they want, God allows that, but they must also realize that if they deny the deity of Jesus, then they cannot be saved and God will judge them for it. This is the most serious and central issue in Christianity.


Yet, you don't seem to have a good grasp on what the Word says.

Actually, a plain reading of the text suggests that one person is speaking to at least one other person..
It doesn’t necessarily imply that though.
If someone was to say, “let us make a boat to sail across the river” it could be understood he was speaking to another person or speaking to himself as if he were another person.. but in reality he would not be another person but only the same person with the idea of sailing across the river.

 

[Free]

Actually, a plain reading of the text suggests that one person is speaking to at least one other person..

Exactly. It is the one God speaking to himself and suggests he is speaking to at least one other person.

It doesn’t necessarily imply that though.
If someone was to say, “let us make a boat to sail across the river” it could be understood he was speaking to another person or speaking to himself as if he were another person.. but in reality he would not be another person but only the same person with the idea of sailing across the river.

Except that when it comes to Scripture, what is said is very important. If plural personal pronouns are used, then the plural is more than one. Unless, of course, you can find a biblical example that would support a single person speaking to themself with plural pronouns.

 

[LeviR]

Exactly. It is the one God speaking to himself and suggests he is speaking to at least one other person.


Except that when it comes to Scripture, what is said is very important. If plural personal pronouns are used, then the plural is more than one. Unless, of course, you can find a biblical example that would support a single person speaking to themself with plural pronouns.

And that’s precisely why many believe God was not speaking to himself.
There are two plausible explanations.

If one believes God was speaking to an angel/s then they were involved in the creation of man.
But God alone is the Creator of man.
Because angels could do nothing of their own will, power or might.

That is what God wants His people to know. That He alone is God. There are none else, just He. Even though there are angels(gods).

 

[Free]

And that’s precisely why many believe God was not speaking to himself.
There are two plausible explanations.

If one believes God was speaking to an angel/s then they were involved in the creation of man.
But God alone is the Creator of man.
Because angels could do nothing of their own will, power or might.

And the other plausible explanation is that there is a plurality within God.

That is what God wants His people to know. That He alone is God. There are none else, just He. Even though there are angels(gods).

That's one of the things he wants us to know, but also that we are made in his image alone. It is also possible that he wants us to know there is a complexity to him that isn't obvious.