Angels in heaven both fallen or unfallen are not incorporeal spirits

[Enlightenedtruth]

Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30)

Sorry but you said something there that got me to thinking, Matthew 22:23-30

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I don't read that as saying simply that Angel's don't marry; I see that as talking about the resurrection and how a man would be given to a wife when resurrected here on the earth; when the link to husband, wife and brother are broken.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't read that as saying simply that Angel's don't marry; I see that as talking about the resurrection and how a man would be given to a wife when resurrected here on the earth; when the link to husband, wife and brother are broken.

Of course it's not just that angels don't marry, Jesus's point is that WE the mortals in resurrection don't marry, there won't be any need for reproduction and marriage. The Sadduccees proposed a ridiculous hypothesis with a false premise because they don't believe nor understand resurrection.

 

[Alfred Persson]

With all due respect, I would address any exegesis you did, if you had done any. Exegesis is not merely citing scripture that one thinks agrees with one's beliefs. Exegesis is critical analysis or interpretation of a text, which you didn't do. It requires a lot of depth by deep searching, study, and proper application of hermeneutics.

And while exegesis can and should bring out further meaning, it should be deeper meaning, and not bringing out meanings that contradict anything else or are beyond what is stated, such as talking about ships, vehicles, portals, and vortexes. Even if those things were true, there is absolutely no way from the texts to even know they were true. That's a red flag that strongly suggests eisegesis.

You didn't cite even one scripture to support your claims. But I will. Lets review your unsupported opinions on the OP.

Unsupported assumption: "Angels still corporeal in heaven."
My claim is supported by Revelation 12:7-9 and Occam's Razor. War is what physical beings do, not spirits. The word translated spirit in both Hebrew and Greek denote "wind". Wind cannot war against wind. The theory angels materialize bodies to war isn't in the text, period:

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev. 12:7-9 NKJ)

Unsupported assumption: "Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms."

I supported my claim with scriptures that depict angels entering or leaving our sphere of existence, through an opening or portal:

12 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...
17 And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!"(Gen. 28:12, 17 NKJ)

11 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)

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. (Matt. 3:16 NKJ)

And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (Jn. 1:51-2:1 NKJ)

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)

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. (Rev. 19:11 NKJ)

Unsupported assumption: "Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality."

I supported my claim with scripture that says the angel "appeared to him" after first sitting down under a tree:

11 Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites.
12 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him, and said to him, "The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Jdg. 6:11-12 NKJ)

Spirits don't sit under trees. Nothing in the text says the angel materialized a body, he made himself visible, he "appeared to him". Until then, the angel was invisible.

Unsupported assumption: "Angels . . . fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21)."

Ezekeil is describing what any modern observer would say is the landing of a space ship:

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. (Ezek. 1:4 NKJ)

Unsupported assumption: "Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do."

I supported each point with scripture:

Angels war among themselves (Jdg. 5:20; Dan. 10:13, 20; Rev. 12:7), use weapons to kill (2 Chron. 32:21), (Num. 22:23) and fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21). Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do.

Also:

Spirits don't use wheels:

The appearance of the wheels and their workings was like the color of beryl, and all four had the same likeness. The appearance of their workings was, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. (Ezek. 1:16 NKJ)


Unsupported assumption: "New Jerusalem . . . No doubt Angels built it (Rev. 21:10-27)"
I supported it via the implication of New Jersualsm descending onto the earth and where the saved will be physically present. Its a physical city. No mention of it being created in Genesis, it follows it was built after. Angels are the likely builders.


Argument from silence (generally not a good way to argue): "Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30), He did not say disobedient angels on earth can't marry."

Jesus clearly was not referring to Satan and demons when He said angels in heaven don't marry. Therefore, His statement would apply only to obedient angels.

I cited the wording in each text that supported my claims. Your opinion "they are unsupported" was contradicted every time you said it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Of course it's not just that angels don't marry, Jesus's point is that WE the mortals in resurrection don't marry, there won't be any need for reproduction and marriage. The Sadduccees proposed a ridiculous hypothesis with a false premise because they don't believe nor understand resurrection.

The Sadducees accepted only the books of Moses and the resurrection of the body isn't explicitly taught in those books. But its there by implication. Nothing about their question was ridiculous.

Christ's proof showed them twice wrong, not only is the resurrection of the body implied, but also life after death which the Sadducees also rejected. They really didn't know the scripture, or the power of God.

Jesus' Jewish audience which included experts in scripture debate, admired Jesus' answer:

Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" (Mk. 12:28 NKJ)

In the Jewish Talmud are examples of Sadducees and Pharisees debating this, and the Pharisees proved the resurrection by similar implication, but none of them "nailed it" like Christ did, hence the reaction of the scribe.

Commentators often miss how well Christ answered the Sadducees because they are unfamiliar with Jewish argumentation

The Torah proves the Sadducees twice wrong, not only about the afterlife (the patriarchs must be alive) but the resurrection of the body for daily God is reminded of His promise the patriarchs and their offspring would inhabit the land physically forever (Gen. 17:7-8; 26:3; 28:13).

Only by physical resurrection can God fulfill His promise, therefore Jesus answered the Pharisees well, the resurrection is taught by implication in the books of Moses.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Sadducees accepted only the books of Moses and the resurrection of the body isn't explicitly taught in those books. But its there by implication. Nothing about their question was ridiculous.

Christ's proof showed them twice wrong, not only is the resurrection of the body implied, but also life after death which the Sadducees also rejected. They really didn't know the scripture, or the power of God.

Jesus' Jewish audience which included experts in scripture debate, admired Jesus' answer:

Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" (Mk. 12:28 NKJ)

In the Jewish Talmud are examples of Sadducees and Pharisees debating this, and the Pharisees proved the resurrection by similar implication, but none of them "nailed it" like Christ did, hence the reaction of the scribe.

Commentators often miss how well Christ answered the Sadducees because they are unfamiliar with Jewish argumentation

The Torah proves the Sadducees twice wrong, not only about the afterlife (the patriarchs must be alive) but the resurrection of the body for daily God is reminded of His promise the patriarchs and their offspring would inhabit the land physically forever (Gen. 17:7-8; 26:3; 28:13).

Only by physical resurrection can God fulfill His promise, therefore Jesus answered the Pharisees well, the resurrection is taught by implication in the books of Moses.

It was ridiculous and absurd because it was a strawman argument out of the Levirate marriage law. They made up an extreme, unrealistic scenario where the same woman was passed from one brother to the next as though she was a wh0re, a hand me down outfit, and somehow they all kicked the bucket before she did. They could've limited it to one man and one brother who both died before the widow to make their point, but they stretched it to "seven brothers". The whole purpose of this story was to counter Jesus's teaching of resurrection out of malice and ignorance.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It was ridiculous and absurd because it was a strawman argument out of the Levirate marriage law. They made up an extreme, unrealistic scenario where the same woman was passed from one brother to the next as though she was a wh0re, a hand me down outfit, and somehow they all kicked the bucket before she did. They could've limited it to one man and one brother who both died before the widow to make their point, but they stretched it to "seven brothers". The whole purpose of this story was to counter Jesus's teaching of resurrection out of malice and ignorance.

You missed their premise. Not a straw man, using extremes they thought to ridicule the idea of a physical resurrection.

Evidently, their argument was usually successful against the Pharisees. They were confident Christ would be speechless.

According to Levirate law, she would have become the wife of each surviving male. To them, it proved how absurd the doctrine of the resurrection is.

If the argument wasn't legit Christ would have said so. Instead, He subverted the foundation of the argument, of their wrong ideas about God, man and the Torah.

Today, with all the entertainment we have, we don't experience scripture like the ancients. They lived and beathed it. It consumed their thinking when they lay down, and when they got up. Its all they thought about. Finding "implied truth" was their 'entertainment'. Proposing arguments to each other, is what they did all time.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (Prov. 25:2 NKJ)

To get a sense of how much thought they gave scripture, look up "Janus Parallelism". They used homonyms as pivot points, to look back and forward and teach (by implication) much more than can be translated into English, given the modern rule each word can only carry one meaning in the verse.

This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a single word with two different meanings, one of which forms a parallel with what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by virtue of a double entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. Berlin, A. (1992). Parallelism. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, p. 157). New York: Doubleday.

There are times when modern translators disagree with the Septuagint and theorize they are translating different mss than the Masoretic, but actually its a Janus Parallelism that cause the divergence. The ancient Jews saw what the Hebrew was saying, better than modern interpreters. It wasn't until recently scholars "discovered" Janus Parallelisms in the Scripture.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You missed their premise. Not a straw man, using extremes they thought to ridicule the idea of a physical resurrection.

According to Levirate law, she would have become the wife of each surviving male. To them, it proved how absurd the doctrine of the resurrection is.

If the argument wasn't legit Christ would have said so. Instead, He subverted the foundation of the argument, of their wrong ideas about God and the Torah.

Jesus did say so - "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The Sadduccees' argument was not legit as all seven brothers and the wife were dead, and they assumed that God will whose wife she is for the dead, that's a false premise which was debunked by Jesus.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Jesus did say so - "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The Sadduccees' argument was not legit as all seven brothers and the wife were dead, and they assumed that God will whose wife she is for the dead, that's a false premise which was debunked by Jesus.

Christ said that to prove their first error, that denied life after death. They were like modern JWs, the person died when the body died.

Christ proved the patriarchs were still alive, in God's presence. It was implied, and they missed it.

AND their presence before God would be a constant witness they had yet to receive God's promise of living in the Land serving Him forever. Therefore, the resurrection is taught in the Torah. They must be physically raised from the dead to keep God's promise to them.

I think your fundamental premise is wrong. Yes, the religious leaders of Christ's day were hypocrites, and worse.

But their arguments about scripture can be compared to some of the best debaters of today. AND they employed extremes to make the dilemma more compelling. Its an art, not a device.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Christ said that to prove their first error, that denied life after death. They were like modern JWs, the person died when the body died.

Christ proved the patriarchs were still alive, in God's presence. It was implied, and they missed it.

AND their presence before God would be a constant witness they had yet to receive God's promise of living in the Land serving Him forever.

I think your fundamental premise is wrong. Yes, the religious leaders of Christ's day were hypocrites, and worse.

But their arguments about scripture can be compared to some of the best debaters of today. AND they employed extremes to make the dilemma more compelling. Its an art, not a device.

Those are all common logical fallacies - circular reasoning, ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dichotomy and strawman argument in this case. You need to know your scripture well, listen carefully, detect these fallacies and counter attack.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Those are all common logical fallacies - circular reasoning, ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dichotomy and strawman argument in this case. You need to know your scripture well, listen carefully, detect these fallacies and counter attack.

We disagree. The religious authorities of Christ's day were experts in scripture, and like modern experts "blind" to some very obvious implication and teaching.

Christ ran over them like a stampede. Even as a child He amazed them with His understanding of scripture:

46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. (Lk. 2:46-47 NKJ)

[A thought experiment: Suppose Christ never came, but you wanted to teach what Christ taught, refuting the Pharisees and Sadducees. I bet no one today could accomplish what Christ did, even a little. We wouold all fail miserably. Christ highlighted the precise premise that refuted their arguments, destroying their foundation. With hindsight, after seeing how Christ did it, it all seems obvious to us. But imagine if you had to come up with His refutations, yourself. I couldn't do it, neither could anyone alive today.]

Your list of fallacies were not commonly evident in Rabbinic argument. I know, I have studied the Talmud a bit, and the Gospels a lot, and also Paul who relies on Rabbinic Argument to make his points.

I don't see them used. If you want to prove your point, show examples. Otherwise, I think you are assuming something that isn't correct.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your list of fallacies were not commonly evident in Rabbinic argument. I know, I have studied the Talmud a bit, and the Gospels a lot, and also Paul who relies on Rabbinic Argument to make his points.

I don't see them used. If you want to prove your point, show examples. Otherwise, I think you are assuming something that isn't correct.

There're two prominent examples of false dichotomies, one is the judgement of the adulterous woman (Jn. 8:2-12) and the legality of the poll tax (Mk. 12:13-17). In both occasions they forced Jesus to make an either-or choice: stone the woman and be labeled as cruel or condone adultery and be labeled as a lawbreaker; support the tax and be labeled as a traitor, or reject the tax and be labeled as a rebel. Jesus didn't fall into the trap, in the former one he dismissed the case, in the latter one he threw the scheme back to them. They also called Jesus a Simaritan with a demon (Jn. 8:48), that's obviously an ad hominem. And at last, when they delivered Jesus to Pilate, they used both circular reasoning and appealed to authority. So maybe not in this particular debate with the Sadduccees, but you've got exampels of all these fallacies.

Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.” Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die (crucifixion by the Roman authority instead of stoning by a Jewish mob). (Jn. 18:29-32)

 

[Enlightenedtruth]

Jesus did say so - "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The Sadduccees' argument was not legit as all seven brothers and the wife were dead, and they assumed that God will whose wife she is for the dead, that's a false premise which was debunked by Jesus.

That is interesting that Christ would say that; I thought God was all things. Unless by "dead" it means death of the soul, in which case the soul would not exist any longer.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That is interesting that Christ would say that; I thought God was all things. Unless by "dead" it means death of the soul, in which case the soul would not exist any longer.

Not really. Unredeemed sinners are cast into the Lake of Fire with Satan, that's the second death, call that death of the soul if you like. God is not the God of these dead ones who are separated from Him forever.

 

[Varsha]

Protestants continue to propagate Catholic error till this day, confusing disembodied spirits with angels still corporeal in the dimension of heaven:


The argument is a massive hasty generalization fallacy that lumps into one basket Angels still corporeal in heaven (Rev. 12:7-9) and the "spirits of demons" (Rev. 16:14) who wander the earth desperately seeking corporeality possessing insects (2Kings 1:2), animals and men (Lk. 8:27-32; Compare "nakedness" 2 Cor. 5:2-4).

Whenever Scripture depicts angels eating and drinking (Gen. 18:8) cognitive dissonance hides the revelation, the text is veiled by a theory angels materialize physical forms when entering our realm. That theory is a massive violation of Occam's razor, not a hint of its truth can be found in scripture. Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms:








Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality:


Angels war among themselves (Jdg. 5:20; Dan. 10:13, 20; Rev. 12:7), use weapons to kill (2 Chron. 32:21), (Num. 22:23) and fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21). Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do.

Our LORD sits in heaven in resurrected humanity (Heb. 8:1), how then can any Christian doubt one can be physical in heaven? Christ "stood in their midst" (John 20:19-20, 26-27) without passing through doors or walls like a spirit. To prove corporeality Christ commands they touch His body, declares He has flesh and bones and then even eats a fish (Luke 24:36-43). If Christ "materialized a physical form" He deceived them, it was not truly His hands nor the print of the nails (John 20:25-27). As Christ never deceives anyone, its possible to be physical in the TELEIOS "heavenly realm".

Nothing about New Jerusalem coming down from heaven suggests it is not an actual physical city. No doubt Angels built it (Rev. 21:10-27). If it were impossible Paul be in heaven physically, he would have known he was "out of his body" while in third heaven (1 Cor. 12:2, 4).

Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30), He did not say disobedient angels on earth can't marry.

The hapax legomen λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα "ministering spirits" in Hebrews 1:14 does not contradict angels are physical because angelic nature is not being discussed---their subordination to the Son is the topic.

"Ministering spirits" is figurative, referring back to Heb. 1:7

And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." (Heb. 1:7 NKJ)

If angels were spirits God would not have to "make His angels spirits."

This is figurative meaning:

Who makes his angels fast as the wind,

And His ministers as terrible as consuming fire to all who oppose God.

Hebrews 1:7 is being used in synecdoche in Hebrews 1:14 , the part referring the whole conveying Angels are "fast as the wind, terrible as a consuming fire when protecting God's people ministering to the heirs of salvation."

Paul as a "Pharisee the son of a Pharisee" believed "spirits" and "angels" are different entities (Acts. 23:6-7):



"Spirits of Demons" implies these formerly corporeal spirits are now disembodied:




For more like this:

Origin of Satan and Demons | End Time News

Satan is the head of the demons and led their rebellion against God; he now leads them in propagating evil in the world. According to Scripture, Satan was a particularly powerful and high-ranking angel who led one third of the angelic host to rebel against God (Eph 2:2; Rev 12:1–12). Satan is a...

endtimenews.net

Satan’s Angels are cast out of Heaven Twice? | End Time News

Satan's angels are cast out twice: Angels are cast out by Satan (Rev. 12:4), Satan and his angels are cast out by Michael (Rev. 12:9-11). The prophecy is "telescoped" skipping over the time separating the Flood of Noah's Day and the End Time Seven Year "Week" revealed in the Apocalypse. As the...

endtimenews.net

Nephilim Fallen Angels and the Sons of God | End Time News

The Nephilim: Satan's Fallen Angels 1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the LORD said,

endtimenews.net

I respect your perspective on the interpretation of angelic beings in Scripture. It's clear that you've conducted thorough research and analysis to support your views, citing various passages from the Bible. The understanding of angels and their nature can vary among different theological traditions, and it's important to engage in thoughtful discussion and interpretation of these scriptures. Thank you for sharing your insights.

 

[Free]

You didn't cite even one scripture to support your claims. But I will. Lets review your unsupported opinions on the OP.

I don't need to as I'm addressing your claims.

Unsupported assumption: "Angels still corporeal in heaven."
My claim is supported by Revelation 12:7-9 and Occam's Razor. War is what physical beings do, not spirits. The word translated spirit in both Hebrew and Greek denote "wind". Wind cannot war against wind. The theory angels materialize bodies to war isn't in the text, period:

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev. 12:7-9 NKJ)

"War is what physical beings do, not spirits." This is begging the question, as you're assuming as a premise the very thing you are concluding.

Unsupported assumption: "Rather than a change in corporeality, there is an "opening", some kind of vortex or portal one must step through to traverse the realms."

I supported my claim with scriptures that depict angels entering or leaving our sphere of existence, through an opening or portal:

12 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...
17 And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!"(Gen. 28:12, 17 NKJ)

11 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)

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. (Matt. 3:16 NKJ)

And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (Jn. 1:51-2:1 NKJ)

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)

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. (Rev. 19:11 NKJ)

Again, this is begging the question as you're assuming the very thing you are concluding.

Unsupported assumption: "Although the angel of the LORD was cloaked with invisibility when He stepped into our realm to sit under a tree, nothing suggests a change in corporeality."

I supported my claim with scripture that says the angel "appeared to him" after first sitting down under a tree:

11 Now the Angel of the LORD came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites.
12 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him, and said to him, "The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor!" (Jdg. 6:11-12 NKJ)

Spirits don't sit under trees. Nothing in the text says the angel materialized a body, he made himself visible, he "appeared to him". Until then, the angel was invisible.

Again, you're begging the question by assuming the very thing you're concluding.

Unsupported assumption: "Angels . . . fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21)."

Ezekeil is describing what any modern observer would say is the landing of a space ship:

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. (Ezek. 1:4 NKJ)

Same.

Unsupported assumption: "Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do."

I supported each point with scripture:

Angels war among themselves (Jdg. 5:20; Dan. 10:13, 20; Rev. 12:7), use weapons to kill (2 Chron. 32:21), (Num. 22:23) and fly in ships (Ezek. 1:4) and travel in craft rolling on powered wheels (Ezek. 1:15-21). Spirits don't do these things, physical beings do.

Also:

Spirits don't use wheels:

The appearance of the wheels and their workings was like the color of beryl, and all four had the same likeness. The appearance of their workings was, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel. (Ezek. 1:16 NKJ)

Same.

Unsupported assumption: "New Jerusalem . . . No doubt Angels built it (Rev. 21:10-27)"
I supported it via the implication of New Jersualsm descending onto the earth and where the saved will be physically present. Its a physical city. No mention of it being created in Genesis, it follows it was built after. Angels are the likely builders.

Same same.

Argument from silence (generally not a good way to argue): "Jesus said angels in heaven don't marry (Mat. 22:30), He did not say disobedient angels on earth can't marry."

Jesus clearly was not referring to Satan and demons when He said angels in heaven don't marry. Therefore, His statement would apply only to obedient angels.

Same.

I cited the wording in each text that supported my claims. Your opinion "they are unsupported" was contradicted every time you said it.

Again, yes, you are citing Scripture, but you are reading meanings into those passages that just aren't there. You haven't supported anything. Every point you made fallaciously begs the question, as you begin by assuming angels are physical and not spiritual, then read that into every text to come to that very conclusion.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I don't need to as I'm addressing your claims.


"War is what physical beings do, not spirits." This is begging the question, as you're assuming as a premise the very thing you are concluding.


Again, this is begging the question as you're assuming the very thing you are concluding.


Again, you're begging the question by assuming the very thing you're concluding.


Same.


Same.


Same same.


Same.


Again, yes, you are citing Scripture, but you are reading meanings into those passages that just aren't there. You haven't supported anything. Every point you made fallaciously begs the question, as you begin by assuming angels are physical and not spiritual, then read that into every text to come to that very conclusion.

Every claim you made is unsupported.

 

[Alfred Persson]

There're two prominent examples of false dichotomies, one is the judgement of the adulterous woman (Jn. 8:2-12) and the legality of the poll tax (Mk. 12:13-17). In both occasions they forced Jesus to make an either-or choice: stone the woman and be labeled as cruel or condone adultery and be labeled as a lawbreaker; support the tax and be labeled as a traitor, or reject the tax and be labeled as a rebel. Jesus didn't fall into the trap, in the former one he dismissed the case, in the latter one he threw the scheme back to them. They also called Jesus a Simaritan with a demon (Jn. 8:48), that's obviously an ad hominem. And at last, when they delivered Jesus to Pilate, they used both circular reasoning and appealed to authority. So maybe not in this particular debate with the Sadduccees, but you've got exampels of all these fallacies.

Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.” Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,” that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die (crucifixion by the Roman authority instead of stoning by a Jewish mob). (Jn. 18:29-32)

My comment concerned scripture exegesis, not the false witnesses and other schemers against Christ.

But lets look at your examples.

They violated the law bringing only the woman for stoning, both man and woman adulterers were to be stoned (Lev. 20:10; Dt. 22:22). As you say, this was a "trap" and not a logical argument. But was it a "false dilemma"? Either Jesus upheld Moses, or contradicted him. Jesus expertly turned the question back on them. Those without sin should throw the first stone. Then they would violate the law by bearing false witness they have no sin and reap the wrath of the Romans for murder.

As for the poll tax, by carrying the coin they violated their own traditions by touching Caesar's image, which destroyed their argument. Christ dismissed the dilemma as unreal, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Of course Blasphemy and false witness use lies and fallacies to support lies, but my comment had to do with Rabbinic arguments over scripture meaning. Like debates today, fallacies can be found. But to smear it all as fallacies isn't fair.

PS: By giving only a few scriptural examples of Rabbinic argument, and none from the Talmud, one could say its a "hasty generalization fallacy" to conclude Rabbinic argument is rife with fallacies

 

[journeymanisnothing]

They violated the law bringing only the woman for stoning, both man and woman adulterers were to be stoned (Lev. 20:10; Dt. 22:22). As you say, this was a "trap" and not a logical argument. But was it a "false dilemma"? Either Jesus upheld Moses, or contradicted him. Jesus expertly turned the question back on them. Those without sin should throw the first stone. Then they would violate the law by bearing false witness they have no sin and reap the wrath of the Romans for murder.

This is the gospel. Jesus not only saved the woman, but her accusers as well as the purpose of the law is to show us we're all sinners. Why don't people see that?

 

[Free]

Every claim you made is unsupported.

Did I make any? Showing the problems with someone's reasoning is not the same as making claims about the topic.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Did I make any? Showing the problems with someone's reasoning is not the same as making claims about the topic.

Yes, your claims about my exegesis were not only unsupported, they are all wrong....clearly contradicted by the scriptural support I cited. There were no problems with my support.

Your opinions were unsupported by any fact or reason.

Not once could you cite words in a verse that supported your unfounded unscriptural and logically flawed opinions.

Still waiting for that most fundamental proof of your entire argument, that wind (spirit, pneuma) can war against wind (spirit, pneuma).

Or the scripture that shows an angel spirit creating a body "aba kadabra, poof" a disposable body to wear while tooling around on the earth....

I'd love the entertainment.