 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > OV Mysticism or Objective Physical Word | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 4/30/2004 11:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hi John,
Actually, exactly what the Nephilim were is a very open question in my mind. With these exceptions:
1) They were NOT “embodied fallen angels”. All the embodied angels in the whole Biblical record are not fallen. NOWHERE is it indicated that FALLEN angels can embody themselves.
2) They were NOT “the sons of God” nor were they the offspring of the sons of God i.e. the mighty men, men of renown.
Other than the above – I’m open. Your position is certainly a possibility – the easiest possibility even. The main problem I see with it is the etymology of the word. The following is from the site that spenlake graciously supplied:
The word may be derived from the Hebrew naphal meaning fall upon others (Joshua 11:7; Job 1:15; Jeremiah 46:16). Therefore it could refer to those who attack others.
The word also could be derived from the Hebrew palah which means extraordinary. This word is used to describe Antiochus (Daniel 8:24) and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:26).
All I’m doing is whacking at Spen’s theory. Spen’s main point being that there is a connection between man’s ability to physically, tangibly, objectively interact with God/the spiritual world, and man’s lifespan. Spen’s theory, as far as I can tell, is based on his highly speculative interpretation of Gen 6, and then eisegeting that interpretation into the rest of scripture. I wonder what he would do with the boy Samuel, who physically heard God calling his name? Or the other examples I’ve brought up? I’m waiting on his response to that.
I never had heard the idea that Spen was proposing and so I was intrigued by it, I pondered on it for a while and then jumped into the fray. The closest thing I can think of to what Spen is proposing are Cessationist type arguments. Spen is like a hyper-cessationist! Nevertheless, I think it indicates some creative thinking on Spen’s part, and I appreciate and respect that – even if I ultimately disagree. Anybody who can cause me to question my own presuppositions is worth knowing in my opinion.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/1/2004 3:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
I have provided a few answers below, but really this wasn't the primary theme of my thread here. I have pages and pages of work from scholars on both sides of the basic interpretation of whether the son of god were angels or not. In reply to most of your objections I would simply forward you to these people that are more knowledgeable than me. This is why a gave you the link that I did. The key quote in that link deals with the central issue and the core of the debate itself, "Those who rejected the supernatural angelic reading did so because of theological objections that arose to angels cohabiting with humans." My premise on the 120 years is the issue I wished to debate and explore. Does this help resolve these issues? You had never heard of this 120 years before. Several seminary professors who are experts in this area have not heard of it before. I have never heard of anyone else raising this as a solution to the theological issues mentioned above. While you may not believe that the sons of God were angels, I am taking this as a given and an assumption. I understand that many disagree with this assumption and I am not claiming that it is the only way to interpret the passages.
It is precisely that this hasn't been raised before and seems to bring answers to the thological problems that I wanted to discuss it. I have provided a few answers to your questions below but I won't pursue "defending" the concept of "sosn of god = angels" itself anymore. It is out of scope. I would appreciate any input regarding the rest if you could live with my assumptions long enough to point out weaknesses and flaws in the premise.
I believe that because this verse is difficult due to the Hebrew. I would say that even in the English, the afterward refers to the days following the flood, the blotting out referenced in verse 7. "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."
It is nowhere indicated that the report that the spies brought back was evil because it was false. You could argue this but the position is weak. In addition, the righteous men Caleb and Joshua, didn't contradict that the Nephilim were indeed there. If it was false they would have participated in confirming a lie. The report and the grapes were true and real the evil/bad report is found in verse Num 13: 31,32. What is evil is that the people of the land were too strong for them and that the children of Israel could never win the land. The sons of Anak are mentioned in verse 28 and verse 33. The Nephilim reference in 33 seems to be a parenthetical explanation as to who these sons of Anak were and why it was a big deal. In addition, we hear in other places of scriptures that the core issue of the report was the lack of faith, not that they lied.
I think that I need to clarify that I do believe that the spiritual dimension affects us physically now. In addition to the example of Philippe that you gave, the gospels are full of people with sickness caused by spirits of infirmity. We also see the appearance of angels. What we don't see is an angel or spirit interacting anthropomorphically with men while they are conscious. This is the core of my thesis, not the lack of spiritual influence in the physical world altogether. Regarding entertaining angels unawares, while it happened in the past with spiritual angels, it happened in the gospels with the resurrected Jesus, it then continued to happen with the messengers of men that God sent (another legitimate use of the Greek word). I always think of this when I read about the separation of the sheep and the goats in which neither knew that giving a glass of water to the least was giving it to Christ. In any case, I am not meaning to say that the spiritual dimension does not exert influence and interact with the physical dimension now. I am saying that something changed after Moses and that this interaction is no longer anthropomorphic, beyond sight and sound. It is no physical and cannot produce a physical offspring as the resulting proof/fruit.
The objective/subjective distinction needs to be clarified. I am claiming that the interaction between God and Man up until the time of Moses could take a unique form that ceased with Moses. During this time God's promises were given objectively with witnesses. All the prophets and subjective revelations that came after were to be judged by the objective. The objective was the standard and foundations, once for all. Thus it was Moses who prophesied that Christ would come and that we needed to listed to Him. The prophets received their authority from the books of Moses. Jesus received His authority from the books of Moses. Jesus disciples received their authority from Jesus. We now receive our authority from the books that they wrote. Our authority is to preach the gospel. This is objective.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/1/2004 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen - my turn to say, "I'm busy, weekends are time-intensive - will reply as able. Appreciate ya!"
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/1/2004 10:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok Spen – one last stab at Gen 6 and then I will accept your assumption and move on. You raise several issues I would like to address but I need to do it in stages. As you can see it’s after 3am as I’m writing this. I doubt that I’ll have time tomorrow, maybe in the evening.
You said, “The key quote in that link deals with the central issue and the core of the debate itself, "Those who rejected the supernatural angelic reading did so because of theological objections that arose to angels cohabiting with humans."
Theological objections? Not for me. If the text said that fallen angels cohabited with humans then I would accept it. But the text does not say that. That is the issue I’m addressing – what does the text ACTUALLY SAY?
Look at the sentence, Spen.
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."
What days? Does this sentence give us ANY indication what days are being spoken of? Yes, it does. It’s right there in the sentence. “…in those days…WHEN the sons of God came into the daughters of men.” See the word “afterward”? It’s connected to something by the words, “…and ALSO…” What is “afterward” connected to? It’s connected to “those days.” The “afterward” refers to “those days”. The Nephilim were on the earth in the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. The Nephilim were also on the earth AFTER the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. I think this sentence makes certain things very clear. What’s clear is “Nephilim” are distinct; they are different than “the sons of God.” What’s clear is that it was the “sons of God” who came into the “daughters of men”. It is also clear that the children the daughters bore were born to the same individuals who came into the daughters – that would be the sons of God. It seems clear to me that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the Nephilim to be the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men because they were on the earth IN THOSE DAYS – the days when the taking to wife was occurring. So the Nephilim are not the sons, neither are they the offspring of the sons. All this is clear from the immediate context. We do not have to eisegete the flood to explain the word, “afterward” BEFORE God tells Noah of it. We do not have to eisegete fallen angels MARRYING – not just having sex, not raping, not forcing, but TAKING TO WIFE – human women.
What is NOT clear is: who or what are the Nephilim? Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of men? I do not have any degree of certainty about the Nephilim. Perhaps John Earp is right. I have some certainty about my position on the sons/daughters issue. I think the immediate context indicates children of Seth/children of Cain – why the detailed genealogies immediately before Gen 6? Do they have ANYTHING to do with Gen 6? Or are they just stuck in there for the sake of record keeping? I gave detailed arguments for my position in the other thread; I’ll quit flogging this horse now. I’ve said my peace and counted to 10! 
Spenlake: I have never heard of anyone else raising this as a solution to the theological issues mentioned above. While you may not believe that the sons of God were angels, I am taking this as a given and an assumption. I understand that many disagree with this assumption and I am not claiming that it is the only way to interpret the passages.
Response: I’m not understanding you here. What theological issues? Angels cohabiting with humans? Is that the theological issue? If so, my position solves it completely. It never happened.
Spenlake: It is precisely that this hasn't been raised before and seems to bring answers to the theological problems that I wanted to discuss it. I have provided a few answers to your questions below but I won't pursue "defending" the concept of "sons of god = angels" itself anymore. It is out of scope.
Response: Again, what theological problems?
Spenlake: I would appreciate any input regarding the rest if you could live with my assumptions long enough to point out weaknesses and flaws in the premise.
Response: Well Spen, it seems to me like one of the weaknesses and flaws in your premise is the ASSUMPTION that fallen angels had sex with human women and we need to explain how this could happen, and why it doesn’t happen now. Am I misunderstanding you? If one takes my position, there is nothing to explain. The flood eradicated the genetic material of Cain from the human gene pool, every person on the earth post-flood descends from Seth through Noah, and so the sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of men is impossible – there are no daughters of men to cohabit with. Problem solved.
Having said all that, you are asking me to accept an assumption that I see as very important, though not the end-all, to your argument. My position removes one of the major things that needs to be explained, which is, what is different between then and now, that allowed spirit beings to impregnate human women then, but not now? You are proposing an answer, which is, there is something about a life-span of 120 years or more that allows this to happen, and that’s why God shortened man’s lifespan to less that 120 years. Am I understanding you correctly?
I will end this post with a question, and deal with the other points you made in the next one. You made some good points concerning Numbers 13 – I would like to address that, and your qualifications concerning the interaction of the physical and spiritual world were helpful and will probably keep me from caricaturing your position – thanks for the clarifications. I will also pursue your concept of “objective” further.
But in the meantime, I’m confused about what you think the 120 years refers to: 1) Man’s lifespan or 2) the time left before the flood?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/2/2004 1:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
I appreciate a good tirade, as you have seen in reading my posts, I get worked up with my own. I understand your position regarding sons of god = angels. That just wans't my point.
Hobbes says; "Having said all that, you are asking me to accept an assumption that I see as very important, though not the end-all, to your argument. My position removes one of the major things that needs to be explained, which is, what is different between then and now, that allowed spirit beings to impregnate human women then, but not now? You are proposing an answer, which is, there is something about a life-span of 120 years or more that allows this to happen, and that’s why God shortened man’s lifespan to less that 120 years. Am I understanding you correctly?
I will end this post with a question, and deal with the other points you made in the next one. You made some good points concerning Numbers 13 – I would like to address that, and your qualifications concerning the interaction of the physical and spiritual world were helpful and will probably keep me from caricaturing your position – thanks for the clarifications. I will also pursue your concept of “objective” further.
But in the meantime, I’m confused about what you think the 120 years refers to: 1) Man’s lifespan or 2) the time left before the flood?
I believe that the 120 years is the answer to the problem that is being described. If it is Nephilim-related, and if they were on the earth after the flood, then the 120 years couldn't be referring to the flood because the flood didn't solve the problem. The post-flood Nephilim mean that the 120 years refers to something else. I believe that it has to do with the lifespan of man. Perhaps it is a sidebar, but it has been proven that the Hayflick Limit, a limitation on the number of times a cell can divide linked to the telomeres at the end of a human chromosome, limits the theoretical age of man to approx. 120 years. Thus "common revelation" supports this. The declining ages that are listed support this, going from 900+ to under 120. I believe that the ages are literal.
Most importantly, the objective and revealed Law and promises of God given to me ironically coincide with the life of the first man to live 120 years, Moses. I think that some kind of direct physical/spiritual interaction that was possible up to Moses (the interaction that enabled Nephilim) then ended and something was lost. Adam and Enoch could see God and live, but even Moses couldn't do that. Mankind degenerated and this degeneration solved the problem connected to the Nephilim. I think that the Bible is purposly non-specific because whatever was happening was so evil.
I have both "common revelation" which was unknown at that time and I have the biblical ages that ironically coincide with the giving of the Law. Neither is actually "proof" but the case is at least circumstantial. Perhaps with a closer look into other passages from the perspective of this paradigm, proof or at least overwhelming evidence might be found?
An interesting point that i just read in commentaries from Allen Ross an Wenham have both pointed out something. Genesis 13:10 and its description of the sins of the Sodomites as extremely wicked sinners uses a word that is only found regarding the generation of the flood. The use of "evil" in the plural (ra im) provides a link to the earlier account of the flood (6:5 and 8:21). In both cases the entire population was wiped out because it was so serious. I find it at least ironic that the entire city of Sodom gathered to attempt to rape the angels that came there. It may have been a desire of mere homosexuality, but in the context the act would have actually been something that was more closely related to what I find in Gen. 6:5 where the same Hebrew word is used. I find it odd.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/2/2004 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen - so we agree that the 120 years refers to man's lifespan.
Now - maybe I'm just dense but I need you to explicitly define for me THE PROBLEM.
Is THE PROBLEM the idea that God/spirits do not interact with man NOW in the same way that they did BEFORE Moses and the problem is that there is no explanation as to WHY this is so?
You are maintaining that because man's lifespan decreased at the same time as man's physical interaction with God/spirits (allegedly!)decreased that those two things are related. And you base the connection of those two things on Gen 6:3.
Am I understanding you correctly?
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/3/2004 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Thus, anybody who begins to claim that we can experience God like Abraham or Moses or Enoch, must be wrong in the same way anybody would be wrong claiming that they experience Jesus like the apostles is wrong. I am not saying that we cannot experience God subjectively or see/hear angels, etc. However, I believe that there was a unique time during which the Patriarchs received objective promises in ways that no longer do. They were not better mystics, but men with capacities that we no longer have.
Is the idea clear?
Yup - I think I get it. I will respond as time allows.
Albert - what do YOU think is the reason why YOU don't experience God like the patriarchs or the Apostles hmmm? Or do YOU claim to be experiencing God just like the patriarchs did, or the apostles? If not, why not? And we'll see if YOUR reason is as weird as Spen's!
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/3/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
First of all, I will not claim that I personally am experiencing God/the spirit world like the patriarchs did (I’ll deal with the apostles later). That, however, is not saying that NO ONE does. I will allow a certain uniqueness to Moses as well as to the apostles – but to no others. And the uniqueness has nothing to do with any kind of ability in the person but has only to do with God’s choice and purpose. Concerning the patriarchs you said,
What I am saying is that this "objective interaction" that we see in Genesis (the exact boundaries of which aren't totally clear, except for the hybrid beings that it could produce) is no longer physically possible. Thus, there can be no more patriarchs.
The “objective interaction” that we see in Genesis did NOT produce hybrid beings (beside the point but I couldn’t resist throwing that in ). Secondly, I maintain that the “objective interaction” that happened with the patriarchs CAN happen today, it IS physically possible and furthermore, that it DOES happen today. What makes you think it doesn’t?
Answer the question for me please. What makes you think it doesn’t?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/3/2004 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes
Spen,
First of all, I will not claim that I personally am experiencing God/the spirit world like the patriarchs did (I’ll deal with the apostles later). That, however, is not saying that NO ONE does. I will allow a certain uniqueness to Moses as well as to the apostles – but to no others. And the uniqueness has nothing to do with any kind of ability in the person but has only to do with God’s choice and purpose. Concerning the patriarchs you said,
What I am saying is that this "objective interaction" that we see in Genesis (the exact boundaries of which aren't totally clear, except for the hybrid beings that it could produce) is no longer physically possible. Thus, there can be no more patriarchs.
The “objective interaction” that we see in Genesis did NOT produce hybrid beings (beside the point but I couldn’t resist throwing that in ). Secondly, I maintain that the “objective interaction” that happened with the patriarchs CAN happen today, it IS physically possible and furthermore, that it DOES happen today. What makes you think it doesn’t?
Answer the question for me please. What makes you think it doesn’t?
- Hobbes
Hobbes,
After Moses, there is never a direct physical interaction of touching(anthropomorphically) between Angels and non-sleeping men that I can find. Demons and angels may interact with humans indirectly and through sound/vision, but after this time it is never recorded in scripture that an angel grabbed someone by the arm like they did Lot or that they eat with like they did with Abraham. (The closest thing to it is an angel waking Elijah and Peter in prison.) It may not be "proof" but it is at least circumstantial. I would also ask you if Adam, Enoch, or Abraham saw the face of God? This seems to become impossible as time progresses. And after Moses, no man can see the face of God and live.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/3/2004 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Where does it say that God or an angel physically touched Moses?
I would also ask you if Adam, Enoch, or Abraham saw the face of God?
It nowhere says that they did, does it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/3/2004 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake,
We must give Moses a unique standing based on Deut 34:10-12. Aside from that, you are maintaining that there is a MAJOR distinction to be made between the patriarchs before Moses, and all the prophets that came after Moses. You are saying that there is a difference in kind between, say, Jacob and Ezekiel, or Abraham and Isaiah. This difference in kind (you say) is the direct result of the fact that Moses was the last man to live 120 years or more. Because men are limited to 120 years MAX, they can no longer interact with the spiritual realm in the way that those before Moses did. You said,
“I am claiming that the interaction between God and Man up until the time of Moses could take a unique form that ceased with Moses. During this time God's promises were given objectively with witnesses. All the prophets and subjective revelations that came after were to be judged by the objective.”
The law was not given to Moses “with witnesses” – no one was up on that mountain with Moses. ALL we have concerning the patriarchs is what Moses said about them. Furthermore, nowhere does it say that God/angels PHYSICALLY touched Moses. (That’s off the top of my head – find me a text that says otherwise and I will humbly retract. )
I think you are trying to make a distinction between, for instance, Jacob and Ezekiel, that simply doesn’t exist. We can see/hear angels but we can’t “touch” them? The seeing and hearing is “subjective”, the touching is “objective?” Jacob physically touched God but Ezekiel didn’t?
“And when he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me AND SET ME UPON MY FEET…” (Ezekiel 2:2.) Examples of incidents like this throughout The Prophets are numerous. And I don’t believe God’s interacting was limited to the Jews. 2 Chron 35:20-21 tells of “…Neco the king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates and Josiah went out against him. But he sent envoys to him saying, “What have we to do with each other, King of Judah? I am not coming against you this day, but against the house with which I am at war; and GOD HAS COMMANDED ME TO MAKE HASTE. CEASE OPPOSING GOD, WHO IS WITH ME, LEST HE DESTROY YOU.” How exactly Neco “heard” from God we don’t know, but it was REAL, that is, OBJECTIVE, because it turns out that Neco, the Egyptian, was right. Josiah, the Jew, was wrong, and paid with his life.
As far as the New Testament goes in Acts 5:19 an angel OPENED THE PRISON DOORS AND BROUGHT THEM OUT. If an angel could MOVE A DOOR there HAD to be an “objective” that is, a PHYSICAL dimension to that angel. In Acts 12:7 an angel “…STRUCK PETER ON THE SIDE and woke him saying, “Get up quickly.”
The angel WAS STILL THERE after Peter awoke. The angel PHYSICALLY struck him to wake him up and THEN spoke to him and led him out of prison. The angel physically touched him. There was NO DIFFERENCE in the “objectiveness” of the angel when Peter was asleep and when he was awake. In verse 9 it says, “…he [Peter] did not know what was done by the angel WAS REAL, but thought he was seeing a vision…” Cornelius was AWAKE when he saw and heard the angel. Furthermore, the text EXPLICITLY indicates that he was NOT saved.
I just don’t think the distinction you’re making between the patriarchs and those who come afterwards is legitimate. Furthermore, this story in Acts 12 indicates that the objective/subjective dichotomy was not as pronounced in the minds of the ancients as it is in modern western man. Peter couldn’t tell the difference between an “objective” experience and a “subjective” vision. Jesus continuously spoke of those who had eyes to see and ears to hear. Some do, some don’t. To those who have eyes to see, what they see is “objective” and real. Those who don’t have eyes to see don’t see anything. I submit that because of our extreme objective/subjective dichotomy (thank you Plato and Aristotle  ), we generally don’t have eyes to see. Paul was not one of the twelve. He never met Jesus in the flesh. Yet Paul said that Jesus “appeared” to him. Excuse me, Paul was blinded, he didn’t “see” anything. He heard a voice that NONE of his companions heard, and he heard words that NONE of his companions heard. Yet on the basis of this unverifiable subjective experience that many today would call a psychotic break, he claimed, and demonstrated, apostolic authority. Does Paul’s experience qualify as “objective” according to your definition of the word? I think not. Paul was not PHYSICALLY touched; he didn’t even see anything and none of his companions could verify what he heard. Yet Jesus “appeared” to him. And it was COMPLETELY REAL AND OBJECTIVE as is indicated by the apostolic authority that Paul subsequently demonstrated.
There are modern extra-biblical accounts of “objective” interactions between God/angels/demons and humans all over the place, Spen; the issue is whether or not you will accept these accounts as true. For example, are you familiar with a Book called, “The Scots Worthies”? It was written by one John Howie (1735-1793) and consists of short biographies of the Scottish Reformers and Covenanteers. The most well known man among that company would be John Knox. You would be interested to know, I assume, that these men were all, to a man, Reformed in their doctrine. There are accounts of angelic visitations witnessed by more than one person. There are accounts of audible voices heard by more than one person. There is even one account of a resurrection from the dead. In other words, “objective” revelations/interactions – WITH WITNESSES.
On the dark side of things, are you familiar with the literature concerning UFO abductions? Read Whitley Strieber’s “Communion” and you will find your reality construct challenged and the distinction between “objective” and “subjective” becomes blurred. There are accounts of sex between humans and “aliens” and reports of hybrid offspring, although according to what I’ve read, the offspring are not able to survive outside “the ship.”
Now, I have not told you anything about me personally, my experience, and the experiences of people I know. I could tell you of several men I know, who claim to have seen the risen Christ. I could tell you of a man, actually two different men, who claim that physical immortality is available now, and who claim to have met and spoken with immortal individuals, I mean individuals who have not died but have received immortality. In one case the individual claimed to be 700 years old, and did not sleep or eat. Not to mention more mundane, run-of-the-mill PHYSICAL encounters with angels, demons and whatnot. Laika has brought up Incubus and Succubus. I have personal experience of conflict and ministry against these kinds of spirits and I can tell you there IS a physical dimension to what goes on – but I don’t believe that physical pregnancy as a result of these kinds of encounters is a possibility. Another time I once had 3 angels PHYSICALLY move my car. From your point of view, this is all hearsay and anecdotal. Granted. So I will leave it at that. And Alan thought YOU were weird! 
I find your qualifications, e.g.
“I think that I need to clarify that I do believe that the spiritual dimension affects us physically now. In addition to the example of Philippe that you gave, the gospels are full of people with sickness caused by spirits of infirmity. We also see the appearance of angels. What we don't see is an angel or spirit interacting anthropomorphically with men while they are conscious. This is the core of my thesis, not the lack of spiritual influence in the physical world altogether”
to be splitting hairs. The spirit of infirmity was interacting PHYSICALLY with the “daughter of Abraham” and causing her to be PHYSICALLY bent over. I find that to be roughly analogous to Jacob walking with a limp because of his wrestling with a spirit.
Be all that as it may, you must account for the scriptural examples I gave. I think you are too blithely writing off a New Testament account that EXPLICITLY speaks of PHYSICAL CONTACT between an angel and a human.
So the main point, the main “whack” I’m giving you here, is that I’m attacking your assumption that things are different now than they were then. I’m approaching it from two directions:
1)Post-Moses scriptural + extra-biblical but historical accounts + personal, anecdotal accounts of PHYSICAL interaction between God/angels/demons and humans. You must AT LEAST recognize the scriptural accounts as authentic. I would hope that, because of your apparent Reformed leanings, you would seriously consider “Scotts Worthies” as an authentic account. It has a high reputation among those of the Reformed persuasion. You may dismiss my personal and anecdotal accounts out of hand if you wish – I will not be offended. Even so, I tell you the truth.
2)Challenging the extreme objective/subjective dichotomy, without which your whole construct breaks down. It seems obvious to me that THEY did not have the dichotomy that WE do. One implication of this (among many others) is that we have no way of knowing how “objective” many of the patriarchal encounters really were.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/4/2004 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen - sorry for the multiple posts. You said,
What we don't see is an angel or spirit interacting anthropomorphically with men while they are conscious.
I would argue that men are MORE concious when they are sleeping than when they are awake. Especially modern man - due to the objective/subjective dichotomy that governs most people's waking conciousness. This dichotomy is more easily broken down when one is asleep. It can also be broken down when one begins to use the redeemed imagination under the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless - the angel STRUCK PETER'S SIDE - touching is touching whether you're awake or asleep - and Peter's awakening did not diminish the angels objectiveness.
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 5/4/2004 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
You say, “The law was not given to Moses “with witnesses” – no one was up on that mountain with Moses. ALL we have concerning the patriarchs is what Moses said about them.” I think scriptures do indicate that the Law was given with witnesses. In Numbers 16:28 we have objective proof given to witnesses as to who speaks for God. quote:
“Moses said, “By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these deeds; for this is not my doing. “If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. “But if the LORD brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the LORD.”
It is even more direct in Exodus 19 and 20. Both chapters deal with God coming and speaking the Law to all the people. They were terrified. I would consider them witnesses, Ex 20:18. “All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin.” So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.”
The “objective voice” of God spoken to normal men and bringing new doctrine and laws was not heard after this time until the advent of Christ. Between Moses and Jesus, God’s voice came indirectly through prophets. Even the spiritual hand in Daniel that wrote words on the wall was interpreted” by the prophet because the meaning had been hidden. With the advent of Jesus we see something new. God speaks directly again. Interestingly, the 3 times that God spoke from heaven in the Gospels was entirely consistent with 1 John 4:1, it only confessed Christ come in the flesh, no new doctrine or laws. “This is my beloved Son, listen to Him.” Thus, this was indeed the voice of God. This is also the same message that Jesus tells Paul on the road, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” Conforming to the standard in 1 John 4:1, confessing Christ coming in the flesh.
You say, “I think you are trying to make a distinction between, for instance, Jacob and Ezekiel, that simply doesn’t exist. We can see/hear angels but we can’t “touch” them? The seeing and hearing is “subjective”, the touching is “objective?” Jacob physically touched God but Ezekiel didn’t?” I am simply observing a distinction that is recorded in scripture. The burden of proof to show that angels anthropomorphically touched men would be on you. The seeing/hearing is not the same physical contact that we find earlier. The angels of Lot had witnesses, even among the unbelievers of Sodom. The objective/subjective aspects of sight and sound could be debated. It seems that they can be confusing and indistinct in that Paul wrote in 2 Cor 12:2, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.” This scripture seems to imply a level of uncertainty even by one that had a “true vision” might consider it subjective. We also know that men experience hallucinations and see and hear things that aren’t there. How does a “witness” discern whether a man’s revelation was a true vision or a hallucination? This is an important issue and I think that it is addressed in 1 John 4:1.
When you use your example of Ezekiel, “And when he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me AND SET ME UPON MY FEET… (Ezekiel 2:2.),” it is obviously a radically different interaction than Jacob. The spirit ENTERED INTO Ezekiel to accomplish this instead of grabbing him by the arm as the angel did with Lot. I think your example proves the point that I was attempting to make. The Spirit set him on his feet by entering him instead of with his hands. With Lot, they physically grabbed him by the arm. Find an example of the “spirit entering” pre-Moses. I find that it says “the Lord was with Joseph,” but not the Spirit entered. There are many examples of dreams, but I don’t think there is another example of the Ezekiel-type interaction at this time. I understand the claim of Neco. It is both vague and unclear why he believed that he heard from God. The king of Babylon really did hear from God through forbidden and damnable divination. It is guidance that God gave to pagans in Ezekiel 21:21, “For the king of Babylon stands at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination; he shakes the arrows, he consults the household idols, he looks at the liver. “Into his right hand came the divination, ‘Jerusalem,’ to set battering rams, to open the mouth for slaughter, to lift up the voice with a battle cry, to set battering rams against the gates, to cast up ramps, to build a siege wall.” I have already mentioned the example of Peter that you cite in Acts and given you another one, Elijah. In both cases when this occurs the person is not awake. This doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that angels cannot interact in the physical dimension. I do. I believe that angels can interact with the physical dimension. We see the “chains falling off Peter’s hands.” The angel did this somehow. The angels rolled away the stone. I accept and believe this. I even believe that this could happen today. However, if it did, we would see the supernatural evidence in the objective world we live in, i.e. there would be stones that moved, chains that fell, etc. My concept says nothing about this or limits it in any way.
The fact that you state, “Peter couldn’t tell the difference between an “objective” experience and a “subjective” vision” is exactly the point of why sights/sounds still must be tested and are unsure. It seems odd to me that you reference the Scots Worthies as something that I wouldn’t believe. How do I know what they saw/experienced? In the same way, however, how do I know that what Joseph Smith claimed to see/hear didn’t happen? I actually give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he did have a real spiritual experience. Was it “true?” That is a different question. I am not claiming that angels/spirits don’t interact AT ALL, just not anthropomorphically as they did before Moses.
Finally Hobbes, you close with the following;
1)Post-Moses scriptural + extra-biblical but historical accounts + personal, anecdotal accounts of PHYSICAL interaction between God/angels/demons and humans. You must AT LEAST recognize the scriptural accounts as authentic. I would hope that, because of your apparent Reformed leanings, you would seriously consider “Scotts Worthies” as an authentic account. It has a high reputation among those of the Reformed persuasion. You may dismiss my personal and anecdotal accounts out of hand if you wish – I will not be offended. Even so, I tell you the truth.
I respond; I am not attempting to state that spirits cannot or don’t interact with the physical dimension or humans. I believe that scripture states that they do, even now. Thus, I believe that God can, if He chooses, intervene now and prevent evil. If He chooses to move a car, of course He can. Thus, I think that I must have poorly communicated this aspect for you to somehow get the impression that I don’t believe it. I have addressed a specific aspect of this interaction which I believe has evolved and become limited from the time of Genesis. Perhaps a better label would be “anthropomorphic physical interaction” that would have made sexual union and hybrid offspring possible. The existence of these offspring would be tangible proof of this capacity. Flying saucers have yet to produce tangible evidence and may be “whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know.” If there are offspring, I could positively tell you which one it was.
2)Challenging the extreme objective/subjective dichotomy, without which your whole construct breaks down. It seems obvious to me that THEY did not have the dichotomy that WE do. One implication of this (among many others) is that we have no way of knowing how “objective” many of the patriarchal encounters really were.
I respond; I think that there is a valid and necessary distinction between objective/subjective. Perhaps I have been sloppy or vague in my application. I don’t believe that subjective/objective are synonyms for truth/false but I can understand that this probably wasn’t made very clear. They would be synonyms for provable/nonprovable.
You may or may not have experienced supernatural events, who am I to say? If I witnessed the car move I could vouch that the car indeed moved. I still don’t think that I would know if it was angels or demons that moved it, however. I believe that these events could still happen, but what is important to me is the message that they convey or confirm. The only difference that I find between a false sign/wonder and a true one isn’t found in the sign itself but the content of the message it is bringing. I good “car moving” and bad “car moving” looks the same to me. If the car moved, it moved and that is all I know. What did the event testify to? Did it attest to the gospel and the Christ who came in the flesh and died for our sins? Dr. Boyd has given us an example in which he is presented an experience that brought the power of forgive through a false replacement historical experience. I call this a lying experience, not because he didn’t feel it but because scripture is clear that the power of God to forgive is found in believing in the true historical event of the gospel not a false one. God died to forgive my many sins and out of gratitude I can for give the few sins of those who abuse me. An event that promises freedom in a the false is not the gospel nor is it inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/4/2004 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen Lake,
What I’m about to do FEELS like a caricature to me. I’m doing it because this is how I see your position. I am not in any way disrespecting your position; I’m trying to understand it. If this is a caricature, please forgive me and bear with my denseness.
When you say, “anthropomorphic physical interaction” you have in mind a very, very, very narrow thing. When God, or an angel, or a fallen angel, or a demon, interacts anthropomorphically/physically with a human the experience must exhibit ALL these characteristics/behaviors, or it’s not an “anthropomorphic physical interaction.”
1) The spiritual being must manifest in a human form.
2) The spiritual being must make PHYSICAL contact with a human
3) The human must be awake
4) There must be some kind of objective witness in the physical world
Thus, Ezekiel doesn’t count because, even though there was physical contact (the Spirit had to “touch” Ezekiel in some way in order to PHYSICALLY move him from a prone position to a standing position – right?), since the Spirit was not in a human form (anthropomorphic), this passage does not qualify. So here we have physical contact, and objective witness/proof in the physical world – Ezekiel was lifted to his feet - but no anthropomorphic appearance. Disqualified.
Acts 5:19 doesn’t qualify because the angel opened locked doors “and brought them out.” The angel moved a door but since “brought them out” doesn’t explicitly state that the angel actually touched them (though one could infer) we can’t assume that there was physical contact. Neither does this passage explicitly say that the angel was in human form, that is, anthropomorphized. Disqualified.
Acts 12:7 doesn’t qualify because Peter was conveniently (for you) asleep when the angel struck him. It says the angel “appeared” in the cell so would we agree that the angel was anthropomorphic? Even though the TEXT says the anthropomorphized angel made physical contact with Peter, it doesn’t count because Peter was asleep. Never mind that the angel was still there when he woke up – woke up AS A RESULT of the PHYSICAL CONTACT. Wasn’t awake when struck, doesn’t count, might not be real. Even though the TEXT says that what was done by the angel WAS REAL (verse 9). It was objective, that is, PROVABLE. The TEXT SAYS there was PHYSICAL contact between an anthropomorphized angel and a human being – who happened to be sleeping at the time. As a result of the physical contact, Peter woke up and walked out of the prison, led by the angel, who blinded the guards and opened the doors. But – Peter was not awake at the precise moment physical contact was made so it doesn’t count. Disqualified.
Philip doesn’t count because even though he was PHYSICALLY transported from one location to another - so there was physical contact and objective proof - but there apparently was no anthropomorphization involved. Disqualified.
I assume that Gideon wouldn’t count either (Judges 6:11-24) because there is no explicit record of physical contact. The angel was anthropomorphized; the angel provided objective proof after Gideon requested a sign. Gideon even said, “…I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face.” The TEXT says, “face to face.” This must be taken literally since the angel was anthropomorphic. But, since there is no record of physical contact - disqualified.
As a matter of fact ALL the antediluvian fathers are disqualified. No explicit record of physical contact. MOST of the post-flood patriarchs are disqualified. Abraham, Lot, and Jacob would qualify – this is off the top of my head, maybe you can think of others.
You said,
“I believe that angels can interact with the physical dimension. We see the “chains falling off Peter’s hands.” The angel did this somehow. The angels rolled away the stone. I accept and believe this. I even believe that this could happen today. However, if it did, we would see the supernatural evidence in the objective world we live in, i.e. there would be stones that moved, chains that fell, etc. My concept says nothing about this or limits it in any way.”
If an angel can move a stone, or chains, or my car, why can’t an angel grab an arm, or poke somebody to wake them up? It doesn’t make sense, Spen. You’re saying angels can move ANYTHING except a human body? No, that’s not right because you acknowledge that angels CAN move a human body (Philip, Ezekiel). They just can’t be in human form when they do it. Though they can be in human form when they move inanimate objects (staffs, stones, doors etc). If they appear in anthropomorphic form, they can’t physically interact with humans. If they physically interact, they can’t be in human form. What a begging-of-the-question MESS! Your “conclusion” is REALLY your premise.
Now, Moses is a real sticky wicket because I acknowledge uniqueness in relation to Moses. This uniqueness is NOT, however, because of ANYTHING inherent in Moses (i.e. the last of the 120 plus year life spans) but is SOLEY due to God’s choice and purpose (I sound like a Calvinist, don’t I? ) No one, not Enoch, not Adam, not Seth, not Lot, not Abraham etc had the unique experience of God and ministry that Moses had. There is only one other. THE prophet spoken of by Moses.
You said, “The “objective voice” of God spoken to normal men and bringing new doctrine and laws was not heard after this time until the advent of Christ. Between Moses and Jesus, God’s voice came indirectly through prophets.”
Response: I agree with you that Moses and Jesus are unique among all men. And that God spoke in a unique way through them. I think that we agree that their similarity lies in the fact that they were the bringers and establishers of covenants between God and Man. They were also similar in that Moses explicitly prefigures Jesus. However, I maintain that no Antediluvian had the experience with God that Moses had. I maintain that no pre-Moses patriarch had the experience with God that Moses had. No post-Moses prophet had this – until Jesus. It has NOTHING to do with life span or the ability or inability of normal men to hear the “objective voice” of God but has EVERYTHING to do with God’s choice and purpose.
So, even though I acknowledge this, I must still play devil’s advocate. I will apply your standards for “anthropomorphic physical interaction” to Moses.
1) There is no record of God in anthropomorphized form physically touching Moses when he was awake.
2) There is no record of God anthropomorphizing at all – unless you take “face-to-face” literally and not as a figure of speech. The literal understanding would be debatable because there is no record of God appearing to Moses in human form, is there?
3) The “witnesses” did not hear God speak, they heard thunder and saw lightning.
4) I would acknowledge the objective witness of what happened in Korah’s rebellion. Pretty hard to ignore that!
Based on #1 and the debatable-ness of #2 – Disqualified. Moses did NOT experience anthropomorphic physical interaction.
Spenlake: I have addressed a specific aspect of this interaction which I believe has evolved and become limited from the time of Genesis. Perhaps a better label would be “anthropomorphic physical interaction” that would have made sexual union and hybrid offspring possible. The existence of these offspring would be tangible proof of this capacity.
Response: You see this Spen? In spite of what you said earlier, THIS is what it’s all about, isn’t it? You have to explain why fallen angels could mate with human women then - but not now. THIS is the main thing. Not Adam, not Enoch, not Moses, and their ALLEDGED enhanced capacities to experience the spiritual realm - but THIS. You have explicitly acknowledged that there are other possible interpretations of Gen 6. You have asked me to accept what you have explicitly called your ASSUMPTION that the sons of God in Gen 6 are fallen angels and then you use your assumption to “prove” your premise. How is this NOT begging-the-question?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/5/2004 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake: I appreciate the work you’ve put into looking into this…I appreciate your input and “head work” in following my thoughts. Thank you.
Response: No problem Spen, I enjoy it. I’m always on the lookout for the lunatic fringe. Not that I think you’re lunatic fringe – you’re not, not by a long shot – I was just intrigued by your thesis because I’d never heard it before. I’ve dealt with various kinds of cessationism before. Your thesis was kind of a unique twist to an old argument. And I understand your wanting to test a thesis by throwing it out there and inviting people to whack on it. I appreciate your willingness to keep butting heads with me. One of the things that frustrates me about message boards – and disputation via email and correspondence in general - is that people are not willing to keep at it and stick with one subject long enough to really get anywhere. It’s frustrating to me. It appears that joneames starts a thread or inserts himself into one, sticks with it a couple of days and then moves on. I solicited Alan’s critique of my position on John 6:44 and there’s been silence. The first thread I posted on (Gen 6) just petered out for no reason that I could tell. (Is it me?) My time is limited and valuable and the general experience I’ve had of people not patiently pursuing a line of thought until it goes “where no man has gone before” or at least goes where I have never been before generally discourages me from risking my time. I think that two people butting heads and refusing to disengage even when things get heated is a very valuable thing and can result in much benefit. “Iron sharpens iron and one man sharpens another.” This does not happen because we agree with and support each other. Disagreement and differing perspectives are necessary. I don’t want to talk with someone who agrees with me all the time, that’s no fun! You strike me as a guy that I could have a lot of disagreement with and that’s another reason I decided to attempt to engage you. You also gained some of my respect with your mention of infidels.org. I’m familiar with that site and find it stimulating. I agree with you that the infidels on that site know the Bible better than most Christians.
I get the feeling that you want to wind this thread down so I will give you my current thoughts on the matter.
Spenlake: I am not saying that the definition is not narrow. I believe that you are right to point out that it is narrow. On the other hand, sexual relations between man/spirits would also be narrow but all that might be necessary to produce hybrid offspring. I don’t think that my argument is strong enough to “prove” my thesis. At the same time, because it is narrow, I don’t think that the opposing arguments are strong enough to disprove it either. I have put forward a thesis that answers some issues that others have attempted to answer other ways.
Response: I think several things disprove your thesis.
1) If your interpretation of Genesis 6 were disproved there would really be no reason for your theory to exist in the first place. Without that your thesis is nothing more than a typical cessationist-type argument. I saw the significance of that from the very beginning but you wanted me to accept your assumption and move on. I did, and we wound up right back at Gen 6. That happened because you were begging the question from the very beginning. Your definition is SOOO narrow that if your interpretation of Gen 6 is wrong your definition disappears altogether! I dispute your position on Gen 6 and am willing to support mine FROM THE TEXT!
2) In my opinion, your thesis is disproved by Acts 12:7. The fact that Peter was asleep when physically struck by the angel is not significant. The angel struck him for the express purpose of waking him up so that further interaction could take place. Furthermore, the text EXPLICITLY says in a literal narrative format that an anthropomorphized angel made physical contact with a human. What more do we need?
3) Another basic assumption that your thesis rests on is the assumption that as history progresses the interaction of God generally progressively evolves from more direct to indirect and from more physical to less physical. That was the point of your “idolatry” thesis. But if we take your definition of “anthropomorphic physical interaction” as the standard for the most direct and objective interaction possible, and we accept your assumption, we would expect to find that type of interaction most pronounced in the Antediluvian world. Yet we do not find “anthropomorphic physical interaction” ANYWHERE in the antediluvian world UNLESS we subscribe to YOUR assumption (your word) on Gen 6, which we most emphatically do not! All we have is Abraham, Lot, and Jacob. BTW – was there PHYSICAL contact between the angels and Abraham? Maybe all we have is Lot and Jacob.
In my opinion, you are making random connections (human form + physical contact + awake + objective witness in physical world) between things that have no necessary connection in order to support a thesis generated by and based on a misinterpretation of a very controversial text (Gen 6).
The interaction of God/spirits with humanity runs the gamut from humans being totally oblivious to what’s going on around them to the still small voice to dreams to waking visions to prophets to audible voices to your “anthropomorphic physical interaction” etc etc etc. From a Biblical standpoint ALL these experiences are equally “REAL” and True. E.g. Jacob’s dream of the ladder was just as ‘real”, and “objective” as his physically wrestling with an angel – TO JACOB. If God is speaking it is just as true, real, and objective be it an “impression”, a dream or an “anthropomorphic physical interaction.” God speaking is God speaking, no matter the medium. Whether it’s “provable” (your definition of “objective”) or not is God’s problem, and a lot of the time He does not seem too concerned about that. WE are the ones that DEMAND “proof.” Why? Because of our extreme subjective/objective dichotomy (more on that some other time). The Biblical text does not support a linear decrease through history of the “physical-ness” of God’s interaction with man. The continuum is present in all times. Reality does not conform to categories, boxes, and chronologies. Down through history, God chooses specific men to represent Him to individuals, regions, nations, and humanity in general. The way that He reveals Himself and deals with these men also runs the gamut. I would put Moses in a class by himself. I would put the Old Testament prophets in differing classes; Ezekiel is obviously different than Obadiah. I would put Jesus in a class by Himself; I would put the original Apostles in their own class etc. This is all according to the choice and purpose of God and does not depend on any inherent capacity in these men that is not available to us all; it depends on God’s choice according to His purpose. They run the gamut from very Christ-like (Joseph) to murderers (David, Moses) to religious zealots and hypocrites (Paul) to men of unclean lips (Isaiah) etc. What we have in the Bible is a record of God’s dealings with the Jews through certain men. These men are not the only men through and to whom God has revealed Himself. They are only the ones the Bible tells us about. Neco would be an example of a non-Jew that God spoke to and through that we would know nothing about were it not for an obscure mention.
I know you were trying to tie all this in with Greg’s book on the imagination. I have not read the book so I will refrain from comment. If you wish to engage me on that subject and use Greg’s book as a springboard I shall have to read it. I am willing. If I am wrong when I say, “I get the feeling that you want to wind this thread down” by all means continue on! If I’m right, and you would like to engage me on another subject of your choosing, let me know. Perhaps in the future I shall have the pleasure of disagreeing with you on another topic.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|