I think you’re really pushing the limits of seriousness here.
So you don’t take science and biology seriously? Well… I do.
That is a concrete indisputable example of why these two terms are not synomymous. Just because you have decided to equate them doesn’t mean anyone who disagrees with you is not being serious. AND I take the alteration of the text of the Bible VERY seriously!!!
Obviously I do not think that angels reproduce in the same way as bacteria. I made it abundantly clear that I think angels are created directly as a product of design. And you cannot rule out the possibility that God gave that ability to some of the angels. So either put up some contrary reason/evidence or simply accept that this is something people can disagree about SERIOUSLY!
Oh and by the way, I do seriously believe God gave this ability to some of the angels. What I don’t believe was there was any early war or rebellion in heaven where a bunch of angels went against God. I think the only reason a third of the angels followed Lucifer is because he created them.
@mitchellmckain If angels do not have free will, how should we read Job or Rev 12? I just can’t make sense of any of that without angelic free will.
3 Likes
No one is altering the Bible. I’m explaining the meaning of the text here. The authors of the Bible didn’t know what asexual reproduction is and couldn’t possibly have meant that - this is a modernist addition to the text kind of like what Answers in Genesis does. In any case, you admit you don’t really believe the angels perform asexual reproduction:
Obviously I do not think that angels reproduce in the same way as bacteria.
So, what do you really think? That new angels were created by Lucifer:
I think the only reason a third of the angels followed Lucifer is because he created them.
In other words, you don’t actually think angels reproduce at all, sexually or asexually, but that more were created after God made the initial bunch. Since this is what really you think, your earlier insistence that angels do reproduce makes no sense at all.
As for Satan being able to create angels, you might start thinking about forming your own sect around that one.
I think they can do a pretty imitation just like an AI program. But no I don’t think they have the same degree of free will that living things do. The angels are what they were made to be and they will never be more than what they were made to be. We on the other hand participate in our creation, growing, learning, and deciding what kind of person we become. That is the difference – a very very different kind of free will altogether.
But it doesn’t mean they cannot make their own decisions. AI programs can do that too.
But to be frank here, while I do think Genesis has an historical intent, I don’t think there is anything historical about the book of Job. That is a judgement I make about each book of the Bible based on the content and structure. For another example I am about 50-50 with regards to the book of Jonah. But in the case of Job, I think it is obvious that the story is nothing but an excuse for the philosophical discussions which follow. The person Job is more of metaphor for Israel and people in general who confront misfortune, so I don’t think this is a good source for conclusions about the nature of angels. Trying to take too much theology from Revelation can be even worse, which is to say that considerable caution is required. Obviously much of this book is anything but literal. There is for example no woman who uses the sun for her clothing. The whole thing is a metaphor for Christ’s defeat of the devil.
Incorrect. Mark 12:25 does not say what you claimed. Why did you lie?
The question Jesus was asked in Mark 25 was about marriage NOT reproduction. So why would the meaning of Jesus’ answer be about reproduction?
On the contrary I consistently do not draw a sharp line between creation and reproduction. This came up before in a discussion of creating life and I made it clear that I considered having children to be an example of creating life.
I am not the one misrepresenting the content of the Bible. Pushing non-Biblical theology on everyone is where we see sect creating behavior. And then there is your creation of a completely new language where marrying is synonymous with reproduction.
@mitchellmckain I can’t count on myself to judge each book of the Bible as true or not. Rather, I accept nt Wright’s statement that the Bible we have is the one God intended us to have as his revelation to us. For me that means all of it.
1 Like
That doesn’t mean that every book is the same kind of literature. Being true is not the same as being historical. Treating something as historical when it is not can get in the way of understanding the truth of it. Taking the parable of the sower literally would completely miss what Jesus was trying to communicate.
Oh boy. You’re pretty invested into this one, eh? Let’s find out if I “lied” or not.
Mark 12:25: When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
I was going to give this explanation in my previous response, but thought that my last comment was sufficient. It wasn’t, it seems. Here, people are analogized to angels. Morally, people can’t have children outside of marriage (because you need sex to do that), and so the risen humans mentioned in this passage also wont be having children (because they wont be getting married). Holding Mark’s analogy to the angels, that also implies that angels wont be getting married, having sex, or having children. So it turns out there was no “lie” after all.
Later, you kind of redefine the terminology and claim you don’t make a distinction between reproduction and creation. But when it comes to the point of this discussion (spontaneous creation), the difference is pretty obvious and doesn’t need to be explained. If what you’re describing is creation, just call it creation, instead of post hoc trying to claim that you really think these are the same thing the whole time. You think the angels are capable of creating other angels. And that’s something that is just not in Christianity. You obviously made it up. Why do you believe it? Is it in order to resolve some sort of biblical problem, by any chance?
No… but I am certainly serious about it.
The question asked of Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with having children. That is crystal clear. The question was about marriage despite the fact of this woman having different children with different husbands.
No, the point was to demonstrate the fact that for me there was no difference and therefore contrary to your claim, I was thinking that angels creating other angels was an example of reproduction. But I will grant that you may not see these as the same thing and I am not saying the two words should be considered synonymous so I will acknowledge that is legitimate to say that this means they they do not reproduce in the usual sense. But do think it means that angels may have an experiential understanding of the power that is inherent in the ability to create more of ones own kind.
Besides this doesn’t change in the slightest that the Bible does not say that angels do not reproduce despite your long flawed chain of logic from what is actually said to this conclusion of yours.
Sorry but I don’t accept this definition of your opinions as Christianity. Christianity includes a very wide spectrum of ideas and opinion on a great many issues. I am Christian despite your attempts to exclude me in violation of the rules of this forum so my opinion on this particular issue is in the spectrum of Christian belief.
1 Like
@mitchellmckain. Of course there are different literary forms used to convey God’s message in the Bible. That doesn’t mean they cannot be based on actual historical events.
I explained the connection in my last response and you kind of just ignored it.
so I will acknowledge that is legitimate to say that this means they they do not reproduce in the usual sense
Sounds good to me.
Sorry but I don’t accept this definition of your opinions as Christianity. Christianity includes a very wide spectrum of ideas and opinion on a great many issues. I am Christian despite your attempts to exclude me in violation of the rules of this forum so my opinion on this particular issue is in the spectrum of Christian belief.
No, I said that that particular idea you mentioned is not part of Christianity. I wouldn’t claim that you yourself denies the acts of Jesus or anything. But why do you add this to Christianity to begin with? You should be careful about that sort of stuff.
The point is that not all the stories in the Bible are necessarily historical and so it reasonable to weigh the evidence and make a decision on which are historical and which are not. To be sure I don’t buy into all the arguments made that various stories are not historical. I make up my own mind on which are which. It is the “don’t leave your brain at the door” approach. The majority of the parables of Jesus are clearly not historical. And I don’t think Job is historical either. And this has no significant impact of the value of the book because it isn’t about history but about an philosophical/theological problem. In the case of Job, an insistence on it being historical doesn’t add to the value of the text but detracts from it, just like the parables of Jesus. In the case of the book of Jonah, I find it difficult to come to a conclusion either way.
Why do you exclude me from Christianity?
Nothing about angels is a part of the definition of Christianity. Nevertheless a great variety of beliefs about angels is part of the spectrum of Christian belief. So what shall we say when someone asks if a belief in angels is “part of Christianity?” I think you are just throwing random dust in people’s eyes.
If you ask why I believe this particular thing then I will answer you. But I have doubts about whether you really even want to know. So I will refrain until you ask the question in a non-offensive manner. When someone asks questions in such a hostile way then Matthew 7:6 applies.
Why do you exclude me from Christianity?
You can be part of Christianity. I’m just looking to understand this expansion of the biblical description on angels.
If you ask why I believe this particular thing then I will answer you.
OK. Why do you believe this particular thing?
So the question is why do I believe some angels have the ability to create lesser angels.
- What are the angels? created spirits.
- What do they do? The Bible calls them messengers. But it is clear that they do a lot more than simply carry messages. Fighting Jacob, for example. In other words, their communication of God’s will to the universe is more than simply delivering verbal messages.
- God is all powerful so why would God employ angels to do anything? Why not? Why wouldn’t God have angels do routine tasks according to a general plan? It is the way intelligent beings accomplish very large tasks… they build tools and machines to carry out things which are repetitive.
- What sort of routine tasks are there that angels might be doing? The creation of life requires stimulation and challenges. So carrying this out for millions of species over billions of years (possibly multiplied by a billion trillion stars/planets) would definitely come under the category of routine tasks.
- But with such numbers of routine tasks wouldn’t the creation of more angels be a routine task as well? I think so. This is something that we do with the building of machines to make more machines. It is a natural logical step in the accomplishment of large complex projects.
- So is there any reason why God couldn’t make the angels correctly to accomplish the tasks for which they are made? Is it likely that the angels would have some cause against God? Not with any kind of God I would believe in. So this idea that angels would rebel against God is very hard to believe. And if they did rebel against God it would be even harder to believe that God would then bring children into a universe inhabited by evil beings.
- However, the creation of children is a very different situation altogether. They are created as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end and it is only natural that they would have the free will to choose for themselves their purpose in life. That unfortunately can even include rejecting life itself as well as the love and goodness of God.
- Therefore if anything went wrong it would be with children not servants. And that is the story we read in Genesis 2-3, where an angel became our adversary because we blamed him for our mistake. Truth be told, what Lucifer did could very well be described as giving A&E a challenge from which they might learn.
- So why then does Rev 12 say that a third of the angels were cast from heaven with this one angel? I can only think this is because they were directly under his sole authority, which makes the most sense if he actually created them rather than simply being assigned to him.
Is any of this critically important to Christianity? No. But it makes sense and it answers exactly the sort of question which were raised in the OP. To be sure, it is more important that answers are possible to such questions rather than what those answers actually are since we don’t have any evidence for a conclusion about such things. There are after all plenty people who are quite willing to go from questions like this to very different conclusions that the God of Christianity is a monster or that such an irrational and inconsistent thing simply does not exist.
1 Like
well, we do know, that after the Final Resurrection at Final Judgement (Rev 20:10+), after earth is roasted in fire (Rev 20:9 = 2 Pet 3:10), we will all be raised in angelic like spiritual bodies (Luke 20:36 = 1 Cor 15:35+)
Plausibly, angels have already experienced their F.R.
If a Godlike entity has truly intervened into terrestrial history, then the effects of such Godlike influences would be Godly profound.
Compare humans (allegedly Divinely cultivated) vs. non-human animals on earth. The difference between them vs. supercomputers, skyscrapers & space-stations is Godly profound, yes?
insightful
We do know that the Adversary has tried to influence human history on earth.
Plausibly, the Adversary has similarly “recruited” other “allies” elsewhere to his heavenly “civil war rebellion” against God
This is an interesting thought, that angels are previously resurrected beings. But resurrected from what? Jesus is said to be the first fruits of the resurrection, the assumption being that he was the first human to be resurrected, as a sign for what would come for us as well.
Also, I think there are probably differences between resurrected humans and angels. But I really can’t say much to support that.
1 Like
I think I can resolve your need for that idea and the theological problem you raise. Angels don’t simply “communicate messages”, that’s for sure, but their purpose also doesn’t entail the generic performance of “routine tasks”. Their purpose seems clearly to be, insofar as their activities are described in the Bible, magnifying the glory of God and participating in God’s interaction with humanity. This website says:
In the Bible, God tells us how the angels are delivering messages, accompanying the lonely, granting protection, and even fighting His battles. In many angelic appearances told of in our Bible, angels who were sent to deliver messages began their words saying, “Do not be afraid,” or “Do not fear.” Most of the time, however, God’s angels operate undercover and don’t draw attention to themselves as they carry out the assignment given them by God. There are cases where these heavenly beings evidence themselves and strike terror in the hearts of God’s enemies.
So the angels are not simply in the business of routine tasks. And the formation of life is just because of abiogenesis and evolution, rather than a routine task God is doing on billions of planets. It’s also a task that doesn’t seem to be particularly important to the function angels have. Angels aren’t described as participating in the formation of the natural world. Gen 1 is exactly where we’d expect such a thing.
I think I can resolve your theological problem pretty simply. God created humans that could obey or disobey, so whose to say that angels themselves don’t have a mind like that? The angel that talked with Balaam seems to have been an intelligible being. So just like how humans must choose between good and evil, angels themselves went through a similar process.
1 Like
The Bible distinguishes YHWH God the Father in heaven (never observed by humans, John 1:18) from His Angel of YHWH which has been experienced repeatedly on earth (Hagar, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Israelites, Joseph’s dream in the NT)
God’s Angel / Messenger is His remote tele-presence upon this planet (if you would)
If you apply the same reasoning to all other “angels / messengers”, then they are also the remote tele-presences upon this planet earth of other remote heavenly powers
The ambassador sent to a foreign country is distinct from the distant state sending them
So perhaps it would be helpful, when we use the term “angels”, to clarify whether we mean the angelic influences we experience on earth, or the heavenly power sending us their influences ?