Yes, there are many instances of angels creating fear, as evidenced by their first spoken words in all those instances, 'Don’t be afraid."
I classify angels as shapeshifters. They are able to adapt to the circumstances required. But to say that angels never have bodies is a misleading instruction.
I agree we cannot be dogmatic about these things. We are not informed enough, and much that has been bandied about in books and speechs (I hesitate to call them sermons) that suggests that angels can’t have sex is patently contradicted in Genesis.
I’ve read people saying that God made a finite group of angels in the beginning–full grown–no aging etc.–so angels are not born and don’t die. So we won’t die either.
So, I wonder, if you believe that, when the great war in heaven occurred and Michael defeated Lucifer and he was cast out of heaven. How does one determine the winner of a war? Usually, the losers give in because they have too many losses of life and property. The survivors want to continue living and surrender. So how does one win a war in heaven if no angels die?
Secondly, in the universe, on this earth, in my life, everything has a life cycle. Things are born, die, and reborn. What I mean by that, planets & suns die, explode or implode and their parts swirl into other beginnings. Grass dies, but the seeds cause regrowth of new grass. People are born and reproduce and die–their spirits progressing to an afterlife of which we know very little. I’m watching the fissures of Kilauea create new land. Volcanos destroy but they also create new land from the cooling of liquid rock. There is a clear life cycle at every level.
So why not for angels?
People have argued there was no death until sin entered the world, but evidence of death is present long before recorded history.
I submit that the death God referenced was to be deprived of being in the Divine presence. That happened right away.
We use a similar kind of imagery on earth. I would die if I couldn’t be with my husband. I don’t really think I would die physically if my husband were to die, but a light in my life would be extinguished. That is what I see as death imposed on us.
Redemption via Christ’s atonement for us allows us to regain the ability to be in the Divine presence.
I submit that our human death is simply a portal we go through. On the other side, we have greater abilities (perhaps using the rest of our brain that hasn’t been used) and can see life on earth as well as live in glory.
Those are fascinating questions! Miscellaneous small passages (even a single verse) drop tantalizing hints for those who long to know more about such things. Daniel chapter 10 (messenger delayed 21 days by the “prince of Persia”, before reinforcements arrive – i.e. Michael) is one such place, just begging for more back-story! And I’m sure that “back-story” is all well-supplied by those who would never be content to let such things remain obscured by any apparent uncertainty. Or Jude 9 where Michael and Satan apparently have a tiff over the body of Moses – what’s that all about!? (I ask rhetorically, because here too, I bet many are willing to supply answers, whereas I’m just fascinated by why such a thing is mentioned at all, and what does it tell us about their views of angels?)
My childhood view of angels (that would still be my go-to visual in my head as an adult now) is of a person in flowing robes, wings of course, slight glow or luminescence about the head (thanks, “Touched by an Angel”!) and if they have a weapon, it’s a sword. Why not an uzi or artillery or something more “updated”? The silliness of the very image conjured probably supplies its own answer, and reveals also the silliness of my childhood images, no-doubt fed by Christmas pageants and flannel graph.
I suspect that our own cultural portrayals of these entities may reveal more about us than they do about actual angels or demons.
That is the capstone, and what it’s all about. Angels are referred to as God’s messengers or servants. Sometimes wind is referred to as God’s spirit or breath, giving it a material connection for us that may be something more than “merely” metaphorical. Is it possible that people sometimes function as angels for other people? I know that’s not as sexy, and sounds suspiciously like I’m questioning the existence of the traditional supernatural image of an angel. I think angels and demons are real. I just don’t have a lot of confidence in our detailed depictions of what they must be. If God can be found in the face of a poor person in need of bread or clothes, who’s to say that a person can’t sometimes fill the role of “angel” (or demon!), yet without insisting that this must become the entire explanation of what such things are?
I like writing stories for kids, and one I have been futzing around with were having angels show up in different eras, under the guise of humans assisting others.
I took a course in writing about weapons and hand-to-hand combat training, so I might know how to make contemporary angels authentically moving through history.
I read around a bit on the Hebrew word ish and came to the conclusion that the word means something like “individual.” I’m not sure how relevant that is to Matthew 22:30/Mark 12:25, which is not written in Hebrew.
I have heard it said that Jude is alluding to the Jewish Testament of Moses.
Jude 1:9 “
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”“
Zac 3:2 “The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you!”
It’s not that silly, Balaam and the talking donkey saw a sword, the garden of Eden is guarded with swords, I think swords are quite common. The Bible is the sword of The Spirit piercing like a sword…etc.
I think war just means you have an opponent, who are trying to achieve opposite goals, determined theirs is best, up unto to the point of death, but not requiring death. Death is not required, nor is physical clashes. The sword of the spirit is not a physical object.
Mat 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
So I’m not so sure it is a physical battle with death on either side. More like “chess game” played out among us. The old school, demon on the left shoulder and the angel on the right. And thanks to the powers of Jesus, God wins!
Rev 12:11 “They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;”
It wasn’t the powers of Michael that won, it was the power of Jesus, name above all names!
I am not certain this is the same account as Isaiah 14. The Lamb died before this Rev 12 battle, and Satan is used in Rev 12, not Lucifer as in Isaiah.
Apparently God allows Satan to “visit” heaven in Job. The accuser likes to accuse God and is allowed after Lucifer was cast out.
I can see where it comes from, and yes the message is that these are beings not to be trifled with, and they are equipped with the means necessary to be effective servants to their master. None of that is silly, though it can become that way if we insist on viewing it literally. As you said, the sword of the Spirit is not one of metal, but the word that proceeds from the Lord. And as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:
Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.
Now we see angels as, perhaps a more direct extension of the Lord’s arm? As in … when God tells us that vengeance belongs to him (not us), we imagine (with at least some scriptural support) that He does exact it … perhaps with angels as the “enforcers” making sure God’s will is done. It it easier for us to connect with that kind of imagery because we like where that goes, and naturally want to imagine ourselves part of it. But Jesus and Paul see our contest on different terms, so one has to ask (rhetorically for any Christian): who or what is to be our most direct image of who God is? It is Jesus, the Lion, of course – significantly also revealed as a slain lamb. We all know from scriptures that he outranks any angels, being the incarnation of God himself (others’ arguments against this notwithstanding), but we don’t like it as much because who wants to love their enemies and turn the other cheek rather than dominating and defeating their enemies in open force?
So I’m developing a theory here that we culturally connect more easily with the notion of angel activity (i.e. warfare) than we do with the decidedly higher (and harder) calling of Christ.
It’s not that silly, Balaam and the talking donkey saw a sword, the garden of Eden is guarded with swords, I think swords are quite common. The Bible is the sword of The Spirit piercing like a sword…etc.
What does the word sword mean? A weapon with a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard, used for thrusting or striking and now typically worn as part of ceremonial dress. OR for literary use: military power, violence, or destruction
I think war just means you have an opponent, who are trying to achieve opposite goals, determined theirs is best, up unto to the point of death, but not requiring death. Death is not required, nor is physical clashes. The sword of the spirit is not a physical object.
The definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
It wasn’t the powers of Michael that won, it was the power of Jesus, Name above all names!
You suggest that the fight between Michael and Lucifer was a spiritual battle that was only won via the name of Jesus/God.
I ask the following questions:
If it was not a physical battle using swords or weapons that are designed to destroy (cause death) then why would God use the sword as a physical presence in Balaam’s donkey story, or along with the angels (who might be more frightening to most people than the common sword)?
If the great war in heaven between Michael and Lucifer was only a chess game and only dependent on God’s name being spoken as a spiritual win, why is Michael necessary? Why is the sword mentioned in relationship with Michael?
I don’t discount the power of God being with Michael, but from all that I have observed and read, it seems that God uses ‘real physical’ things to carry out the Divine plans.
God chose to create the universe. Real. Physical. And constantly going through cycles of life and death.
Death was a part of the cycle of the universe, long before Adam and Eve sinned and fell from grace. The cycle of life in any garden demonstrates the Divine plan of life and death cycle.
There are different levels/kinds of death.
The death of the soul would certainly be the worst, but even that death still doesn’t cause life to cease, because if life ceased, how could there be the torment of the fallen that occurs from being cut off from God? The rich man is in hell and begs for Lazarus to return to earth to tell his family of the truth of suffering. He is in agony–not a ‘ceased living’ state.
If I try to imagine a war between Lucifer and his minions vs Lucifer and other angels, I can’t think it was a small army facing another small army.
War ‘breaks out’ – doesn’t sound like a chess game. A chess game doesn’t break out but is planned. If the war could have been over with the Spirit of God, then why didn’t the Scriptures say that? The Spirit of God spoke. The war is over.
Why is it described in physical terms? I submit that it is more than just making the story adapt to human terms because it also described the dragon (Lucifer) and I don’t know of anyone in history who has actually encountered a dragon. We know dragons because of artists creating a visual of them for us. But they came to us from stories in the Bible. Why is Lucifer falling from heaven as a physical dragon if he was fighting a spirit only battle with Michael? Why add a dragon image, unless there was some physicality about his descent?
I submit that God uses the physical real world to accomplish things. We were selected to be a wonderful part of that creation. Science opens doors to see how God’s spectacular creation unfolds. It has been real. It is cyclical. It has involved life and death and new life repeatedly.
I can’t say any of this for certain since it is not specified. I apply what I have learned from Science and the reading of Scripture and I am sure I am not always in sync with others because it is often a topic that doesn’t arise in my denomination. But I have researched a fair amount about angels and their various shape-shifting roles.
If they were all just spirits and were not physical, then why would the descriptions be so varied? Wheels–eyes? Six-winged angels? These are very physically distinct descriptions. Their roles have been outlined by smarter people than I.
Thank you for raising the questions…and presenting your ideas. I love a good discussion.
[quote=“fmiddel, post:45, topic:38596, full:true”]
I read around a bit on the Hebrew word ish and came to the conclusion that the word means something like “individual.” I’m not sure how relevant that is to Matthew 22:30/Mark 12:25, which is not written in Hebrew.[/quote]
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man [120], made he a woman (Eesh-shaw) [802], and brought her unto the man (A-dam) [120].
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (Ees-shaw) [802], because she was taken out of Man (Eesh) [376].
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man (Eesh) [376] leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (Eesh-shaw) [802]: and they
shall be one flesh.
Gen 4:1 And the man (A-dam)[120] knew Eve his wife (Eesh-shaw) [802];
and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man (Eesh)
[376] from the LORD.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the (Eesh) male and his (Eeshaw) female…"
Exo 15:2 Jehovah is a man (Eesh) of war: Jehovah is his name.
Even Homosexuality is made plain by this terminology
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind (Zaw-kawr) [2145], as with womankind (Eesh-shaw) [802]: it is abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man (Eesh) [376] also lie with mankind (Zaw-kawr) [2145], as he lieth with a woman (Eesh-shaw) [802], both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Some people just assume that the Phoenicians had no real theology of metaphysics. But a close examination of their mythologies (even if you exclude Carthage’s alleged traditions with “moloch” as deity, or “mulch” as sacrifice) tells us they have a most astounding metaphysics:
They believe Melkart, home god of Tyre, was originally a human who threw himself onto a sacred fire, in exchange for the Island(s) of Tyre to become the property of his human offspring.
This was granted to him (by “the Gods”), and in exchange the human Melkart joins the gods as a god. This is “deification”, “apotheosis” or any number of equivalent terms.
Christianity is not silent on this issue of “Angelization” or “divinization”:
.
.
.
Excerpts from the linked article:
Irenaeus, in his “Against Heresies”: writes:
“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.” … For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” [4.38 (4)]
“But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God.” [4.11 (2)]
Clement of Alexandria
At about the same time, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), wrote: “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Clement further stated that “[i]f one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’”
Clement of Alexandria also stated that “he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him … becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh.”[6]
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr c. 100–165) insisted that in the beginning men “were made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are thus “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. … Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.”[8] Athanasius also observed: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) said: “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [referring to John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.”
“To make human beings gods,” Augustine said, “He was made man who was God” (sermon 192.1.1). Augustine goes on to write that "[they] are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him… ".
Eastern Orthodox congregations continue to be fascinated with this more mystical side of Christianity!
Some people just assume that the Phoenicians had no real theology of metaphysics. But a close examination of their mythologies (even if you exclude Carthage’s alleged traditions with “moloch” as deity, or “mulch” as sacrifice) tells us they have a most astounding metaphysics:
They believe Melkart, home god of Tyre, was originally a human who threw himself onto a sacred fire, in exchange for the Island(s) of Tyre to become the property of his human offspring.
This was granted to him (by “the Gods”), and in exchange the human Melkart joins the gods as a god. This is “deification”, “apotheosis” or any number of equivalent terms.
Christianity is not silent on this issue of “Angelization” or “divinization”:
.
.
.
Excerpts from the linked article:
Irenaeus, in his “Against Heresies”: writes:
“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.” … For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” [4.38 (4)]
“But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress towards God.” [4.11 (2)]
Clement of Alexandria
At about the same time, Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), wrote: “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
Clement further stated that “[i]f one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’”
Clement of Alexandria also stated that “he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him … becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh.”[6]
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr c. 100–165) insisted that in the beginning men “were made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are thus “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification: “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. … Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.”[8] Athanasius also observed: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) said: “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [referring to John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.”
“To make human beings gods,” Augustine said, “He was made man who was God” (sermon 192.1.1). Augustine goes on to write that "[they] are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him… ".
Eastern Orthodox congregations continue to be fascinated with this more mystical side of Christianity!
[See the article for supporting footnotes!][/quote]
I am well aware of the scriptures proclaiming “I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”
Those men did not realize they have to die, “putting off mortality and putting on immortality” which is controlled by Jehovah God. He reminded them they have much to learn.
Jesus quoted from that verse and applied it correctly to Himself;
John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.”
What Jesus said:
“I and my Father are one.” [vs 30]
What the Jews heard Jesus say:
“I and my Father are one.”[vs 30]
What the Jews claimed his words meant
“thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” [vs 33]
What Jesus said his words meant
“I said, I am the Son of God”[vs 36]
At the second trial of Jesus, (before the Roman law) the Jews quoted Jesus correctly, where in John 10:33 they falsely accused Him of “making thyself God.” But in John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself “the Son of God”.
So yes, God made us all in the image of Elohiym, and put us in flesh to give us time to learn HOW TO BE GODS.
A GOD MUST be true to who and what He is.
A GOD MUST be able to love unreservedly but fairly, having no prejudices.
A GOD MUST be able to JUDGE RIGHTEOUSLY.
A GOD MUST be able to destroy His work if it does not conform to those things that a GOD MUST BE.
GOD is not afraid to give the creature made in His image FREE WILL And give him time to learn its proper application.
You brought up some good points, and answered most of my questions and/or provided sound logic rebuttals, thanks.
I still don’t see why you are conflating both stories. Rev says Satan and dragon, there is no mention of Lucifer in Rev, just Satan. Rev story has the slain lamb, Jesus incarnate who ‘enables’ Michael to win.
I think Isaiah’s mention of Lucifer being thrown from heaven is a different story. This speaks of God throwing down Lucifer for trying to become higher than Him.
It’s a coalescence of multiple passages that has caused many Christians to see Lucifer=Devil=Satan.
Isaiah 14:12 speaks of Lucifer (meaning angel of the morning or light bringer and the word Lucifer came via the Latin Vulgate) falling from heaven
Luke 10:18 Jesus speaks of Satan falling from heaven
Rev 12:9 and 20:2 the Devil and Satan are interchangeable with the Serpent, too also being cast/hurled down to the ground (i.e. not heaven)
Over time, the mainstream church has generally perceived them as one and the same.
Not every name requires a definition in each verse. In the Gospel of John, John refers to himself as ‘the disciple that Jesus loved’ and yet we know that it is John. It doesn’t have to have a specific ‘1 to 1 exact statement’ for things to be understood as true.
This is a story about Lucifer (morning star). After this point, he is knows as Satan (the accuser)
This is before Adam and Eve.
Yes, interchangeable Serpent and Satan, not Lucifer. Paul is not interchangeable with Saul (even though they are the same person, nor is Jacob and Israel. Once their name changes, the old name is no longer used. Lucifer is not in Rev 12.
Then in Rev 12 Michael defeats Satan (the accuser Rev 12:10) (not Lucifer, he hasn’t been called that for a few thousand years) with the power of the blood of the Lamb, also a few thousand years after Adam and Eve.
These are two separate stories. Other verses clearly indicate that Satan maintained this access even after his fall (Job 1:6-12; Zechariah 3:1,2, Rev 12)
How is this Lucifer account in Isaiah (before Adam) the same account as Rev 12, if the "blood of the Lamb (Rev 12:11) hasn’t been spilt yet?
I am aware of this, I was not referring to the literal name being there, I was referring to the conflicting time stamps/milestones.
If I have the liberty to do so, I would like to address the notion of created beings and their spiritual bodies.
I think it is time we define an angel as a created being without free will who resides around the physical throne of God. If we apply multiple universe to multiple instances of objective reality then perhaps biological life in each iteration gets to change from a biological state to one where they are perhaps now outside of the universe itself? The other choice given is we are still stuck in the universe in a different dimension where there is eternal conflict. Why would we want or even need biological reproductive properties in that scenario? Even in objective reality, war places a damper on the reproduction of species. I would hope that the afterlife is not an eternal conflict devoid of emotions. I think the purpose of angels and the purpose of the sons of God (humankind) should remain separate for all eternity.
I would also think that we need to resolve the issue that angels did not reproduce in Genesis. If all other references in Scripture describe the sons of God as a different state of humankind, then we are still “as the angels” and will never be actual angels. By definition angel is simply messenger. More than likely a form of communication between God and humans. I think that could also describe our spiritual bodies. Just another type of confusion between actual angels and humankind. Adam communicated with God very well and quite freely until sin, and then he wanted to hide from God and was ashamed. After that he was forbidden to communicate and enjoy God’s presence and blessings altogether.
It is taught that sin entered into the world by one man and death. Adam did not die physically (yet) when that happened. He died spiritually. He lost his communication (messenger/angel/diefied/son of God) spiritual image or that part of his body that indicated he was a son of God. On the 6th day God created out of dust, the species called the sons of God. Jesus was the first begotten or naturally born bonified image of God “created” by and in form God on earth. Angels were never considered the image of God nor can they reproduce with humankind ever. It is the definition of messenger that also has been part of the confusion.
Does this confusion translate to the NT uses of Angels appearing amongst the general population of humankind in human form? Probably a good time to state a metaphor? The precedent was set when the inhabitants of Sodom, thought actual angels were humans. Sex was also a factor that was central to the confusion. That angels do not marry, is because that is a human social construct only neccessary in regards to humankind. I do not think that the NT was setting a precedent that the “sons of god” would once more be allowed to “mix it up” with humans. It could be that if God needed to, and all other forms of communication failed to get ones attention, God would have to “get physical” and visit in person via an angel. Reminds me of the story of the man who was promised a personal visit from God. The version I read, was that the man was kind to all the visitors that day, even though he did not realize that God was visiting him each time. A metaphor that we are to treat all people the same way we treat God. Well if we treat God correctly.
So the act of diefication may not be that we are becoming God. It could just be we are trying to return to the state we were actually created as. I do not see any where in Scripture that we are ever going to be God. And we definitely hardly embody the image of God in our current state. It is also why I do not see sin as just a mere moral issue. Sin is the loss of being a full fledged son of God. Nor does it seem like a full fledged son of God is capable of striving with God. Nor can we do anything on our own to regain usage of the Spiritual state we once had. I think all we can do is yield control to the Spirit of God with only a subjective mirror as a son of God.
I do not think all of this is just my own opinion. All the scripture quoted in this thread seem to indicate what I said, if one can see past the traditions that other humans have introduced over the last 2000 years. I also think that those who think Genesis should just be viewed as a metaphor should realize the truth behind the said metaphor is the real issue. One man is one man. It does not say that all humankind sinned. In fact the rest of humanity were still considered in God’s image as the sons of God, even if their offspring married and or had sexual relations with the offspring of Adam. Otherwise you have to find an alternative outside of the Word of God to reconcile the contradiction that a totally different sexless being can pro-create with humankind. I think our spiritual state is still intact even if we do not have complete access to or control over. It is also confused with the term messenger or angel when it comes to direct communication to God. It is possibly a state considered as our guardian, as our subconscious and perhaps where thoughts come from. We can loose it past a certain point of rebellion. A lost soul comes to mind. A lost soul as a demon becomes confused and is rejected by God, and if given the chance can take control over another being, way past the normal ability of what this spiritual part of us should be. The Jewish tradition of death gives the physical body 3 days after death the chance for this “soul” or part of a human to return. Thus Jonah would not be able to come back to life after 3 days. Lazerous was allowed by Jesus to remain past the three day “cut off” to prove to the Jews that he could raise the dead and it was not the return of the soul on the merit of the soul itself. The sign of Jonas is diefication. It is also the ability of reformation outside of the covenant and the advent of a covenant outside of the Law of Moses. These instances in the record, seem to indicate there is a third part of who we are that we lost direct control of when Adam sinned. Salvation is not complete until after physicsl death. We should live as if Salvation is complete at all times. I do not think that God gives us a pass to live as we please apart from God and then be guaranteed to just be saved upon death. There is also the point that we can never be saved if God rejects and can destroy the soul, even before the physical body dies. Calvanist cannot gaurantee eternal life, nor can Armenians take away the joy of eternal life. Catholics can not give it at birth. Baptist cannot give it in baptism. All these are just human interpretations of an attempt at diefication or regaining what was lost in the Garden of Eden.
I see the transfiguration as both a physical teleportation and the access to the third part of who we are, ie the immortal body. This is in part the basis of re-incarnation. The ability of taking who we are, our personality (memories) from one bodily form to another. Can we be transferred into animals and inanimate objects? In theory yes. In practice, I ask for what purpose? Sounds like an early attempt at science fiction mixed with diefication. Teleportation is the technology of deconstruction of one physical body, transmitting, and making a copy at the other end. The 3 day rule still in effect? If you add time travel, the bodies of Moses and Elijah removed from earth at two different points in time and in their immortal form appeared in front of the disciples. However that has to be reconciled that only after the advent of the death and resurrection could humans regain their immortality. The transfiguration allegedly happened before this advent. The physical bodies of Moses and Elijah were still not left for any objective proof. I suppose they could still be the two future witnesses and then their bodies will remain dead for 3 days and raise from the dead one final time in view of all the living at that time. Teleported sans technology from two different points in time to a singular point on the Mount with Jesus and the disciples and then teleported to the Temple mount during the advent of the anti-christ where they will live out their natural mortal lives and finally killed in the flesh. What we have not done with technology, God has already done and will do in reality.
Verse 16: However, if anyone wants to argue about it, the fact remains that we have no such custom, nor do the Messianic communities of God. Complete Jewish Bible
Some traditions die hard. In all fairness, Simon the Sorcerer was alledgedly one of the “sons of god” who came down and left in a flying “ship”. I am not sure how that is a precedent. The NT rebuked his attempt at trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit.