no, I understand that and I agree with you here. God is spirit but we do know that Jesus came in the form of human flesh, taking on flesh and bone.

We do know that angels can take on human bodily form on occasion. I'm going on that. So when they took on human form they were able to partake of the food presented to them as it says in scripture they did. It says plainly they ate.



I believe it is hard to translate from Hebrew to Greek and then to English and be able to keep it so it makes sense to us. But I do believe they were able to do this (not perfectly) without losing the main meaning of the original text.

Exactly, this is the bottom line...Scripture says plainly angels ate. I don't know about Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, but in English it's plain.

We do not know that at all. Some of us believe it. I don't. In fact many Christians believe that Jesus's being the son of G-d was also a metaphor and that the resurrection symbolised a time when people started talking about him again.

But you are now following the exact path that Muslim and Jewish scholars have predicted is the problem with Christianity.

You are reading, in your holy scripture, that Jesus is flesh and have factual evidence that he was (he did exist as a person). Since you believe that he is also G-d's son (or G-d himself, it doesn't matter in this context) you now have an example of something spiritual that is also flesh.

Next step is assuming that beings we haven't seen walking the earth can also be flesh, because scripture uses those terms to describe them.

From there is a mere logical deduction that G-d is also flesh and blood.

It's too dangerous.



And it says plainly "G-d's hand" and "G-d's image". He has neither. And they didn't.




Well, it doesn't really matter how plain it is in English, does it? It's the original text that we have to worry about. And in the original text there are fewer references to demons and a lot of poetic references to G-d's and angels' corporeal forms.

We know, I assume it is safe to say, that G-d doesn't have a corporeal form (and neither a hand nor an image exist). So how can we claim that angels do just because they are also described in those terms?

If you just assume that those descriptions are poetic when it comes to G-d but literal when it comes to angels and demons, you are applying information that is not in the Bible, namely the supposed "fact" that G-d is incorporeal and angels can be corporeal. We can ONLY deduce those things from the text, and the text uses the same method to describe both.

Hence, without outside information, and there is none outside the Bible because neither of us have seen G-d or angels or demons (and if we have we cannot prove it), both (types of) entities are either corporeal or incorporeal because we do not have the information that would allow us to say that the descriptions are poetic for the one and literal for the other.

(Yes, G-d can appear as an old man with a beard, or as a father; but that is all within the imagination of an individual. Angels and demons can presumably appear in the same way.)



How can G-d have a hand or an image?

LW,

"Transliteration" is writing text in another alphabet. The second big paragraph is a translation.

Looking at the transliterated (phonetic) text, I notice the following:

"Ol sonf vorsg", apparently meaning "I reign over you", is not Semitic or proto-Semitic.

1. Semitic word order is Verb-Subject-Object. Subject-Verb-Object is a European influence and found in Maltese, modern Hebrew, and modern dialects of Arabic. I don't think there is a verb as short as "ol" that means reign.

2. Neither "sonf" nor "ol" show any resemblance to any Semitic word for "I" that I know of (ani (Aramaic/Hebrew), anoki (early Hebrew), ana (Arabic)).

3. Semitic languages, as well as Egyptian and Hamitic languages use three- sometimes four-consonant roots. Very few words have only two consonants and only few of those are verbs and none of them are words that are very specific. "Reign" is "lishelot" in Hebrew (hope the vowels are a right). It is related to "sultan" (same root SLT). "Ol" has only two consonants 'L. To make matters worse, the root 'L is the old Semitic word for G-d, "El", also contained in "Elohim" and "Allah".

4. Semitic words follow the pattern CvCvCv or CvCvCvCv (I.e. three or four consonants followed by one vowel each). Any of the consonants can be silent or a glottal stop, except the first one which cannot be silent. The last vowel can be zero, the other vowels can be zero, but never so that two zero vowels surround one consonant (barring silent consonants). "Vorsg" is not pronouncable in Hebrew, it should be "vorseg" or "voresg"; but neither look very Semitic to me. And there are lots of consonant-only words like that in the text!

5. I cannot see even a single root known to me in the transliteration.

6. The word for "I" doesn't repeat when the translation claims "I".

7. Possessives are indicated as a noun case in Semitic languages. I cannot see the appropriate endings (or any specific endings). While modern Hebrew uses conjugated prepositions for possessives (as did ancient Hebrew, but less often), I cannot find instances of those in the text either.

8. The handling of prepositions in relation to their nouns is very distinctive in Semitic languages. I don't see that in the text.

That doesn't look like a pre-Babylon language to me, certainly not one related to Hebrew.

In short, who made up that text???

I do find it interesting.

Well we know this if we read his own words. He said himself:

"Behold my hands and my feet, that is is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have."

The evidences that Jesus' appearance was not as a spirit's is:

1. The scars in his hands and feet
2. His tangibleness in being handled
3. His ability to eat

so we can know it if we believe the gospel accounts are correct.



So you're saying there are Christians out there that believe Jesus is just a figmant of other's imaginations? The resurrection is just symbolism?

How can that be if a Christian is a follower of Christ? They follow his actions and his words to the best of their ability. A Christian is not going to believe Jesus is a metaphor. In fact I've NEVER heard Jesus described this way in all my years as a Christian. So are you sure these people who believe such things call themselves Christians? I've never heard such a thing.



Yes I believe in the historical Jesus. Let's go back in history and check out an ancient secular writer. Cornelius Tacitus was born about 20 years after the death of Christ. He was a Roman historian in 112 AD and wrote this:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius; but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea where the mischief originated but through the city of Rome also.

Tacitus has a further reference to Christianity in a fragment of his Histories, dealing with the burning of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.

So here we have an outside source to the bible backing up everything the gospel recorded some 50-60 years earlier. If you say Jesus was a metaphor, then you will have to also add, the burning of Rome, the burning of the Jewish Temple, Pontius Pilate, etc. His disciples who walked with him for 3 years all died for him. One is not going to die for a metaphor.

No Jesus is not a metaphor. He's the real deal.

because the same scriptures say that we can entertain angels unawares. How can we do this if not for them taking on human form? Haven't you heard of reports thru the years of Angels among us type of thing.

I believe I had an angel in the flesh help me one time in a dangerous situation. In reality how do we know how many times this really happens? I do have one instance that sticks out in my mind and another instance when I felt the presence of something coming to my aid when I was attacked in 97. I suppose I could say I just imagined all this. But when I read the words of Jesus when he spoke of angels and how they protect us I am naturally inclined to believe these instances were angel aided.

The first incident "this angel" actually materialized before me when I was in a complete panic. To this day, I believe this man was an angel....literally.

Yes.

And they are followers of Christ.

But the main part is that if you take these phrases literally, you are opening the door to taking all phrases literally. And if you do, you will practice a form of idolatry, the belief in a corporeal G-d.

When I read Maimonides and about the folly of believing in physical forms of angels I agreed with him but didn't realise why he was so harsh about it. Now I can see that the danger is real.

I can see that you are insecure in your beliefs. But you are not helping anybody by trying to extend them and make the realm you believe in larger.

I think you should focus on the Creator and continue from there. Don't try the limits of sane religion, do not walk on the border between Christianity and idolatry.

You have written _two_ articles about angels. What about G-d? What about Jesus? You are focusing on unimportant side effects, on elements of Christianity that are mixtures between biblical mythology and pagan myths. That's not what Christianity is about.

Angels and demons as you understand them were introduced, not by the Bible but later, as a means to sell Christianity to pagans who actually believed in and prayed to "gods" that don't exist. They are a border that you are meant to cross from the outside towards the inside, towards Christianity. They are not for you to try to break from the inside.

Sorry for being so direct, but I think you are drifting.

Have I done that? The bible is full of literal and symbolic language. If it makes sense to take literally then why not? That's the general expositional way to interpret scripture. The basic thought is if it makes sense..seek no other sense. Where do you draw the line? Is Pilate a metaphor? The Jerusalem Temple being destroyed in 70 AD also a metaphor? How about the Apostles who went on to teach the first century Christians? Were they all figments of thousands of imaginations even though they ate, drank and fellowshipped with them?



So you'd rather read some "outside" book rather than go look at the Holy Scriptures which were here long before Maimonides was even a twinkle in his great grandparent's eyes and will still be standing long after he's dead (if not already)? Besides you go out on the street and ask anyone (I dare ya) to describe what the bible is and who Maimonides is and dollars to donuts nobody is going to have a clue who this guy is, including me but will at least have a street knowledge on the Basic Book of All The Ages.

I can give you some other reading material that would have an issue with Maimonides. Who would be right?



Why do you say that? What leads you to this conclusion?



Of course and I do. What makes you think I don't? Because I wrote two blogs on angels? If you notice I gave the creator credit for creating angels and besides I also discouraged the worship of angels. So not getting your point here.



How many of my articles have you read? I've written alot more than just these two articles not to mention what my name KFC stands for. Go back and read the archives of the Religion Section. I'm sure you'll see me kicking around a bit.



I'm not focusing on anything. I wrote a blog on angels. That's it. You know why I did? Because I just finished studying them having taken a mid-term and final on this very subject. In all my 35 years of being a Christian this is actually the FIRST time I've ever studied the Doctrine of Angels. Right now I'm studying the Doctrine of Salvation. Would you like me to blog on that as well?

Actually Leauki I'm going to be studying the Doctrine of the Father and the Doctrine of the Son and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in depth for all three soon. Would you like me to blog on them as well?



Do you have documentation on this? When abouts was this exactly written?



I'm drifing? You just told me there are so called "Christians" not believing Jesus Christ was a real person but are worshipping his metaphor and I'm the one drifitng?

Yikes! I need some asprin.

That's not what you are doing. You have precisely the problem that Maimonides was talking about, you cannot differentiate.

It doesn't make sense to believe that angels eat. You have never seen one eat. I have never seen one eat. You are reading something about an entity you have never seen and conclude that "it makes sense".

That is not reasonable.

The Bible is indeed full of literal and symbolic language.

And as you say, some of it can be confirmed. But that which cannot be confirmed you cannot just take and claim that it is one of the instances you must take literal. If you do that, there is nothing to stop you from concluding from "G-d's hand" that G-d is corporeal.

And, as Maimonides said, folly would become heresy.



Common sense.




He was, apparently, a real Roman representative. He is also a metapher. I don't know if he was as involved as the Bible claims.



I have seen the remaining wall. I have touched it. Have you touched an angel? Can you tell me where that angel is? Can you repeat the experiment?

If the Bible says that a temple existed and we can see and touch a remaining wall, there is no reason to assume that the Bible descripion was symbolic.

But if the Bible speaks of beings we cannot see, like G-d or angels, the matter is quite different.



I believe they walked around and told stories. But I also believe that people did see them and that they were flesh and blood.

Common sense tells me that a story of _people_ eating is likely true (or can be).

Common sense also tells me that a story of _angels_ eating or G-d having a hand is likely a poetic description.

If you cannot see why one would draw the line there, then perhaps this is too late.



Did you even read the Guide to the Perplexed? In contrast to you "studying" scripture, Maimonides could at least _understand_ Hebrew and he knew about the linguistic context. He didn't have to worry about goats that became pagan mythological creatures because of an odd choice of words.

I did go look at the Holy Scripture. But I was equipped with a Hebrew dictionary, 501 Hebrew Words (a grammar), and besides a copy of the original text I also had a copy of Martin Luther's original German translation from Hebrew from 500 years ago.

Every sentence you spoke about, I translated for myself and compared with an English translation and Luther's translation. I didn't draw conclusions from specific English words before I knew what the Hebrew text said.

Plus I have books written by scholars to help me analyse the text.

So please don't tell me that I should look at scripture rather than "outside" books just because I invest more into really looking at scripture than you.



Maimonides lived 800 years ago. And if you didn't know that, you might want to consider learning a bit more about the subject you are reading. Studying angels without knowing of the man who first wrote lengthy essays about them is an interesting enterprise.

What exactly are you studying? Is it not a translation of a translation of a 3000 year old text without regard to how it was understood 800 years ago by those who could actually read the original?



Yes, I am well aware of the ignorance of many. But most people on the street would not claim expertise in the subject either. You are "Kicking for Christ". You SHOULD know these things or be eager to learn.



Depends on who makes the better point, really. I guess you assume it would be your material automatic?

It's interesting how quickly you get angry...

It's not my fault that the half-man half-goat devil turned out be a simple goat.

Leauki posts:

I'm wondering what IS Christianity about to you?

Would you agree that Christianity is the only religion which claims not only that God revealed something of Himself to mankind, including a partial account of Creation, but that He also entered the world as a human being (in the Person of Jesus Christ), and then allowed Himself to be humiliated, to suffer torment and be put to death, all out of love for mankind, and to satisfy the infinite justice of ALmighty God Who was offended by Original Sin. Only God could have made reparation that has an infinite value, but only as Man could He have suffered, since in His divine nature he is incapable of undergoing change as in suffering. The need for God the Son to become man to make the needed reparation to God the Father and thus heal the rift between God and man caused by Original Sin.



My goodness, Leauki, it seems you have completely missed the point that Sacred Scripture is God's Revelation. If after reading the entire passage and taking the passage in its proper context, and that particular passage says that the angels ate, or eat, then by golly, it's reasonable to believe that's what God wants us to know.

Where is the rule that we must see angels to believe they exist?

ANgels are purely spiritual beings created by God for His honor and glory. They obey His will. We cannot speak of form or shape of purely spiritual beings. According to Scripture, angels have appeared in bodily forms to men as well as to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I think we're all missing the point here. Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it? I think that's the real fundamental question of Christianity.

~Zoo

That depends - Jesus on earth, or Jesus in heaven?

Just because I disagree with your interpretation and agree with historic interpretation it doesn't mean that I have "completely missed the point".




Indeed. And He also wanted us to know that He has a hand. But nevertheless, I think He was speaking poetically and doesn't really want us to believe in a physical hand.




I am not talking about them not existing. I am saying they do not exist in physical form.

And that is common sense.

It's also, as explained by Maimonides, dictated by scripture. I am not a scholar and hence cannot explain it as well as he did and do not feel like quoting his entire book, so feel free to read it.




My poiny exactly.

Did you even follow the discussion? I quoted a famous scholar saying exactly that. I have said exactly that. I don't believe in angels in a specific shape or form. I do not believe that they eat.

I do not believe that when the Bible says they "eat" it actually means that they have a physical shape or form and physically eat, just like "G-d's hand" does not imply that G-d is corporeal.

Like you I argue that angels are purely spiritual beings created by G-d for His honour and glory (I use British spelling). They obey His will (and do not have their own). We cannot speak of form and shape of purely spiritual beings (and hence cannot take references to such a form or shape as fact).

What exactly is your problem here? You seem to agree with me and Maimonides?

Do you also agree that it is folly to speak of angels in the terms of form and shape? If you do, you have just come to the same conclusion as Maimonides, except with considerably less original research.

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

OK, good, we're getting somewhere. It's not surprising that it comes down to private interpretation.

And I will give you that understanding and grasping the real meaning of Sacred Scripture (which is God's Revelation of salvation history) is no easy task for there are many elements involved...but we love to try.   

For interpretation, you seem to be relying upon Maimonide, while I am relying upon the Catholic Church. Regarding historic interpretation, and not meaning to get into oneupmanship, first, the CC, a historic and visible entity dating back to Saint Peter and the Apostles, in an uninterrupted succession is the infallible teacher and interpreter of Christian doctrine. The CC produced the Holy BIble. Second, the Bible itself states it need an interpreter. St.Paul, says, "there are certain things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort) as they do also the other scriptures to their own destruction."

The method of interpretating the HOly Bible, which attempts to go back to the original intent of its authors by analyzing their times, culture, language (which you do very nicely), and other circumstances is called contextual approach.









So, you haven't completly missed the point!