[Hatikva]

A question on your article posted in demonology (thanks for posting that, by the way!).

You mentioned Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in relation to Jude 9, and I see that Matthew mentioned them as well. I can't see how that fits in with what your written in your post. Could you please expand?

Thank-you!

[Fortigurn]

Some people believe that the 'angels which sinned' in Jude are Korah, Dathan and Abiram, since they were swallowed by the earth and await judgment.

But I think the case I made with the passage from Peter is stronger. ^_^

[Hatikva]

Ah, okay. Thank you!

[Fortigurn]

Welcome. ^_^

When are we going to get you an avatar?

[Hatikva]

Quote

When are we going to get you an avatar?

Don't know, but no worries. I like being mysterious!

I’m afraid I’m still having some trouble with the passages in Peter and Jude, in being conclusive that these were not actually angels that sinned. You’ve given this reasoning to prove that the angels must be human:

Quote

The angels in these passage are human, not divine angels.

This is proven by the following:

1) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)

2) If divine angels were sinners, then they would die

3) But Jesus said angels do not die. (Luke 20:36)

4) Therefore, the angels which sinned were human, not divine angels

But I don’t see this as being completely definite, for the reason that these angels “left their own habitation”. This word “habitation” is only used once elsewhere in the New Testament (2 Cor. 5:2) figuratively of the spiritual bodies given to those resurrected. So if the angels chose to give that up, perhaps they would be able to die?

Also, I have to wonder why angelos was used in this text? And what's with the unusual word for 'hell' here?

[Evangelion]

Not to spoil Fort's thunder or anything, but...

Quote

Also, I have to wonder why angelos was used in this text?

Because it means "messenger", which these men certainly were. Messengers of God.

The same word occurs all over the place in the NT, but we don't usually realise it because it's not always translated "angel." It's also translated as "messenger."

Like this:

Matthew 11:10.For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger (aggelos) before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

[Hatikva]

Evangelion, that would be convincing enough if I could understand the reasoning behind using that word along with the other language. From looking up what this word 'tartarus' means in the limited books I have, it does seem like a strange word to use. I don't know if these books reflect the scholars bias to the belief that these are angels, which I've noticed that they often do. But something unusual has to be going on here for the common word for hell not to be used. Why would we assume that tartarus is a grave like any other? If angelos is angels, not human messengers, the text is relatively easy to understand.

[Fortigurn]

Hatikva, on Jun 24 2003, 12:35 PM, said:

From looking up what this word 'tartarus' means in the limited books I have, it does seem like a strange word to use.  I don't know if these books reflect the scholars bias to the belief that these are angels, which I've noticed that they often do. 

But something unusual has to be going on here for the common word for hell not to be used.  Why would we assume that tartarus is a grave like any other?  If angelos is angels, not human messengers, the text is relatively easy to understand.

The word 'tartarus' was an excellent word to use. It simply meant 'the lowest depths', and was used in precisely this way in the LXX.

Speak of Leviathan, we read in the LXX:

Quote

Job 41:
31  He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; and he regards the sea as a pot of ointment,

32  and the lowest part of the deep {tartarus} as a captive:

he reckons the deep as his range.

Note the parallelism - a classic Hebrew structure.

Thus Peter reads:

Quote

2 Peter 2:
4  For if God spared not the angels that sinned,

but cast them down to the lowest depths {tartarus},

and delivered them into chains of darkness,

to be reserved unto judgment;

Note the parallelism used by Peter?

This isn't unusual, it's just Peter using a word which had already been used by the Jews to describe 'the depths'. And you will note that those depths are distinctly earthly, not some supernatural realm of spirits.

Remember, the LXX is the Bible which Peter would have used, and his use of language would have been very much determined by this. ^_^

This post has been edited by Fortigurn: 24 June 2003 - 09:24 AM

[Fortigurn]

I'll be back later to cover the 'habitation' Hatikva. ^_^

[Fortigurn]

Interesting quote I found:

Quote

There are in fact so many strong biblical, doctrinal, and logical arguments against the existence of a literal hell that this question naturally arises: Why do the churches teach it and why do people often believe it?"

The minister, Robert Short, suggests that the answer lies in the churches' "faithless fear of giving up 'the gospel at gunpoint.'" He said: "The churches tend to believe, consciously or unconsciously, that fear-rather than love-conquers all."

...

In conclusion, Short declared: "Only if the teaching of hell were true would the churches be justified in retaining it. And a growing number of theologians-both Catholic and Protestant-are now saying it is not true. If it is not true, then the churches have no time to lose in loudly and clearly saying this to the world.

U.S. Catholic, April 1980, pages 37-40

[Fortigurn]

Couple of questions Hatikva:

1) Angels are sometimes referred to as 'spirits'. But are souls ever referred to as 'angels'?

2) What exactly is leaving its oiketerion?

3) What is the 'first estate'?

Thanks. ^_^

[itinerant]

A quick subsiduary question.

Fortigurn, on Jun 24 2003, 10:24 AM, said:

Remember, the LXX is the Bible which Peter would have used, and his use of language would have been very much determined by this.  ^_^

I don't understand why Peter wouldn't have rather used Hebrew? It's not as if they had handy sized pocket bibles to carry around and surely he must have learnt Hebrew as a child.

[Evangelion]

The LXX was in pretty wide circulation by that time, and it seems to be the default translation for the NT authors.

Hebrew just wasn't as common as you'd expect, itinerant. Aramaic was the language of choice among the Jews of Peter's day.

[Fortigurn]

itinerant, on Jun 25 2003, 01:16 AM, said:

I don't understand why Peter wouldn't have rather used Hebrew? It's not as if they had handy sized pocket bibles to carry around and surely he must have learnt Hebrew as a child.

He was writing to the Hellenised Jews outside Jerusalem. They used the LXX.

Actually, practically all Jews used the LXX during the first century, and as Evangelion says, it was the default Bible for the first century Christians. ^_^

[Hatikva]

Sorry I've been so slow to reply. I've been out in the garden far too much lately!

Quote

Couple of questions Hatikva:

Okay

Quote

1) Angels are sometimes referred to as 'spirits'. But are souls ever referred to as 'angels'?

Yes, people are referred to as angels.

Quote

2) What exactly is leaving its oiketerion?

Leaving their spiritual bodies. Going the opposite way of 1 Cor. 5

3) What is the 'first estate'?

The dominion that was given to them. (the NEB translates it this way. Is that a decent translation?)

Quote

Thanks.

Welcome.

[Fortigurn]

Hatikva, on Jun 30 2003, 06:06 PM, said:

Sorry I've been so slow to reply. I've been out in the garden far too much lately!

Hey, how's the garden going anyway?

Quote

Quote

1) Angels are sometimes referred to as 'spirits'. But are souls ever referred to as 'angels'?

Yes, people are referred to as angels.

Great! So people are sometimes referred to as 'angels' but 'souls' are never referred to as 'angels'. It's at this point that the usual Christian description of this passage falls down completely.

You see, what we have to ask is what is being cast down here? The answer to that is 'angels'. Now whether they're immortal or mortal, we can leave for the moment. The key is that it's the angels which are leaving their first estate, not the souls of the angels.

Quote

Quote

2) What exactly is leaving its oiketerion?

Leaving their spiritual bodies. Going the opposite way of 1 Cor. 5

The word oiketerion simply means 'dwelling place'. It is used of the body housing the spirit in Corinthians, true, but this application is incompatible with the passage now under discussion.

What my question really asked was 'What is doing the leaving here?' - I wanted to know what it was that was leaving its oiketerion.

And what is leaving? The angels. Not the souls of the angels. This militates directly against the interpretation that immortal souls are leaving bodies.

Quote

3) What is the 'first estate'?

The dominion that was given to them.  (the NEB translates it this way.  Is that a decent translation?)

Yep, that's fine. Now we have to determine whether or not this is compatible with the usual Christian explanation of this passage.

So far we have angels who did not keep, their 'first estate', and who left their dwelling place. This is described as a voluntary departure, not a judgment placed upon them for disobedience. The result of this departure was the punishment Jude goes on to describe.

But the real key here is that it is the angels which leave their oikterion, not the souls of the angels. The oiketerion, therefore, cannot be the body as the dwellingplace of the spirit.

And when we note the parallelism between the 'first estate' and the 'oiketerion', it becomes even more clear... ^_^

[Grace]

Why does the Jude passage say "everlasting chains"? Why is the passage phrased as if some kind of 'restraining' is required? The wording of the passage seems so highly coloured and dramatic for simply reserving some errant men in the grave until the day of judgement. And if these men were "Messengers from God" who were around the time of Noah, who were they? If they are of enough significance to warrant a mention by both Peter and Jude, why are we not told about them? We are told extensively about Sodom and Gomorroh in Genesis. Why not these dudes?

And I'm sure the Jews of the day would have recognised both stories - the old angels that sinned and were cast out of heaven eh?! In fact, if the readers of these books may have had a problem with beliefs about angels being cast out of heaven at around the time of the flood, why does the language of the books seem to propound the beliefs?

[Kesaph]

[itinerant]

Fortigurn, on Jun 24 2003, 09:56 PM, said:

Actually, practically all Jews used the LXX during the first century, and as Evangelion says, it was the default Bible for the first century Christians. ^_^

I know it was the bible for Christians generally and (as Evangelion also pointed out) that Aramaic was the spoken language in Palestine at the time; but I was wondering what Peter would have been used to as a child in the synagogue. I don't know - I presumed Hebrew and then wondered why when he quoted from memory it wasn't from the Hebrew (at least as preserved in todays Masoretic), as what's memorised at a young age seems to stick better than later.

Quote

He was writing to the Hellenised Jews outside Jerusalem.  They used the LXX.

Fair enough.

Leaves open the more general question though. What's the distribution of match MT vs LXX amongst the NT quotes of OT? (i.e. do gospels use MT more than Pauls letters do, or is it uniform).

[Hatikva]

Quote

Hey, how's the garden going anyway?

If only weeds were edible! I have heard salt can fix about anything though... er, want to come over for a cup of soup?

Quote

Great! So people are sometimes referred to as 'angels' but 'souls' are never referred to as 'angels'. It's at this point that the usual Christian description of this passage falls down completely.

You see, what we have to ask is what is being cast down here? The answer to that is 'angels'. Now whether they're immortal or mortal, we can leave for the moment. The key is that it's the angels which are leaving their first estate, not the souls of the angels.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your train of thought here, possibly because I'm not entirely aware of what the usual Christian understanding of this passage is. Do they somehow believe that the soul of the angel left, while some other part of the angel stays? That's not what I would get at all from this passage, and I don't think it's necessary to do so in order to maintain that these angels were heavenly ones.

I do suppose though, that we could refer to souls as angels. If we are to be made like the angels by our souls being saved from death, than would not angels be souls?

Quote

Quote

Quote

2) What exactly is leaving its oiketerion?

Leaving their spiritual bodies. Going the opposite way of 1 Cor. 5

The word oiketerion simply means 'dwelling place'. It is used of the body housing the spirit in Corinthians, true, but this application is incompatible with the passage now under discussion.

It is incompatible if your understanding is correct. It might not be if you're incorrect.

Quote

What my question really asked was 'What is doing the leaving here?' - I wanted to know what it was that was leaving its oiketerion.

And what is leaving? The angels. Not the souls of the angels. This militates directly against the interpretation that immortal souls are leaving bodies.

When oiketerion is used to speak of the immortal body, the previous body is no longer. I didn't mean that the angels' souls in Jude were leaving their bodies behind to continue to exist somehow, but that they were changed after choosing to leave their first estate (spiritual bodies)

Quote

So far we have angels who did not keep, their 'first estate', and who left their dwelling place. This is described as a voluntary departure, not a judgment placed upon them for disobedience. The result of this departure was the punishment Jude goes on to describe.

Sure, it was a voluntary departure, and for punishment they were reserved for the judgment.

Quote

But the real key here is that it is the angels which leave their oikterion, not the souls of the angels. The oiketerion, therefore, cannot be the body as the dwellingplace of the spirit.

And when we note the parallelism between the 'first estate' and the 'oiketerion', it becomes even more clear...

I don't think that souls ever leave their bodies. Bodies can change though.

If we look back to the account in Genesis 6 presuming the sons of God to be men, what dwelling place do we suppose that they left? Why would we call this their 'first estate'?

[Hatikva]

Quote

And I'm sure the Jews of the day would have recognised both stories - the old angels that sinned and were cast out of heaven eh?! In fact, if the readers of these books may have had a problem with beliefs about angels being cast out of heaven at around the time of the flood, why does the language of the books seem to propound the beliefs?

I went on a hunt to try and find what the traditional beliefs were about Genesis 6, and it seems that the prevailing (perhaps only, as some claim) one before the 5th Century C.E. was that the sons of God were not human. This includes a reference in the Qumran Texts (Genesis Apocryphon), Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Eusebius.

[Mercia]

Hatikva, on Jul 3 2003, 08:02 AM, said:

Quote

And I'm sure the Jews of the day would have recognised both stories - the old angels that sinned and were cast out of heaven eh?! In fact, if the readers of these books may have had a problem with beliefs about angels being cast out of heaven at around the time of the flood, why does the language of the books seem to propound the beliefs?

I went on a hunt to try and find what the traditional beliefs were about Genesis 6, and it seems that the prevailing (perhaps only, as some claim) one before the 5th Century C.E. was that the sons of God were not human. This includes a reference in the Qumran Texts (Genesis Apocryphon), Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Eusebius.

I dont believe they were human either. It was the Catholic church that started that - idea.

[Evangelion]

Quote

I dont believe they were human either. It was the Catholic church that started that - idea.

Um... not to put a damper on your enthusiasm or anything, but... do you have any proof that the RCC started that idea?

[Evangelion]

James Burton Coffman (a pastor from the Church of Christ) writes:

THE "SONS OF GOD" WERE NOT ANGELSThe reasons why this passage cannot be applied either to angels or to other supernatural creatures are as follows:
• No angels have been mentioned in the Bible up to this point, and the supposition that they make their first appearance in Scripture under the title "sons of God" is untenable.
• The term "sons of God" is nowhere in the Bible, either in the O.T. or in the N.T., applied to angels. The passages usually cited where this expression is allegedly a reference to angels have no reference at all to angels, the word angels not even appearing in such references as Job 1:6; Daniel 3:25; and Psalms 89:6, the passages cited by Elliott.[Evangelion's note: Coffman qualifies this elsewhere by accepting that Job 38:7 refers to the angels. On this he writes "The sons of God are here the angels, because man was last in the Creation."]
• In the N.T., particularly, it is human beings who are led by God's Spirit who are called "sons of God" (1 John 3:1; Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:6, etc.).
• There are only two classes of angels, the holy angels, and the angels of Satan (fallen angels); and neither class could be viewed here. Holy angels would not have induced men to sin; and the fallen angels, in a million years, would never have been designated by the Holy Spirit as "the sons of God!"
• Note too that these "sons of God" "took them wives of all that they chose," an unmistakable reference to marriage; and Jesus our Lord flatly declared that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30). The myth-hunters who attempt to drag mythology into this passage are contradicted by this, and we may only smile at some of the tactics of avoidance employed. Skinner, for example, after mentioning this, wrote, "But this must not be pressed." Indeed, why not? We are delighted to "press it" as a complete refutation of the error of finding "angels" in this passage.
• If angels, or other supernatural creatures, had been to blame for the gross wickedness about to envelop mankind, then God would have announced their punishment and destruction, instead of the punishment and destruction of men. Those who would like to place the blame for human debauchery upon the supernatural creatures are frustrated by the fact that God's punishment always falls upon the guilty, and that it was men, not angels, who received the punishment here.
• The two classes of men visible in these verses had already been carefully introduced in Gen. 4 and Gen. 5, the sons of men (in their hardened state) being the line of the Cainites, and the "sons of God" being the people in the line of Seth. Scholars who deny the obvious unity and logical sequence of this narrative are, of course, totally unaware of this.

The significance of this analysis is that although Coffman believes in "evil angels" and "the devil", he still insists that there is no Biblical support for the belief that the "sons of men" in Genesis 6 were angels or spiritual beings of any kind.

[Evangelion]

Coffman also examines the "sons of God" (ben elohim) of Job 1. The results of his analysis may be found here.

[Mercia]

Evangelion, on Jul 3 2003, 03:27 PM, said:

Quote

I dont believe they were human either. It was the Catholic church that started that - idea.

Um... not to put a damper on your enthusiasm or anything, but... do you have any proof that the RCC started that idea?

He Env, I will try and dig it out and post it.
The early Church and Jews believed these were angels.
I believe Gen 3 is just a microcosm personified allegory of Gen 6 after reading Enoch that Jude quoted from. The "serpents" of Enoch, are the "serpent" of Gen 3.
So Gen 3 represents the fall of man in the previous golden age.
Just about every ancient culture, not just Israelite has ancient beliefs of when "the gods walked the earth with man" is some previous golden age before the Flood.
Osiris was said to be one of them.

I dont go for the later theories at all.

[Mercia]

Mercia, on Jul 3 2003, 03:59 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Jul 3 2003, 03:27 PM, said:

Quote

I dont believe they were human either. It was the Catholic church that started that - idea.

Um... not to put a damper on your enthusiasm or anything, but... do you have any proof that the RCC started that idea?

He Env, I will try and dig it out and post it.
The early Church and Jews believed these were angels.
I believe Gen 3 is just a microcosm personified allegory of Gen 6 after reading Enoch that Jude quoted from. The "serpents" of Enoch, are the "serpent" of Gen 3.
So Gen 3 represents the fall of man in the previous golden age.
Just about every ancient culture, not just Israelite has ancient beliefs of when "the gods walked the earth with man" is some previous golden age before the Flood.
Osiris was said to be one of them.

I dont go for the later theories at all.

Jude quotes from Enoch, so ifs its good enough for the apostles its got to be good enough for us.

Wasn't rediscovered until Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 48 (the day Israel was re-born interstingly).

[Evangelion]

Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible:

Gen_6:1-4There are two stages of evil set forth in Gen_6:1-4 - the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it.When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase "sons of God," means an order of intelligent beings who "retain the purity of moral character" originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job_38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they "neither marry nor are given in marriage" Mat_22:30.It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lord’s side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation.The figurative use of the word "son" to denote a variety of relations incidental, and moral as well as natural, was not unfamiliar to the early speaker. Thus, Noah is called "the son of five hundred years" Gen_5:32. Abraham calls Eliezer ben beytiyben (ben-bēytîy), "son of my house" Gen_15:3.The dying Rachel names her son Ben-oni, "son of my sorrow," while his father called him Benjamin, "son of thy right hand" Gen_35:18. An obvious parallel to the moral application is presented in the phrases "the seed of the woman" and "the seed of the serpent." The word "generations" toledot (tôledot, Gen_5:1) exhibits a similar freedom and elasticity of meaning, being applied to the whole doings of a rational being, and even to the physical changes of the material world Gen_2:4.The occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Sheth. "God hath given me another seed instead of Habel."Her son Sheth she therefore regarded as the son of God. Accordingly, about the birth of his son Enosh, was begun the custom calling upon the name of the Lord, no doubt in the family circle of Adam, with whom Sheth continued to dwell. And Enok, the seventh from Adam in the same line, exhibited the first striking example of a true believer walking with God in all the intercourse of life. These descendants of Sheth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit Psa_82:6; Hos_2:1.Some take "the daughters of man" to be the daughters of the Cainites only. But it is sufficient to understand by this phrase, the daughters of man in general, without any distinction of a moral or spiritual kind, and therefore including both Cainite and Shethite females.

[Evangelion]

Quote

The early Church and Jews believed these were angels.

Actually, some members of the early church and some Jews believed these were angels. But there is too much evidence (both Biblical and logical) against that conclusion.

Quote

I believe Gen 3 is just a microcosm personified allegory of Gen 6 after reading Enoch that Jude quoted from. The "serpents" of Enoch, are the "serpent" of Gen 3.

Quote

So Gen 3 represents the fall of man in the previous golden age.
Just about every ancient culture, not just Israelite has ancient beliefs of when "the gods walked the earth with man" is some previous golden age before the Flood.

Quote

Osiris was said to be one of them.

[Evangelion]

Quote

Jude quotes from Enoch

Oooh, he may have done elsewhere. But he's not necessarily doing it here.