Higher Creatures

[Pagan]

Acts 28:8?

And it happened that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and dysentery. Paul went in to him and prayed, and he laid his hands on him and healed him. (Act 28:8)

That's a typo; a rather obvious one I would have thought. Should have been Acts 23:8, which is the one that was under discussion.

 

[food4thought]

That's a typo; a rather obvious one I would have thought. Should have been Acts 23:8, which is the one that was under discussion.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were still speaking of the reference to the Sadducees beliefs.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Act 23:8)


The reference to angels could be referring to either good or fallen angels. The reference to "nor a spirit" could be referring to the human spirit (furthering their case against the resurrection) or it could mean something more supernatural. Some people believe that the progeny of the fallen angels of Genesis 6, who were destroyed in the flood, did not enter sheol/hades the way human spirits did, but roamed the earth searching for a human to inhabit. This is supposed to be the origin of the "unclean spirits" that the Scriptures speak of.

I am uncertain of the truth of this second view, so I lean towards the first view.

 

[Pagan]

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were still speaking of the reference to the Sadducees beliefs.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Act 23:8)


The reference to angels could be referring to either good or fallen angels. The reference to "nor a spirit" could be referring to the human spirit (furthering their case against the resurrection) or it could mean something more supernatural. Some people believe that the progeny of the fallen angels of Genesis 6, who were destroyed in the flood, did not enter sheol/hades the way human spirits did, but roamed the earth searching for a human to inhabit. This is supposed to be the origin of the "unclean spirits" that the Scriptures speak of.

I am uncertain of the truth of this second view, so I lean towards the first view.

Thanks for the information.

 

[spockrates]

In the Eden Story, are the serpent, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the flaming sword, and the Cherubim called higher creatures?

Love your questions, Pagan.

Did you get the answer you sought to this one?

 

[Pagan]

Love your questions, Pagan.

Did you get the answer you sought to this one?

As near as I can tell, Christians associate the serpent with Satan or some kind of fallen angel because of something mentioned in Revelations. A cherub is another kind of angel. Christians think of angels as something higher than humans.

The trees don't have a rank in the order of beings; I suppose because they are not considered as beings or creatures.

The same goes for the sword, even though like Hogwart's selection hat, it acts independently.

 

[-V-]

The same goes for the sword, even though like Hogwart's selection hat, it acts independently.

It was already pointed out to you that it wasn't just a sword floating there by itself, it was an angel with a sword.

 

[Pagan]

It was already pointed out to you that it wasn't just a sword floating there by itself, it was an angel with a sword.

Yes, you said that before, and I think it is a reasonable interpretation. However, modern people would see it that way because modern people don't believe in animate objects like King Arthur's Excalibur or Hogwart's hat.

People like me who think of everything, even rocks, as having a spirit, soul, or essence might take a different view. And ancient people might have accepted what it says (at least in English), " ... a flaming sword which turned every way ... " in the King James Version or " ... a flaming sword flashing back and forth ..." in the New International Version. The Bible says that the sword moves. It doesn't say that a Cherub moves it.

I suppose it could refer to some kind of ancient device, like maybe a pendulum or water clock rather than an enchanted or animate device.

 

[-V-]

Yes, you said that before, and I think it is a reasonable interpretation. However, modern people would see it that way because modern people don't believe in animate objects like King Arthur's Excalibur or Hogwart's hat.

People like me who think of everything, even rocks, as having a spirit, soul, or essence might take a different view. And ancient people might have accepted what it says (at least in English), " ... a flaming sword which turned every way ... " in the King James Version or " ... a flaming sword flashing back and forth ..." in the New International Version. The Bible says that the sword moves. It doesn't say that a Cherub moves it.

I suppose it could refer to some kind of ancient device, like maybe a pendulum or water clock rather than an enchanted or animate device.

Your view on inanimate objects having souls is irrelevant. The Bible is not a "read whatever meaning you want into it" text. The text should be understood in the manner that the writers wrote it. Inanimate objects having souls and acting on their own accord is NOT a belief of the ancient Hebrews and should, therefore, not be read into the text.

 

[Pagan]

The Bible is not a "read whatever meaning you want into it" text. The text should be understood in the manner that the writers wrote it. Inanimate objects having souls and acting on their own accord is NOT a belief of the ancient Hebrews and should, therefore, not be read into the text.

The Bible does speak of inanimate objects having an animate nature, for example wind. The Bible's translators translate the word breath or wind with the English word spirit. The term Spirit of God in Genesis 1 could translate as Powerful Wind.

Exodus 3 speaks of an angel in a burning bush. If we can believe a plant has an spiritual nature, seems to me we can believe a sword has an spiritual nature.

And the sword's animate ability, which the Bible refers to as movement, has nothing to do with me or what my ancestors believed. The Bible says the sword moved. It doesn't say what moved it.

 

[-V-]

The Bible does speak of inanimate objects having an animate nature, for example wind. The Bible's translators translate the word breath or wind with the English word spirit. The term Spirit of God in Genesis 1 could translate as Powerful Wind.

Even *if* it's talking about wind, all it's doing is moving over the water. There's nothing "living" about air moving over water. Wind blows all over water and land all the time. That doesn't make it alive nor acting of its own accord.

Exodus 3 speaks of an angel in a burning bush. If we can believe a plant has an spiritual nature, seems to me we can believe a sword has an spiritual nature.

God appearing in the form of a bush doesn't make plants suddenly have a "spiritual nature".

And the sword's animate ability, which the Bible refers to as movement, has nothing to do with me or what my ancestors believed. The Bible says the sword moved. It doesn't say what moved it.

Since the Hebrews didn't believe in inanimate objects having life as you do, then obviously they saw it as being wielded by the angels.

 

[Pagan]

Even *if* it's talking about wind, all it's doing is moving over the water. There's nothing "living" about air moving over water. Wind blows all over water and land all the time. That doesn't make it alive nor acting of its own accord.

Well, that's what I think. I wonder how many Christians will agree.