Range of beliefs on Satan within Christianity

[Dansiph]

Probably not. But I doubt that the authors and ancient interpreters would have had this question. One of the problems with a lot of exegesis is that it demands that we understand ancient texts using our own views rather than those of the authors.

One of the most sobering books I've read is an old one, "The Peril of Modernizing Jesus." It points out the very great differences between the 1st Cent world view and our own, and just how much the ancient one is shown in the NT. (In Amazon it appears to have been written in 2007, but that's a reprint. It was actually written in 1937.)

I think ancient people knew the male requirement for reproduction? Society has always been very similar... if you look for it. The Bible even mentions a cleaning requirement if a man's sperm leaves the body over night.

On a side note, I actually think ancient people were extremely intelligent and knowledeable in a much broader way than modern people. People now can be very specialised but compared to what we have available to us today people are more stupid. Me included.

Men of King David's time would have known multiple languages, how to fight with hand or a sword, archery, farming, navigation, clothes making and so many other things (I'm too stupid to think of). They didn't have google to check a particular bird species.

Even the ships used by Peter and Andrew require a lot of knowledge to operate let alone build. Building a wooden ship is complicated. Even though medeival times were known for some stupid ideas, my view is that these things rise and fall. It doesn't mean the further back you go the less intelligent people become.

 

[Dansiph]

I think ancient people knew the male requirement for reproduction? Society has always been very similar... if you look for it. The Bible even mentions a cleaning requirement if a man's sperm leaves the body over night.

On a side note, I actually think ancient people were extremely intelligent and knowledeable in a much broader way than modern people. People now can be very specialised but compared to what we have available to us today people are more stupid. Me included.

Men of King David's time would have known multiple languages, how to fight with hand or a sword, archery, farming, navigation, clothes making and so many other things (I'm too stupid to think of). They didn't have google to check a particular bird species.

Even the ships used by Peter and Andrew require a lot of knowledge to operate let alone build. Building a wooden ship is complicated. Even though medeival times were known for some stupid ideas, my view is that these things rise and fall. It doesn't mean the further back you go the less intelligent people become.

I also forgot to mention, which is weird as it's an interest for me, the construction of great buildings without power tools or heavy machines. Although people would still specialise I think most men would have had a grasp on a large variety of subjects.

 

[hedrick]

I think ancient people knew the male requirement for reproduction? Society has always been very similar... if you look for it. The Bible even mentions a cleaning requirement if a man's sperm leaves the body over night.

On a side note, I actually think ancient people were extremely intelligent and knowledeable in a much broader way than modern people. People now can be very specialised but compared to what we have available to us today people are more stupid. Me included.

Men of King David's time would have known multiple languages, how to fight with hand or a sword, archery, farming, navigation, clothes making and so many other things (I'm too stupid to think of). They didn't have google to check a particular bird species.

Even the ships used by Peter and Andrew require a lot of knowledge to operate let alone build. Building a wooden ship is complicated. Even though medeival times were known for some stupid ideas, my view is that these things rise and fall. It doesn't mean the further back you go the less intelligent people become.

Maybe, but there's excellent evidence that ancients believed that there could be children between entities we'd consider supernatural and human women. I don't know what they thought. Maybe they thought that beings like angels had more physical form than we do. Certainly in the Bible angels can take on physical form. Is there any reason to think that this form is .... um .... incomplete?

 

[Dansiph]

Maybe, but there's excellent evidence that ancients believed that there could be children between entities we'd consider supernatural and human women. I don't know what they thought. Maybe they thought that beings like angels had more physical form than we do. Certainly in the Bible angels can take on physical form. Is there any reason to think that this form is .... um .... incomplete?

If I can conjure up the idea "Do angels have sperm?" I know someone else can. The time period doesn't matter. It's not exactly rocket science.

 

[hedrick]

If I can conjure up the idea "Do angels have sperm?" I know someone else can. The time period doesn't matter. It's not exactly rocket science.

sure. But as noted, it's pretty clear that people really did believe they could have children with human women. I assume the implied answer to your question is yes.

 

[Dansiph]

sure. But as noted, it's pretty clear that people really did believe they could have children with human women. I assume the implied answer to your question is yes.

I don't know. Maybe they did in fact think angels were "complete" as you suggested?

 

[hedrick]

I don't know. Maybe they did in fact think angel's were "complete" as you suggested?

The modern idea is that angels are purely spiritual. I doubt that this is what the Biblical authors thought.

If you want an example of a person with a physical body but who is not limited by physicality, consider the risen Jesus. Both the Gospels and Paul see him as having a real body. But he can appear and disappear, and ascend to heaven (which I assume isn't literally in the sky).

 

[Dansiph]

The modern idea is that angels are purely spiritual. I doubt that this is what the Biblical authors thought.

I'm confused.

I'm saying angels probably can't mate with humans. You say they can? And now I'm half-agreeing it could be possible you're saying they can't? How did they think an angel would mate with a human if not using the usual method people use? Even a knowledge of farming animals let alone being married would require a knowledge of how a baby or young animal is produced.

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding, if so sorry but what is your position on Genesis 6 etc?

 

[Dansiph]

The modern idea is that angels are purely spiritual. I doubt that this is what the Biblical authors thought.

If you want an example of a person with a physical body but who is not limited by physicality, consider the risen Jesus. Both the Gospels and Paul see him as having a real body. But he can appear and disappear, and ascend to heaven (which I assume isn't literally in the sky).

I misread what you just said, disregard my last message and accept my apology lol

 

[Dansiph]

The modern idea is that angels are purely spiritual. I doubt that this is what the Biblical authors thought.

If you want an example of a person with a physical body but who is not limited by physicality, consider the risen Jesus. Both the Gospels and Paul see him as having a real body. But he can appear and disappear, and ascend to heaven (which I assume isn't literally in the sky).

I do think though they knew what they were writing. Although the understanding could have been lost over time.

 

[hedrick]

I'm confused.

I'm saying angels probably can't mate with humans. You say they can? And now I'm half-agreeing it could be possible you're saying they can't?

Maybe I gave the wrong impression. I'm saying that the Biblical view of angels is probably not that they are purely spiritual. I.e. they have at least some physical aspects. It appears that at least some Biblical authors thought they could mate with humans. I think their ability to do so is consistent with the general OT view of angels, though I don't think Gen 6 is historical.

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding, if so sorry but what is your position on Genesis 6 etc?

My general position is that Genesis has limited historical content. But this question goes beyond Genesis, since angels appear throughout the Bible, including the NT. I doubt that angels are purely spiritual, though I'm not aware of any accounts I'd consider historical that have them mating with women. I accept commentators' understanding that Jude and 2 Peter assume the mating happened.

 

[awitch]

They didn't have google to check a particular bird species.

Side note: Are you a birder?

I think modern people are not so much stupid but often willfully ignorant when established fact is inconvenient to whichever narrative they would rather believe. At the same time, a more intense confirmation bias will prevent people from fact checking. In other words, we're lazy because we take information for granted, regardless of how accurate it is.

 

[Dansiph]

Side note: Are you a birder?

I think modern people are not so much stupid but often willfully ignorant when established fact is inconvenient to whichever narrative they would rather believe. At the same time, a more intense confirmation bias will prevent people from fact checking. In other words, we're lazy because we take information for granted, regardless of how accurate it is.

I'm not a birder if that means birdwatcher but I was looking at various birds on wikipedia recently (mostly eagles) and considered it might be a good hobby.

I don't understand the first part of what you said but I agree with taking information for granted.

 

[awitch]

I'm not a birder if that means birdwatcher but I was looking at various birds on wikipedia recently (mostly eagles) and considered it might be a good hobby.

(I am, so I thought I'd ask. It is a very fun hobby.)

I don't understand the first part of what you said but I agree with taking information for granted.

For the first part it's sort of like:
Person 1: I believe X.
Person 2: Here is evidence that shows X is incorrect and that Y is true instead.
Person 1: The evidence must be wrong. / The people who acquired and presented the evidence hate X.

And the second part is like:
Person 1: I don't like politician X.
Person 2: I heard politician X killed a dozen babies last week.
Person 1: I knew it! Politician X is pure evil and anyone who votes for him is, too.

 

[Dansiph]

(I am, so I thought I'd ask. It is a very fun hobby.)



For the first part it's sort of like:
Person 1: I believe X.
Person 2: Here is evidence that shows X is incorrect and that Y is true instead.
Person 1: The evidence must be wrong. / The people who acquired and presented the evidence hate X.

And the second part is like:
Person 1: I don't like politician X.
Person 2: I heard politician X killed a dozen babies last week.
Person 1: I knew it! Politician X is pure evil and anyone who votes for him is, too.

How long have you been birdwatching? Tbh I don't usually pull the trigger on starting something so quickly but I'm going to read about it. I regularly go to a few parks where I live which isn't exactly the wild or the most rare birds but I still enjoy it.

 

[cloudyday2]

The people who followed God. In fact I think the idea of angels mating with humans is almost unbelievable.

"Mating" wouldn't necessarily mean sexual intercourse (although I defer to people who know the Hebrew - maybe it must mean sexual intercourse). "Mating" might mean to possess the female as in demon possession. Or "mating" might simply mean to plant a "seed of suspicion" in the mind of the female as the serpent in the Garden of Eden planted poisonous ideas in the mind of Eve.

 

[awitch]

How long have you been birdwatching? Tbh I don't usually pull the trigger on starting something so quickly but I'm going to read about it. I regularly go to a few parks where I live which isn't exactly the wild or the most rare birds but I still enjoy it.

A bit more than 2 years, now.
Started out just throwing birdseed on the back porch to see what showed up and then it escalated into becoming one of those crazy bird people who keeps lists. I don't see myself doing one of those Big Year events (traveling the world to ID as many species as you can in 365 days), but I travel up to an hour when time permits.

Tomorrow I'm going digiscoping at Sandy Hook, NJ again since it's a fall migration hotspot.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Aspzan and @hedrick , regarding the angelic sperm issue, in Genesis the angels who accompanied God in the Sodom and Gomorrah story were apparently able to eat food with Abraham if I remember correctly.

 

[Dansiph]

A bit more than 2 years, now.
Started out just throwing birdseed on the back porch to see what showed up and then it escalated into becoming one of those crazy bird people who keeps lists. I don't see myself doing one of those Big Year events (traveling the world to ID as many species as you can in 365 days), but I travel up to an hour when time permits.

Tomorrow I'm going digiscoping at Sandy Hook, NJ again since it's a fall migration hotspot.

Ah cool is that a type of photography? I find the North Eastern parts of the US the most interesting. Assuming NJ is New Jersey. There's also similar weather to the UK and that could mean there'd be similar wildlife, birds etc? Not much science behind my assumption though.

 

[Dansiph]

@Aspzan and @hedrick , regarding the angelic sperm issue, in Genesis the angels who accompanied God in the Sodom and Gomorrah story were apparently able to eat food with Abraham if I remember correctly.

It just dawned on me the topic of conversation is probably the strangest I've ever had lol. I can tolerate them digesting food but having full reproductive abilities is weird. Doesn't that transfer DNA etc? Why would an angel have DNA?