Recently, in the Genesis 15 thread we engaged in some discussion about angels and whether they are only spiritual or material in some cases. I did not want to de rail my other thread so I decided to move that discussion here. In short, because the term angel can apply to people, not all angels in the bible are spiritual.

I think the biggest misconception that leads to confusion is the fact that Hebrew and Greek terms usually translated into English as "angel" are used for both human and heavenly messengers. The context determines whether the messenger is sent from God or from an earthly authority.

The hebrew word "malakh" and greek word "angelos" are probably best translated as "messenger" in English.

This then must necessitate that some angels are material, because some angels are merely humans sent to send a message.

In the Old Testament, the hebrew word malakh appears over 213 times. In the OT its usages are:

"Human messenger";
"Messenger of God";
"Heavenly messenger" or "angel"; and
"The messenger of the Lord or God"

The messenger can be the Angel of the Lord, which ancient Jews interpreted as God incarnate.

Between the Testaments.

Jewish views on angels developed during pre-New Testament and New Testament times, as reflected in the writings of sectarian communities around the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic literature.

In Grco-Roman society and Classical Greek literature, the (angelos) was a message bearer who was protected by the gods. It became a technical term for emissary.

Divine (e.g., Hermes) and human messengers existed, as well as those from the Underworld. Philo (20 bcad 50) linked Hermes and (logos, "word") theology by allegorizing (mal'akh). He equated an angel and the logos (the "word" or "message") and merged Jewish angelology with Greek demonology.

Jewish views regarding Old Testament heavenly messengers developed into an angelology with hierarchies of principalities. The Jewish view of the Sadducees, influenced by Greek rationalism, dismissed angels as a reality (TDNT, 80). The tension the Sadducees and Pharisees is seen in the New Testament:

In Acts, there is the parenthetical statement: "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all" (Acts 23:8 NIV).
In the deuterocanonical literature, a distinction is found between good and bad angels (e.g., 2 Macc 15:22; Tobit 5:22; NRSV).
In 4 Maccabees, Aaron conquers a fiery angel (4 Macc 7:11).

In the New Testament

The English translation "Angel" in the New Testament is always a rendering of (angelos); this is not a true translationit merely anglicizes the Greek letters into English. This same Greek word is used to translate "messenger" (, mal'akh) in the Old Testament. A human or heavenly messenger in the Greek Bible is (angelos), whereas we (in English) distinguish "angel" and "messenger." New Testament uses of (angelos) are:

"[Human] messenger, envoy, one who is sent."

"Heavenly spirits" of whom some are "guardian [messengers]"

New Testament "messengers" (good or obedient angels) are called:
The angel
His angels
The Angel of the Lord
Angel of God
Angel of the church
Holy angels
An archangel
My angel
Elect angels

Sometimes "messenger" is neither "angel" or human but an illness. Satan has "messengers" (Rev 12:9; 2 Cor 12:7) but is never named directly as an Old Testament or New Testament "angel."

The real debate comes down to the identity of the Angel of the Lord. There are four interpretations:

(1) Heidt and Malone suggest that the Angel of the Lord is actually God Himself (Heidt, Angelology, 7096; Malone, "Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord," 297314).

(2) Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Tertullian suggested that the Angel is the pre-incarnate Christ (see Heidt, Angelology, 98; Juncker, "Christ As Angel," 224250).

(3) Lopez has suggested that the Angel is a representative messenger of God who speaks as though he is God because he is given the authority to do so (Lpez, "Identifying the 'Angel of the Lord' " 118).

(4) Meier and Ausloos suggest that the text is inconsistent, and this inconsistency can be used to decipher the source and redaction history of the text (Meier, "Angel of Yahweh," 5759; Ausloos, "The 'Angel of Yahweh,' " 112; compare Smith, "Remembering God," 63638, 64445).

I personally think that the first two interpretations are really a distinction without a difference.

In the Old Testament, the identity of the Angel can be difficult to distinguish from Yahweh Himself (Gen 21:1719; Exod 3; Judg 2:15; 6:1124; Hos 12:4). Gen. 32:24.

The angel of the lord wrestles with Jacob. How much more material can that get?

All material comes from the Lexham Bible Dictionary search for Angel.

Quote:

---

The messenger can be the Angel of the Lord, which ancient Jews interpreted as God incarnate.

---

citation needed

What I mean by that is, "God incarnate" is a pretty specific idea or claim. I'm not sure that I've ever seen ancient Jews interpret this way. I'm curious if there is any evidence or if this is your paraphrase of something?

I always favored explanation 3. It was very common until modern times for rulers to send messengers to vassals and foreign lands. Rarely would rulers speak with each other directly, and it wasn't even common for rulers to speak directly with their immediate subordinates. Therefore messengers (angels) were used.

These messengers needed three things. First, the name of the one sending the message (or Name if you will). Second was the message itself. Third was some proof of identity. This could be all sorts of things: a seal, a released hostage, a gift previously given and now returned. Messengers sent from God always came with a supernatural proof, either a prophecy or a miracle.

The pattern perfectly fits the use of messengers by everyone else in the world at the time, so I don't see any need to make it more complicated than that. We also have direct examples of God sending messengers, Jonah for instance, and not choosing to go Himself. So I'd call it a big and unnecessary leap to say all these messengers were really Christ

Read this article.


https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596717-024
Andrei A. Orlov
23 Two Powers in Heaven Manifested

It mentions an excerpt from a Babylonian Talmud.

One of the biggest controversies in ancient Judaism was the two powers controversy. On the two powers in heaven controversy see D. Boyarin, "Two Powers in Heaven; or, the Mak-ing of a Heresy," in
The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel
, eds. H.Najman and J. H. Newman, JSJSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 33170

"One of the crucial testimonies pertaining to the two powers in heaven controversy is a passage found in the treatise Hagigah of the Babylonian Talmud, in which a abbinic seer, Elisha ben Abuya or Aher, became "misled" by the appearance of the great angel Metatron. It says"

Aher mutilated the shoots. Of him Scripture says: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt. What does it refer to?He saw that permission was granted to Metatron to sit and write down the merits of Israel. Said he: It is taught as a tradition that on high there is nositting and no emulation, and no back, and no weariness. Perhaps,God forfend!there are two divinities! [Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and punished him with sixty fiery lashes, saying to him: Why didst thou not rise before him when thou didst see him? Per-mission was [then] given to him to strike out the merits of Aher. A Bath Kol went forth and said: Return, ye backsliding childrenexcept Aher. [Thereupon] he said: Since I have been driven forth from yonder world, let me go forth and enjoy this world. So Aher went forth into evil courses."

The sitting had the connotation of enthronement. The idea has strong resemblance to ezekiel's chariot etc. In other words, God was portrayed with His own chariot-throne, but a special angel was also. The angel did not appear with God, because God's voice was always portrayed as the manifestation of God. Kind of like when God calls down from heaven while Jesus is on earth.
[url=https://app.rossintelligence.com/similar-language?q=Aher mutilated the shoots. Of him Scripture says: Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt. What does it refer to?He saw that permission was granted to Metatron to sit and write down the merits of Israel. Said he: It is taught as a tradition that on high there is nositting and no emulation, and no back, and no weariness. Perhaps,God forfend!there are two divinities! [Thereupon] they led Metatron forth, and punished him with sixty fiery lashes, saying to him: Why didst thou not rise before him when thou didst see him? Per-mission was [then] given to him to strike out the merits of Aher. A Bath Kol went forth and said: Return, ye backsliding childrenexcept Aher. [Thereupon] he said: Since I have been driven forth from yonder world, let me go forth and enjoy this world. So Aher went forth into evil courses."

I never said all were Christ.

I don't understand what that has to do with my question.

Read the article. There was considerable debate among ancient Jews whether an Angel occupied the same authority as God. In the quoted passage Metatron is an Angel who writes in the books concerning the fate of Israel. This is something God does in the Bible. Some sects of Jews, the forerunners to Christianity, interpreted the Angel as a chosen Son of God.

What does that have to do with ancient Jews believing that the Angel was God incarnate?

They thought the Angel was God incarnate because the Angel occupied the same authority and status as God Himself. To treat the messenger or Angel as anything less than God is a serious offense. It is Gods command that the Angel be treated exactly the same as God.

To treat the Angel differently from God means to disobey Him. This includes speaking of the Angel as something other than God.

That doesn't mean or imply incarnate though. Incarnate means God taking flesh. It doesn't have to do with something being treated with the same authority and status as God.

It 100% does. God took on flesh, thus to treat the Angel of the Lord as not having flesh is to treat the Angel as something other than God. The Angel delivered messages for God, commanded the Lords armies, and forgives sins.

See Genesis 6. They manifested physically, had relations with earthwomen and hybrid offspring resulted with negative results for humans.

Yeah I agree. The angels you described are rebellious angels. They bred with human women and created Giants. The enemies of God and Gods people.

Sorry man that is just a tautological argument.

I treat the Angel of the Lord as being the pre-incarnate Jesus.

I think when you see this Angel of the Lord, He acts with an authority that an angel would not have. He's not just speaking on behalf of God, but able to speak for God.

It's that distinction that pushes me to think it's Jesus.

UTExan said:

---

See Genesis 6. They manifested physically, had relations with earthwomen and hybrid offspring resulted with negative results for humans.

---

To be fair, the nephilim are not necessarily Angel/Human fun babies. For Example, I think both Aquinas and Augustine attributed the "Sons of God" to the Line of Seth.

That is a highly racist interpretation and has been discredited for almost 100 years.

Ordhound04 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

See Genesis 6. They manifested physically, had relations with earthwomen and hybrid offspring resulted with negative results for humans.

---

To be fair, the nephilim are not necessarily Angel/Human fun babies. For Example, I think both Aquinas and Augustine attributed the "Sons of God" to the Line of Seth.

---

Seth was not immortal. Bene ha Elohim was the term used for the fallen angels and the text is plain that the Nephilim were the offspring of such fallen angel-human unions. The Book of Enoch, Jude, 2 Peter all hold the angel view.

These articles discuss some of the problems with the Sethite view.

Amar Annus, "On the Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19.4 (2010): 277320

Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 149; Leiden: Brill, 2011)

If you want less academic go here https://khouse.org/articles/1997/110/#:~:text=Origin%20of%20the%20Sethite%20View%20It%20was%20in,had%20also%20become%20an%20institution%20of%20the%20church.


The Sethite view is wrong in my opinion because the text does not support it and it makes God looks like He chooses people based on genetic background which is not correct.

UTExan said:

---

Ordhound04 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

See Genesis 6. They manifested physically, had relations with earthwomen and hybrid offspring resulted with negative results for humans.

---

To be fair, the nephilim are not necessarily Angel/Human fun babies. For Example, I think both Aquinas and Augustine attributed the "Sons of God" to the Line of Seth.

---

Seth was not immortal. Bene ha Elohim was the term used for the fallen angels and the text is plain that the Nephilim were the offspring of such fallen angel-human unions. The Book of Enoch, Jude, 2 Peter all hold the angel view.

---

To be fair, Both Jude and 2 Peter do not explicitly address the nephilim. You can make an sort of Enoch reference in Jude, but that might have been a well known oral tradition story rather than an explicit Book of Enoch citation.

Also, we can allude to the council of elohim (Psalms?), Jesus's own sayings about "are not ye gods", as a retort to that.

Fundamentally, I don't see a "Demons came to sexual climax and birthed a child" situation here that is anything beyond some folklore meant to teach a deeper lesson. But, I admit that can be my own personal bias.

I would not think of demons as the same as fallen angels. They may in fact be the spirit remnants of the physically deceased hybrid offspring of fallen angels and women. If you delve much into the alien abduction phenomenon, you find a great deal of experimentation with human reproduction, as documented by Harvard medical school Dept. of Psychiatry chief Dr. John Mack. To save you time, he was investigated for his research by fellow faculty, but defended by Alan Dershowitz because his research was merely unpopular, not violating ethical or legal standards. The outcome of the investigation found no issues, although other faculty questioned his methodology.

I think that makes sense and the text sustains it. Why would God allow someone to do all these things and claim to be God if it wasn't God? He wouldn't.

This is correct. It is the souls of the giants/Nephilim that typically encompass the term demon in the Bible. The angels, or parents of the giants/Nephilim are referred to as Sons of God. The Bible is clear that many gods exist but only one is worthy or worship and only one created the other gods and the world etc.

UTExan said:

---

I would not think of demons as the same as fallen angels. They may in fact be the spirit remnants of the physically deceased hybrid offspring of fallen angels and women. If you delve much into the alien abduction phenomenon, you find a great deal of experimentation with human reproduction, as documented by Harvard medical school Dept. of Psychiatry chief Dr. John Mack. To save you time, he was investigated for his research by fellow faculty, but defended by Alan Dershowitz because his research was merely unpopular, not violating ethical or legal standards. The outcome of the investigation found no issues, although other faculty questioned his methodology.

---

So Demons =/= Fallen Angels? So is Satan a demon, or a fallen angel, or both?

As to alien abduction/experiments and their connection to demons, fallen angels, I wouldn't over speculate.

However, the flesh and materiality of Angels, as proposed by you and the OP, does bring up the question of the incarnation, and the Hypostatic union. If, the "Angel of the Lord" is Jesus, and "Angels" are material, and have bodily functions, does that mean the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, is Divine, Angelic, and Human hypostatic union? Is the incarnation then at the appearance of the Angel of the Lord?

Your description of the Angel of the Lord as a combination of divine, Angel, and human is redundant. Obviously the Angel of the lord is an Angel, it just means messenger. The Angel of the Lord slew many many philistines and is impervious to fire. It is not only human, but more than human as well. We will all be "super" like the Angel do the lord when we are resurrected and glorified.

They, like gnomes, ghosts, elves, trolls, leprechauns, devils....

I'd bet they are all ET in origin.

Genesis 18 Now the Lord appeared to [a]Abraham by the [b]oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he raised his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed down to the ground, 3 and said, "[c]My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not [d]pass Your servant by. 4 Please let a little water be brought and wash [e]your feet, and make yourselves comfortable under the tree; 5 and I will [f]bring a piece of bread, so that you may [g]refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have [h]visited your servant." And they said, "So do as you have said." 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, "[i]Quickly, prepare three [j]measures of fine flour, knead it, and make bread cakes." 7 Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and [k]choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it. 8 He took curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he was standing by them under the tree [l]as they ate.
9 Then they said to him, "Where is your wife Sarah?" And he said, "There, in the tent." 10 He said, "I will certainly return to you [m]at this time next year; and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door, which was behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; Sarah was past [n]childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed [o]to herself, saying, "After I have become old, am I to have pleasure, my lord being old also?" 13 But the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I actually give birth to a child, when I am so old?' 14 Is anything too [p]difficult for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, [q]at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son." 15 Sarah denied it, however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh."
16 Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. 17 The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 since Abraham will certainly become a great and [r]mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? 19 For I have [s]chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him." 20 And the Lord said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done entirely as the outcry, which has come to Me indicates; and if not, I will know."
Abraham Appeals for Sodom
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 23 Abraham approached and said, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous people within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not [t]spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from You to do [u]such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth [v]deal justly?" 26 So the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will [w]spare the entire place on their account." 27 And Abraham replied, "Now behold, I have [x]ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am only dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the entire city because of five?" And He said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there." 29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose forty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it on account of the forty." 30 Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?" And He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 And he said, "Now behold, I have [y]ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the twenty." 32 Then he said, "Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once: suppose ten are found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it on account of the ten." 33 As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his place.

19 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom.

- Angel means messenger
This is a job description in the etymology

- Satan means accuser
Lucifer is the primary accuser, the main satan. Maybe he was an angel (job, not a category of being), maybe not.

It is essential to go into the language (Michael Heiser, David Bentley Hart - read those who are professionals in it).

My opinion and summary:

Reality exists in dimensions - and sometimes they collide. Sometimes the veil is thin. What exists? Dimensions....High Strangeness:
- Our material world
- God - the supernatural
- Angels / Demons - the preternatural
- Other creations (may be preternatural) that manifest in the material world....
What we may perceive as "monsters" or "fairies," such as Bigfoot (inter-dimensional explains Bigfoot, which is a real phenomenon in my opinion)
- Aliens - could be preternatural, could be inter-dimensional, could be another material creation we don't comprehend yet....or a combination

The case for inter-dimensional is strong. Listen, for example, to this podcast with a talented and dogged researcher who has interviewed HUNDREDS of credible witnesses covering a small area (Yorkshire).

Commonality is: flashes of light, sudden appearance and disappearance, an otherworldly touch to our material world (including very precise mutilation).

https://theunexplained.tv/episodes/edition-526-paul-sinclair

In Hebrew, and in the context of the OT (read Protestant scholar Michael Heiser) ....
Satan means accuser, like angel means messenger. So, lots of satans in the angelic rebellions.

The terms in context are less a proper name or a category of being, but rather a descriptive term of their job or action.

God holds court, where he is the Elohim of elohims. Some of His creation are messengers, or angels. Many are not.

Therefore, at least some of the phenomena (watch the documentary The Phenomenon, its fantastic) are inter-dimensional elohims...these are "gods" (Hebrew OT, not my phrasing).

Strong Recommend
Those interested should follow Jimmy Akin Mysterious World podcast. He's talked about aliens a-plenty:
https://sqpn.com/category/podcasts/akin/

I agree. Yes, the Angel of the Lord, aka Yahweh is in the appearance of a man. The text refers to God as a man. This is why alot of people think the Angel of the Lord is Jesus. I think that is probably the best interpretation, although I think the text could sustain others.

It is also the reason why I think the best reading of the first Incarnation of Christ should be at resurrection. This makes it fit with all things created through Him passages. Referring to the Incarnation of Christ is kind of misleading because it makes it sound like God was not doing anything in the OT or that He was just this spirit being or white long haired guy in the guy.

Ordhound04 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I would not think of demons as the same as fallen angels. They may in fact be the spirit remnants of the physically deceased hybrid offspring of fallen angels and women. If you delve much into the alien abduction phenomenon, you find a great deal of experimentation with human reproduction, as documented by Harvard medical school Dept. of Psychiatry chief Dr. John Mack. To save you time, he was investigated for his research by fellow faculty, but defended by Alan Dershowitz because his research was merely unpopular, not violating ethical or legal standards. The outcome of the investigation found no issues, although other faculty questioned his methodology.

---

So Demons =/= Fallen Angels? So is Satan a demon, or a fallen angel, or both?

As to alien abduction/experiments and their connection to demons, fallen angels, I wouldn't over speculate.

However, the flesh and materiality of Angels, as proposed by you and the OP, does bring up the question of the incarnation, and the Hypostatic union. If, the "Angel of the Lord" is Jesus, and "Angels" are material, and have bodily functions, does that mean the Angel of the Lord, Jesus, is Divine, Angelic, and Human hypostatic union? Is the incarnation then at the appearance of the Angel of the Lord?

---

If angels contain the essence of God, they could exist multidimensionally. Since God is everywhere, in all the dimensions of being He created, it makes sense that He would call Himself I am that I am.

Apparently, there are many ET species that very much resemble our own..

Spyderman said:

---

Apparently, there are many ET species that very much resemble our own..

---

I thought that they were angels, but much to my surprise, we climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies, singing come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me (lads)...

Who would have guessed that that was a historically accurate statement.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Spyderman said:

---

Apparently, there are many ET species that very much resemble our own..

---

I thought that they were angels, but much to my surprise, we climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies, singing come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me (lads)...

Who would have guessed that that was a historically accurate statement.

---

Wow, I recall those lyrics. Not sure who or when that was though...lol