Such was noted as a reply to the video, “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_” posted to YouTube by Right Response Ministries.
A certain @RichieDubbz commented
The tallest person In the Bible was 10 feet. Anyone telling you anything bigger than that is selling fantasy and almost always selling books. Nephilim isn’t true. Men and angels aren’t able to procreate. One is spiritual the other fleshly.
Hebrews 1:5 makes it clear God never called an angel his son therefore the sons of God cannot be angels unless you believe the God wrote contradiction
@kenammi355
The tallest person In the Bible was 7.5 feet.
Modern Nephilology is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales–and yes, very lucrative.
But as for, “Nephilim isn’t true” well, you must reject the Bible then.
As for, “Men and angels aren’t able to procreate” your premise “One is spiritual the other fleshly” is doubly faulty. Firstly, humans can be spiritual but can procreate. Secondly, both are fleshly since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
As for Hebrews 1:5 well, that’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so contextually, God never called an Angel His son in the self-same manner as Jesus is His Son since Jesus is uniquely authoritative.
Or, do you deny that Christians are God’s sons since, after all, Jesus is God’s “only” begotten Son?
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view”–and yeah, I wrote a book about that ;o)
@RichieDubbz
angels are not fleshly thats where the scripture that says there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial comes in
@kenammi355
Friend, you hit the nail on the head without realizing it. Notice what you wrote, “”there are bodies…and bodies” exactly!!! That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
@RichieDubbz
it’s not my words it’s scripture
@RichieDubbz
angel means messenger. And they’re sometimes described as human looking. SOMETIMES. Then there are the seraphim and the cheribum… Which are not human in appearance at all. The fallen angels are all seraphim and cheribum. Some angles are literally human and some have a shape shifting ability due to the fact that they are not fleshly but spiritual. You seem to be conflating the human messenger and the spiritual entities
@kenammi355
Well, yes, indeed, “it’s scripture” just as you quoted it, “there are bodies…and bodies,” that’s been my point all along–and since you appear to imply disagreement (even now that you agree with me) then you would need to debunk points 1-3.
exactly!!! That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
As for, “they’re sometimes described as human looking” well, whenever they are described they are described as human male looking.
Indeed, “Then there are the seraphim and the cheribum… Which are not human in appearance at all” but they’re non-issues since they’re not Angels by categorical definition.
Ergo, there’s literally zero indication whatsoever anywhere that “The fallen angels are all seraphim and cheribum” and I wrote the book, “The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon” so I can tell you that you’re the only person in the history of humanity who asserts that. Ergo, you’re either the greatest biblical scholar in human history or you’re mistaken.
As for, “Some angles are literally human” if that’s a linguistic claim then, okay, sure, humans can deliver messages. But if that’s an ontological claim then it’s a category error that violates the law of identity.
As for, “some have a shape shifting ability” there’s literally zero indication of that.
As for, “shape shifting ability due to the fact that they are not fleshly but spiritual” but humans can be spiritual but we can’t shapeshift so that’s a non sequitur.
We can make this very, very simple: just provide quotations and citations for your assertion–but I want to save you time, don’t bother attempting it since you will be unable to.
@RichieDubbz
all non “human messenger” angels
(spiritual beings) are either cherubim or seraphim. that’s the only 2 classes of ethereal angels were taught about. they have the ability to shapeshift according to our perception since they’re spiritual in nature. the devil is a cherubim.
he can show as a man, or as a beast, or dragon, or serpent, but he is a cherubim
@kenammi355
I’m unsure why you appear to disregard 99% of everything I write.
You’re making category errors that violate the law of identity (do you know to what I’m referring by that?).
You refer to, “non ‘human messenger’ angels (spiritual beings)” but humans can be spiritual. Are you confusing “spiritual” with “spirit”? If so, there’s no indication Angels are spirits and recall that I noted:
“Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”
And:
“That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”
And:
“you would need to debunk points 1-3….1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”
As for, “angles…are either cherubim or seraphim” again, that’s a category error: if Angles were Cherubim then they wouldn’t be Angles, they would be Cherubim and if Angels were Seraphim then they wouldn’t be Angels, they would be Seraphim.
Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are three different categories of being distinguished from one another in at least three different ways. So, you can’t just violate the law of identity and un-biblically mash them all together with zero biblical backing and due to some sort of fallacious man-made tradition.
There’s zero indication that Angels or Cherubim or Seraphim “have the ability to shapeshift.
“the devil is a cherub,” singular.
You assert, “he can show as a man, or as a beast, or dragon, or serpent” but there’s zero indication of that. He’s called various things such as dragon or serpent but there’s zero indication he took on those shapes.
I’m afraid that I will have to start asking for biblical quotations and citations since you assert a lot but those assertions aren’t biblical and it’s important for you to face that by being unable to back your assertions rather than by me just telling you about that.
@RichieDubbz
I’ll reread everything hang on
@RichieDubbz
ok point by point, in order> one angel is a broad term. angelic beings are spiritual beings, not flesh as we know it. they’re called ministering spirits. they have the ability to effect the physical realm, but that doesnt mean theyre the same as us, and nature tells us that you need to be very similar genetically to procreate. God didn’t call them sons and then say when did I ever call an angel my son. that’s absurd, angel can also mean human messenger, like in revelation the seven letters to the churches. those are written to human messengers of the churches described. youre conflating the 2 uses of the term angel if you think theyre human like. there are 2 types of angelic beings and neither look like man when in their true form.
humans can be spiritual, but are not spiritual entities we are fleshly beings. carnal. we see that angelic beings can masquerade as human, but that doesn’t mean they can procreate with man. that’s faulty logic.
saved people have become the sons of God according to the scrpiture, thats why Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son, and not the only son.
job 38:7 is about the souls of saved men rejoicing at the coming of Christ nothing about angels in there. sons of God is always the saved. thats a key doctrine to refute the catholic teaching that Jesus opened the gates of heaven and that before that we went to “the good side of hell” or “Abrahams bosom” or whatever other false nonsense they teach. that’s saved souls rejoicing for Jesus plain and simple.
there are sinful angels, the fallen ones about 1/3 of the angels fell along side lucifer. there is no plain reading of text that implies a sexual nature to that sin. kept not their first estate does not mean they procreated that’s absurd. estate has to do with their realm or residence. they will be kicked from the heavenly realms in the course of Revelation. kept not their first estate.
“Angels are always described as looking like human males”
this sounds like a human male to you?
5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.
12 And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went.
13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.
14 And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.
15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
thats an angel my friend. it can appear as a man but thats its true form
@RichieDubbz
points 1-3 are invalid because point 1 is flat out false, point 2 is irrelevant, they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being supernatural, and point 3 is false.
did i miss anything? you said alot. i tried to cover a few key points initially but there ya go
Ken Ammi
Bruh, you cracked me up with, “…hang on” as if it’s a live discussion so that was a riot and I love you for it. I really appreciate you reviewing our discussion and the detailed reply.
“angelic beings are spiritual beings, not flesh as we know it” be careful here since, as I noted, “humans can be spiritual” and we are “flesh as we know it.” The caution is that you are technically confusing and thus are compounding “spiritual” with “spirit.”
So, to rewrite that, “angelic beings are SPIRIT beings, not flesh as we know it” but, again, Angels (actual Angels) are always described as looking like human males and the only way to dance around that is to claim that non-Angels are Angels which discredits itself since, again, that would be a category error that violates the law of identity (do you know what I mean by that?).
As for, “they’re called ministering spirits” well, only in certain English versions and they’re mistaken. That’s based on three verses that really collapse into one since it’s based on Psalm 104:4 which many versions rightly have as “winds” rather than “spirits”: see here https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4
Now, it’s not that they flipped a coin and opted for “winds” but that the context of the whole Psalm, which are correlations to natural phenomena, demand a reading of “winds” rather than “spirits.” So then, when Hebrews 1 quotes that and then comments on it, that too should read “winds” rather then “spirits.”
But this isn’t just about a single word but about concepts since one single word doesn’t change the variously demonstrable that, again, actual Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that SUCH ISN’T THEIR ONTOLOGY.
As for, “doesnt mean theyre the same as us” no they’re not but they are similar enough. See, 1) actual Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) we were created “a little lower” than them, and 3) we can reproduce with them so, by definition, 4) we’re of the same basic “kind.”
As for, “God didn’t call them sons and then say when did I ever call an angel my son. that’s absurd” well, it’s absurd to abuse Hebrews 1 since I already noted, “that’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so contextually, God never called an Angel His son in the self-same manner as Jesus is His Son since Jesus is uniquely authoritative.”
Do you notice that I’m just having to repeat the very same things I’ve already said to you. See, rather than debunking them you’re just going in circles and are repeating yourself.
As for, “angel can also mean human messenger” well, that’s irrelevant to our discussion.
As for, “there are 2 types of angelic beings and neither look like man when in their true form” again, you’re just mashing non-Angels into the Angel category which is a fallacy. You’re violating categories in at least three ways when you do that.
You say, “angelic beings can masquerade as human” but there’s zero indication of that.
But you argued, “angelic beings can masquerade as human, but that doesn’t mean they can procreate with man. that’s faulty logic” indeed, it is and I never even hinted at any such thing so you’re no longer arguing with me about that.
As for Job 38:7 friend, you have to manipulate that text so badly just to protect your man-made tradition that it seems you didn’t really pay attention to what you said. You’re saying that it’s “about the souls of saved men rejoicing at the coming of Christ” but that’s doubly mistaken: did you even read it (and FYI: the LXX has “Angelos” there)? You took a text about “when” the Earth was created and that was witnessed by the sons of God to refer to the salvation of certain humans which didn’t happen until millennia later and something to do with the coming of Christ.
As for, “angels fell along side lucifer” well, it was not “along side” since his fall was as per the Gen 3 timeline but theirs was as per the Gen 6 timeline.
As for, “no plain reading of text that implies a sexual nature to that sin” well, I already also told you, “Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, ‘left their first estate,’ after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.”
Thus, when you emote, “kept not their first estate does not mean they procreated that’s absurd” you’re once again arguing against a strawman.
Indeed, please pay attention to the actual argument and not your fallacious paraphrase: “correlate it to sexual sin which occurred AFTER the Angels, ‘left their first estate’…” They left their “realm or residence,” heaven, in order to come to Earth and sin.
As for, “this sounds like a human male to you?…thats an angel my friend. it can appear as a man but thats its true form” I already noted that you have zero scriptural backing for that mere assertion. You’re just merely asserting that Angels are Cherubim are Seraphim but that’s illogical, it’s ill-bio-logical, and it’s ill-theo-logical. You’re merely saying that but there’s literally not one single verse to back up that mashing of categories and, again, at least three ways in which to prove that your claims are not the case.
Now that, “point 1 is flat out false” is a merely assertion so it’s dismissible.
“point 2 is irrelevant” due to “they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being supernatural” well, I would have to know what you mean by “supernatural” since God is the only supernatural being but “they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being” embodied in a flesh of their own such as how they are described.
“point 3 is false”: is a merely assertion so it’s dismissible.
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.