The following discussion ensued when I was sent, “notes of the UFO lecture” that was to be presented to a local group: I’m keeping the group, the presenter, and the names of the person with whom I had the discussion private since it took place over email, etc.
Referring to statements in the notes, I began the discussion by noting:
As for, “What Forms Can Angels (including fallen angels) Take?” it’s a fundamental level category error to jump from that question to answer of, “Ezekiel 10:9-17 9Then I looked, and behold, four wheels beside the cherubim…” since that’s moving the goalpost from Angels to Cherubim.
Thus, the conclusion, “Angels can take the form of men, animals, birds, and gleaming mechanical wheels that spin” is un-biblical since there’s no indication of any such thing.
The reply was:
I agree, that is an assumption that we cannot prove using the scriptures.
I noted:
It actually goes beyond, “we cannot prove using the scriptures”: it’s a matter of that we can disprove those assertions using the scriptures.
Thus, the conclusion, “The aliens are nothing new. They are the fallen angels of old, enemy of God and man” ranges from too generic to erroneous since as per Jude and 2 Peter 2 sinful Angels are incarcerated so, if anything, it’d be a case of, “…They are the demons of old…”
The reply, in turn, was:
I do not understand your argument.
Are you saying that all fallen angels (1/3rd of all of the angels) are incarcerated? I do not see that in the scriptures. Demons in the bible are fallen angels. Some fallen angels are incarcerated.
Or are you saying that angels, at times, do not appear as to be men? Gen. 18, … many examples in the Bible.
I elucidated:
My argument is that the presenter commits category errors that violate the law of identity coupled with making assertions that can’t be biblically supported.
It’s not me “saying that all fallen angels (1/3rd of all of the angels) are incarcerated”: as I noted, “as per Jude and 2 Peter 2 sinful Angels are incarcerated.”
You noted, “Some fallen angels are incarcerated” but they refer to “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling” and “angels when they sinned” and not “only some of the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling” nor “only some of the angels when they sinned” and there’s only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible. Thus, all of the Angels that fell were incarcerated.
The mechanism as to how it is that, “Demons in the bible are fallen angels” is that all of those Angels were physically incarcerated but their spirits roam the Earth as demons.
As for, “angels, at times, do not appear as to be men?” I argue the 100% opposite: they always appear as men since that’s how they look ontologically. Thus, they don’t, ever, “take the form of men, animals, birds, and gleaming mechanical wheels that spin.”
The original thread included many people, it was then reduced to three and I noted:
We can keep discussing but the main context is the errors and assertions in the proposed presentation.
My suggestion is that he can easily be rid of those errors and assertions by simply pointing to demons rather than un-biblical Angelology.
It’s a problem with a (relatively) simple solution.
The reply was:
I am still confused by your argument.
Ok, you are saying that all the fallen angels are sinful angels and thus incarcerated.
You are saying that “… all of those Angels were physically incarcerated, but their spirits roam the Earth as demons.”
Where in the Bible does it say that Angels are physical beings that can be physically incarcerated?
Hebrews 1:14 says that they (angels) are spirits.
Luke 24:39 a spirit does not have flesh and blood.
“take the form of men, animals, birds, and gleaming mechanical wheels that spin.”
They do appear as men. They sometimes indwell animals (pigs). I do not know of any birds. His view of gleaming mechanical wheels that spin may come from Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:20 says that the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. I am not clear as to what that means.
My reply:
No, all Angels are not fallen.
The fallen Angels are incarcerated.
Yes, “… all of those Angels were physically incarcerated, but their spirits roam the Earth as demons.”
“Where in the Bible does it say that Angels are physical beings”: in literally every single text that describes them.
As for, “that can be physically incarcerated?” that’s a conclusion premised on that, “Angels are physical beings,” it’s a conclusion based on biblical Angelology, based on what demons say, based on what Jude and Peter say, based on what Rev 9 says, etc.
As for, “Hebrews 1:14 says that they (angels) are spirits”: I’m familiar with over two millennia worth of relevant data so I don’t go by what one single poorly translated modern English word says.
I’ve written whole books about these issues and many, many articles including proving that you’re quoting one single poorly translated modern English word rather than the over 40 English versions that have it that they are, “winds.”
That’s how that verse should read since it’s supposed to be consistent with Psalm 104:4 which is quoted in Heb 1:7 and so all of them should read, “winds” in keeping with the Psalm’s context and how the majority of English versions read.
Indeed, “Luke 24:39 a spirit does not have flesh and blood” so that’s irrelevant to Angels and you then have to explain how and why literally every single time Angels are described in the Bible they look just like human males without any indication that such isn’t their ontology—besides one single poorly translated modern English word.
Indeed, “They do appear as men” since that’s how they look—ontologically.
“They sometimes indwell animals (pigs)” which was only the case one time when Jesus made that happen/allowed it to happen.
But that’s moving the goalpost form what the presentation states, it doesn’t state, “indwell” it states, “take the form of men, animals” which is about morphology.
“I do not know of any birds” neither do I but again, the assertion is that they, “”take the form of…birds.”
Yes, “His view of gleaming mechanical wheels that spin may come from Ezekiel” but that’s about Ophanim, not about Angels: thus, another category error that violates the law of identity—he reads about whatever the version he’s reading states—likely wheels within wheels or some such thing which is Ophamin in Hebrew—and he edits that out and writes in, “Angels” so that’s also eisegetical.
What Ezekiel 1:20 says is that Cherubim have the ability to put their spirits within the Ophanim.
Thus, another category error that violates the law of identity—he reads about “Cherubim” and he edits that out and writes in, “Angels” so that’s also eisegetical.
The reply was:
In the context, I was referring to the fallen angels, not all the angels.
This is a different view than I have never ran across before.
If it uses the translation “winds”, what do you think that it means by that?
If Angels are physical, how can they be invisible at times?
How do demons (the spirits of fallen angels) have battles with non-fallen angels that are physical and have spirits?
I agree with you on the point about them not taking on the form of animals, birds, and wheels.
Do you view Cherubim as a different type of creature than an angel, rather than an elite group of angels?
Was Satan a cherub, or an angel? Do you think that he was an archangel?
My reply:
I found that after familiarizing myself with over two millennia of relevant data I was able to connect dots and ended up doing what I term: Systematic Biblical Paranormology.
Part of it is that, sure, many say demons are fallen Angels but don’t explain how it is that they exhibit different characteristics. I decided to formulate a mechanism, the how of it, that explains how it is that they exhibit different characteristics even though demons are fallen Angels just by appealing to the Bible.
The Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma can both be translated as spirit or wind/breath. Psalm 104:4 must be translated as winds due to that its whole context is constant correlations to natural phenomena. So in order to be consistent Heb 1:7 and 14 should read, “winds.”
Beyond fitting the Psalm’s context, I’d imagine that, “the translation ‘winds’…means by that” what Jesus stated in John 3, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.”
I’d imagine that, “Angels are physical” and, “can they be invisible at times” since that’s one of their un-fallen, glorified capabilities: it would just mean they can chose to have photos bounce off of their bodies or not. Don Veinot and I had a discussion about appear and disappear vs. visible and invisible. Jesus physically resurrected but/and could suddenly appear or suddenly be visible.
The issue of battles is interesting and brings to mind why Angels are depicted wielding swords: a weapon of choice common to human use during those times. Why didn’t they wield machine guns or plasma weapons or weapons of which we can’t even conceive? Seems to me that they don’t actually fight with a sharpened piece of metal but that wielding swords is indicative that they wield God’s power, God’s authority, His words, His decrees, etc. So I wouldn’t think that loyal Angels slash at demons with metal but it’s a battle of power, authority, words, decrees, etc.—much like exorcists don’t use physical weapons but appeal to that the power of Christ compels you.
Cherubim and Angels (and Serpahim) differ in at least three ways: 1) different job titles, 2) different job functions, 3) different morphologies. As far as I know, the only reason to mash non-Angels into the Angel category of being is because some man-made tradition by a sloppy thinker mashed them together. We shouldn’t claim that non-A=A.
As per Ezek 28, a Cherub that fell was in the garden of God and that’s clearly Satan.
I will see how you answer Steve’s question to you but, for now, I will offer my thoughts, “Why would God imprison the rest of the fallen angels, but allow the leader of the rebellion to remain free?”
“the rest of” implies that since they are, “fallen angels” then so is, “the leader” so we’re back to the category error: the leader isn’t an Angel.
The reply was to quote that to which I was referring about Ezek 28:
“You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezekiel 28:14, NASB)
That brought the discussion to an 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.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply