Can Angels Eat?

[JLHPROF]

On 11/20/2018 at 12:36 AM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

So, now we're just redefining words? Someone better inform Cambridge to change their dictionary definition. 😏

No, we are providing context.

There is a difference between bring the dead back to mortal life and raising the dead into immortal life.

The dictionary may use the same word for both but they are two very different things.  Scriptures are clear Christ was the first on this earth.

I Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence

[Lucian Hodoboc]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, we are providing context.

If we had two separate words for these two distinct types of resurrection, there wouldn't be a need to have a context, but I get what you're saying. ☺️

[Calm]

Apparently the Greek did not use the same words, but they weren't using resurrection in quite the same way either:

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/386.html

[Stargazer]

On 11/12/2018 at 2:42 PM, Anijen said:

I knew they were not resurrected yet. However, your comments on them perhaps being translated beings is very interesting and raises even more questions. Do we know of any translated beings this early? I guess the residents of the City of Enoch, could they all be translated? Hmmm.

I understand that everyone in the City of Enoch was translated.

[Stargazer]

On 11/12/2018 at 7:25 PM, bluebell said:

I'm with Doctrine 612.  I don't think they were angels as we interpret the word.  I think they were just men, but sent by God.

In the 1962 movie "The Bible: In the Beginning", when the three angels show up to talk to Abraham, they are played by Peter O'Toole, and as each one's face is shown, they all look like Lawrence of Arabia.  Rather creepy, actually.

[Stargazer]

On 11/13/2018 at 4:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

And also time has to be relative to the universe I would imagine.  Space-time.

Different space, different time I would think.

Remember the movie "Land Before Time"?  I had a discussion with the guy who made that movie - Don Bluth-  who is LDS - on the idea that time itself is a human construct due to our experiencing things that happen sequentially.  There are no words even to express the concept that do not have time built into them.   We have no clue what it would be like to experience an eternal present- which some believe is the way God experiences things

It might be said that dinosaurs existed "before time" in some sense- and I think that was the reason for the title of the movie

But of course even saying that is self-contradictory because then there was no "before" so nothing could be "before" time. 

Aint logic grand? 

 

I suppose.

After all this time, I have concluded that the Universe as we see is entirely within Time, but since God is outside of Time, He sees all of it from outside Time.  He thus knows it all from the moment of the Big Bang to its ultimate ending, however long that might be -- everything within that Universe has already happened, at least to Him.  He may experience something that is analogous to Time, wherever He dwells, but whatever it is, it is not what we call Time.  

 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose.

After all this time, I have concluded that the Universe as we see is entirely within Time, but since God is outside of Time, He sees all of it from outside Time.  He thus knows it all from the moment of the Big Bang to its ultimate ending, however long that might be -- everything within that Universe has already happened, at least to Him.  He may experience something that is analogous to Time, wherever He dwells, but whatever it is, it is not what we call Time.  

 

I like to think that for Him time is a ritual.

Just like you know what's coming in the temple, he acts it all out as it happens

[Stargazer]

On 11/24/2018 at 7:07 PM, Stargazer said:

In the 1962 movie "The Bible: In the Beginning", when the three angels show up to talk to Abraham, they are played by Peter O'Toole, and as each one's face is shown, they all look like Lawrence of Arabia.  Rather creepy, actually.

After posting this I became urgently interested in finding a video of this scene, but couldn't find it anywhere.  I finally got ahold of a copy of the film on DVD, ripped the scene, and posted it on my YouTube channel.  The special effect is highly interesting (as well as creepy), and I'm trying to work out how to do it using my consumer-grade video editing software.

Here's the scene (just the angels doing their three-face act). Had to do some editing to get the audio up and the lighting right.  I don't think the commercial film to video conversion went very well.

 

[Calm]

Thanks for doing this, I could only find stills that hid most of two faces.

It is blocked...sigh.

when I get rep points again in an hour or so, you will get some for the effort.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thanks for doing this, I could only find stills that hid most of two faces.

It is blocked...sigh.

when I get rep points again in an hour or so, you will get some for the effort.

Yeah, I just got an email from YT telling me about it.  My channel has a number of little snippets of copyrighted this and that, but this is the first time I got dinged for it.  I kind of thought keeping it short would be OK.  

Oh well.