Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner
You had indicated, via Haanagraff, that angels can't do physical things like have sex. When I pointed out that they do indeed do physical things at times in the Bible (even to the point we're warned to be good in taking in hospitality since, who knows, it could be an angel), you drop your original objection and now say, "Of course."
Well, okay. I don't care how they got their physical bodies, I care only that there is scriptural proof that the lines of demarcation between angelic beings and human beings can at times be blurry.
And you have supported that point. Thank you.
SC
|
Your point was that the fallen angels in Genesis 6 could produce physical bodies on their own to have sex with human females. My point is the only evidence in the Bible of angels having physical bodies is with good angels. Thus I don't see any clear example of angels being able to produce these bodies on their own and so have no reason to believe they can.
My main problem with your argument was that you said Hanegraaff was not credible because he didn't know the difference between demons and fallen angels, and tried to use that as a means to diss his whole point. That's a red herring and it's a logical fallacy.
Besides, most fundamental theologians don't believe demons are essentially different than fallen angels. I have a book of basic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. And in case it's not known the overall widestanding belief by those in that school and I assume in like schools, is that demons and fallen angels are the same thing, except that demons are unconfined, not held "in chains" and thus are the ones which can influence us. So Hanegraaff really didn't need to define his terms bacause his belief is that demons are "free-roaming" fallen angels, which is the wide-standing belief.
As to demons and angels going by different names being evidence they are different, Satan goes by many names in the Bible but we don't consider him different beings.