• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Daniel 9:21, The Man Gabriel

sooda

Veteran Member
Not when Daniel said, The Man Gabriel, that's quite obvious
As Daniel said nothing about Gabriel appeared like a man, No
Daniel plainly said ( the Man Gabriel)

Now notice heres what Daniel said
The man Gabriel.

"Yet, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation" Daniel 9:21

( The Man Gabriel)

Start reading at "the Syriac".....

Daniel 9:21 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member

There's your problem, you listen to what man's teachings will say. Instead of listing to what God teaches in his word.

So you expect me to take man's word over God's word.
Is it any wonder why people are so confused. That they put man's word over and above God's word, Thereby making God's word Void. Empty.

If that's you want go for it,
But I will always put God's word first and over and above what any man has to say.

So I really don't care what some man has to say.
What Prophet Daniel said is good enough for me.
As Prophet Daniel said ( The Man Gabriel)
Thats solid and seals it.

If you have a problem with what Daniel said I guess you'll have to take it up with him and Christ Jesus on Judgement day.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
There's your problem, you listen to what man's teachings will say. Instead of listing to what God teaches in his word.

So you expect me to take man's word over God's word.
Is it any wonder why people are so confused. That they put man's word over and above God's word, Thereby making God's word Void. Empty.

If that's you want go for it,
But I will always put God's word first and over and above what any man has to say.

So I really don't care what some man has to say.
What Prophet Daniel said is good enough for me.
As Prophet Daniel said ( The Man Gabriel)
Thats solid and seals it.

If you have a problem with what Daniel said I guess you'll have to take it up with him and Christ Jesus on Judgement day.
Tell me: has God stopped talking to us humans as if everything has already been said and clarified about what He does and why?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Will it's sure evidence that Isaiah is not saying what your trying to say

That Isaiah wasn't alive during the exile in Babylon??

If he wrote it , he's writing his version of history.. which gets a bit weird because the good figs went into exile and were treated well.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Tell me: has God stopped talking to us humans as if everything has already been said and clarified about what He does and why?


Nope not at all, has God stop talking to us, that why God talks to us throughout his word the bible/scriptures.

God clarified everything we need to know in his word. And everything has been said in God's word.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
There's your problem, you listen to what man's teachings will say. Instead of listing to what God teaches in his word.

So you expect me to take man's word over God's word.
Is it any wonder why people are so confused. That they put man's word over and above God's word, Thereby making God's word Void. Empty.

If that's you want go for it,
But I will always put God's word first and over and above what any man has to say.

So I really don't care what some man has to say.
What Prophet Daniel said is good enough for me.
As Prophet Daniel said ( The Man Gabriel)
Thats solid and seals it.

If you have a problem with what Daniel said I guess you'll have to take it up with him and Christ Jesus on Judgement day.

The Bible says the angel Gabriel appeared to him as a man.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Nope not at all, has God stop talking to us, that why God talks to us throughout his word the bible/scriptures.

God clarified everything we need to know in his word. And everything has been said in God's word.
So believe that the universe was created in 7 days?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In searching out in many bible translations, to find out exactly what other bible translations would have for
Daniel 9:21. For the man Gabriel

So I search out in many other Translations, just to see if any changes were done on the book of Daniel 9:21.
For the angel Gabriel to be called a man.

But as it turned out, all have the same thing. No changes about the Angel Gabriel as being called a man.

So I post a number of other Translations
For all to compare for themselves.

Jewish Tanaka Daniel 9:21
21While I was still speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision at first, approached me in swift flight about the time of the evening offering"

Bible KJV Daniel 9:21
21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening offering"

Bible NIV Daniel 9:21
"while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice"

Bible ASV
Daniel 9:21 (ASV) yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation"

Bible BBE
Daniel 9:21 (BBE) Even while I was still in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at first when my weariness was great, put his hand on me about the time of the evening offering"

Bible CEB
Daniel 9:21 (CEB) while I was still speaking this prayer, the man Gabriel approached me at the time of the evening offering. This was the same Gabriel I had seen in my earlier vision. He was weary with exhaustion"

So as you can see and read no changes were done, that all read the same. The Angel Gabriel a man.

In the Strong's concordance of the Hebrew language
( 1403) Translation has it,
Gabriel the man of God

As I don't understand how many people can't accept it, The Angel Gabriel as being a Man.

What we have is the Celestial man which is the man of the heavenly. Angel Gabriel

And the Terrestrial man which is the man of the Earth. Human of flesh and blood.

As for myself which I prefer is the King James 1611 bible and the Jewish Tanaka and Tora and the Companion bible which has the Greek and Hebrew Translations into English language and the Strong's concordance of Greek and Hebrew languages into English.

Hi FaithofChristian

I simply wanted to make sure that I understand the point of your O.P. Are you pointing out that the angel Gabriel is also a man and wondering why other individuals do not seem to accept that an angel can also be a man, or wondering why they do not accept that an angel had gender?

I cannot remember a time that I did not think angels were related to mankind and, I am not sure if we can find a single scriptural example of a woman angel. (I've not researched it, but I can't think of an example where a woman angel was sent by God to mankind.) While I've never confronted the concept of Gabriel himself being a man, I do not see why this cannot be so. Since the words for angel and messenger are the same word, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a messenger (angel) is terrestrial in origin or from heaven and it is only the context that can tell us. (Frequently there is not enough textual context to tell.) At any rate, good luck coming to your own understanding of these issues.

Clear

σιτωσιω
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Hi FaithofChristian

I simply wanted to make sure that I understand the point of your O.P. Are you pointing out that the angel Gabriel is also a man and wondering why other individuals do not seem to accept that an angel can also be a man, or wondering why they do not accept that an angel had gender?

I cannot remember a time that I did not think angels were related to mankind and, I am not sure if we can find a single scriptural example of a woman angel. (I've not researched it, but I can't think of an example where a woman angel was sent by God to mankind.) While I've never confronted the concept of Gabriel himself being a man, I do not see why this cannot be so. Since the words for angel and messenger are the same word, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a messenger (angel) is terrestrial in origin or from heaven and it is only the context that can tell us. (Frequently there is not enough textual context to tell.) At any rate, good luck coming to your own understanding of these issues.

Clear

σιτωσιω

Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.

We can find this in Genesis 1:26--"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Notice above God said Let us, The ( us)
being angels.

Nope not all as I didn't come by these things of my own.
But thru the Spirit of God,

The Terrestrial man the earthly
and the Celestial man heavenly.
1 Corinthians 15:40.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi FaithofChristian

1) You offered your theory that “Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.” (faithofchristian post# 92), but then you give us information that does not support your theory and in fact supports gender.

For example, in support of your theory you say : “We can find this in Genesis 1:26--"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Notice above God said Let us, The ( us) being angels. "

You need to remember that your Christian theory and interpretations are not the same as the worldviews and interpretations of early Christians. In your theory, “us” apparently refers to “angels” while the early Christians interpreted the “us” to mean the Father and the Son. Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.' And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth.' These things he said to the Son." The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

I am not claiming that early Christianity is necessarily correct and you are necessarily incorrect, but I think early and most authentic Christian worldviews seem, in my estimation, to be more rational and more logical than the later Christian theories such as your theory.

2) You claim to come up with your theory “thru the spirit of God”.
The earliest Christians and also apostles claim personal revelation in supporting their interpretations which do not agree with yours.


3) Your last comment says “The Terrestrial man the earthly and the Celestial man heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:40.”

Firstly, if this is meant to be a quote, it is incorrect and 1 Cor 15:40 neither says this, nor does it support your theory of genderless angels.

Secondly, the quote confirms gender rather than supporting a genderless angel theory.


Does it make sense why I think early Christian interpretation and worldviews are more rational and more logical than your theory on this specific point? In any case, I wish you the best of luck in coming up with models and theories that makes sense to you. I hope your journey is good.


Clear
σιφυφυω
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Nice post Clear....you bring up some interesting points.
happy0034.gif


Hi FaithofChristian

1) You offered your theory that “Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.” (faithofchristian post# 92), but then you give us information that does not support your theory and in fact supports gender.

For example, in support of your theory you say : “We can find this in Genesis 1:26--"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Notice above God said Let us, The ( us) being angels. "

You need to remember that your Christian theory and interpretations are not the same as the worldviews and interpretations of early Christians. In your theory, “us” apparently refers to “angels” while the early Christians interpreted the “us” to mean the Father and the Son. Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.' And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth.' These things he said to the Son." The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

The apostle Paul made it clear too, though certain persons invalidate anything Paul wrote because he disagrees with their interpretation of things.

Concerning Jesus Paul wrote at Colossians 1:15-17....." He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." (NASB)

2) You claim to come up with your theory “thru the spirit of God”.
The earliest Christians and also apostles claim personal revelation in supporting their interpretations which do not agree with yours.

Its amazing how many versions of the truth there are from supposedly one God......? If there is one God, there is also one truth.....its out there somewhere and only God allows us to find it. (John 6:44) He does that collectively, not just individually. Those who go on personal interpretation, if no one else believes what they believe through their 'revelations' then they will be following a delusion which they have been persuaded to believe by God's enemy. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

3) Your last comment says “The Terrestrial man the earthly and the Celestial man heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:40.”

Firstly, if this is meant to be a quote, it is incorrect and 1 Cor 15:40 neither says this, nor does it support your theory of genderless angels.

Secondly, the quote confirms gender rather than supporting a genderless angel theory.

Angels are spirits, like God is. Paul describes them in Hebrews 1:14....."Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" No appearance of any angel was without gender. They all appeared as males for a very good reason. In Jewish society, women had no official status in positions of authority over men. The priests were all males.....the Patriarchs were the elders of their clans. Women had roles in Jewish life that were just as important, but never did they usurp the headship role of the male. If angels had appeared as women, then that would have undermined their authority.

How did angels "appear" then? As spirit creatures, they are not material beings.....so in order to deliver their messages to God's human servants, they had the ability to materialize bodies of flesh. Since the flood of Noah's day, the disobedient angels who materialized and engaged in sexual activity with human women abused this ability so God took it away from them. They were 'human' enough to produced a freakish offspring that had no right to live. God destroyed every last one of them in the flood.

Faithful angels like Gabriel however were still able to "appear" as men to deliver their messages to Daniel and also to Mary.

Do angels still walk among us? Paul seemed to think so....

Hebrews 13:2...."Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it."

Fascinating thought, isn't it?
confused0006.gif


Does it make sense why I think early Christian interpretation and worldviews are more rational and more logical than your theory on this specific point?

The early Christians had a very good handle on what was true according to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Only after the death of the apostles did the apostasy that they foretold begin to completely alter Christianity. In the succeeding centuries the "church" became so corrupt that it became unrecognizable. No wonder that at the judgment Jesus is forced to say "I never knew you, get away from me you workers of lawlessness". (Matthew 7:21-23)
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Hi FaithofChristian

1) You offered your theory that “Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.” (faithofchristian post# 92), but then you give us information that does not support your theory and in fact supports gender.

For example, in support of your theory you say : “We can find this in Genesis 1:26--"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Notice above God said Let us, The ( us) being angels. "

You need to remember that your Christian theory and interpretations are not the same as the worldviews and interpretations of early Christians. In your theory, “us” apparently refers to “angels” while the early Christians interpreted the “us” to mean the Father and the Son. Barnabas explains : "For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son:
'Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.' And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth.' These things he said to the Son
." The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

I am not claiming that early Christianity is necessarily correct and you are necessarily incorrect, but I think early and most authentic Christian worldviews seem, in my estimation, to be more rational and more logical than the later Christian theories such as your theory.

2) You claim to come up with your theory “thru the spirit of God”.
The earliest Christians and also apostles claim personal revelation in supporting their interpretations which do not agree with yours.


3) Your last comment says “The Terrestrial man the earthly and the Celestial man heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:40.”

Firstly, if this is meant to be a quote, it is incorrect and 1 Cor 15:40 neither says this, nor does it support your theory of genderless angels.

Secondly, the quote confirms gender rather than supporting a genderless angel theory.


Does it make sense why I think early Christian interpretation and worldviews are more rational and more logical than your theory on this specific point? In any case, I wish you the best of luck in coming up with models and theories that makes sense to you. I hope your journey is good.


Clear
σιφυφυω

That's because you chosen to follow man's teachings and not the teachings of Christ Jesus.
As Christ Jesus condemned the teachings of man's in Matthew 15:7-9
7--"You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 --"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 --"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"

Why would anyone want to follow man's teachings seeing that Christ Jesus condemned man's teachings, Man's teachings make void the word of God.

First of all this being man's teachings,
that the early Christians interpreted the “us” to mean, The Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
As it's clearly to see throughout the
bible/scriptures, that there is no where God reference females as angels, only angels as the sons of God.

In the book of Matthew 22:30, Christ Jesus clearly explains this.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"

The Angels in heaven are called the sons of God.
There is no females genders in heaven, As Christ Jesus clearly pointed out in Matthew 22:30

Even in the book of Job 1:6, clearly points out
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them"

As you can see and read, There are only
sons of God, no females genders.

That even in the book of Revelation 20:13--
11--"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works"

Notice in Verse 11 above this being at the Great White Throne Judgement of God's.

Then notice in Verse 13 ( man) this to indicates that at God's Great White Throne Judgement, every one is male gender and not female gender, also at God's Great White Throne Judgement everyone is Spirit beings like the angels that are in heaven
As Christ Jesus said back in Matthew 22:30.

There is no more female genders, only male genders in heaven. The sons of God.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A) Hi Deeje

thank you for your thoughts

1) Regarding the tendency for Christians to claim to generate their conflicting theories “thru the spirit of God”.
I very much agree that the tendency Christians have to claim “the spirit” and personal revelation as a source for their personal theories is highly overused. Because of this abuse, it almost means nothing nowadays when antagonists claim the spirit revealed their personal theory to them. Because of this abuse, it doesn’t enhance credibility of a claim to claim personal revelation, but rather makes a claim more suspect when a theory lacks historical data and rational logic to support it. This is not to say that personal revelation isn’t an authentic source of information, I think it is, the problem is that the claim has been so abused that one cannot tell the authentic from the inauthentic claim.


2) Regarding the part of your post that had to do with the gender of angels you mention :
No appearance of any angel was without gender. They all appeared as males for a very good reason. In Jewish society, women had no official status in positions of authority over men. The priests were all males.....the Patriarchs were the elders of their clans. Women had roles in Jewish life that were just as important, but never did they usurp the headship role of the male. If angels had appeared as women, then that would have undermined their authority.” (Deeje, in Post #94)

I agree that no female angels appear in their office of messenger (the word “angel” / greek ανγελοσ MEANS “messenger” just as the hebrew word for angel means messenger) in early Judeo-Christian Texts. This doesn’t necessarily mean there are no female angels per se, simply that all messengers sent to mankind in the early texts were male. Nor does this mean that a messenger can change from male to a non-gender or to a female gender, simply that the messengers described in these texts were male gender.

I do like your point that the context of the person to whom the messenger appears may affect both the message and the interaction of the messenger. For example, messengers from God seem to use the language and idiom of the individual they are sent to. I do not know to what extent they can or do change their appearance. The early Abbaton literature does mention the angel of death appearing kind to those who have lived good lives and he appears terrible to those who were unkind and did evil. I am not sure how much the author used metaphor in such descriptions.

3) Regarding your theory that angels are “Immaterial” beings
I do not know why you theorize that they are not material beings which have an ability to “materialize”. I suspect this theory of “immateriality” is simply a contamination from greek philosophy left over from the early religious thought which eschewed matter as it related to God in their attempt to create a more trancendent concept of God. (Perhaps this is where the theory of “ex-nihilo” creation came into being as well)



B) FaithofChristian

Regarding your claim that “Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.” (faithofchristian post# 92),

Your argument seems confused. Your post #95 supports MALE gender, not “genderless” or “non-gender” beings.

I wish you both wonderful spiritual journeys.

Clear
ακτζειω
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
A) Hi Deeje

thank you for your thoughts

1) Regarding the tendency for Christians to claim to generate their conflicting theories “thru the spirit of God”.
I very much agree that the tendency Christians have to claim “the spirit” and personal revelation as a source for their personal theories is highly overused. Because of this abuse, it almost means nothing nowadays when antagonists claim the spirit revealed their personal theory to them. Because of this abuse, it doesn’t enhance credibility of a claim to claim personal revelation, but rather makes a claim more suspect when a theory lacks historical data and rational logic to support it. This is not to say that personal revelation isn’t an authentic source of information, I think it is, the problem is that the claim has been so abused that one cannot tell the authentic from the inauthentic claim.


2) Regarding the part of your post that had to do with the gender of angels you mention :
No appearance of any angel was without gender. They all appeared as males for a very good reason. In Jewish society, women had no official status in positions of authority over men. The priests were all males.....the Patriarchs were the elders of their clans. Women had roles in Jewish life that were just as important, but never did they usurp the headship role of the male. If angels had appeared as women, then that would have undermined their authority.” (Deeje, in Post #94)

I agree that no female angels appear in their office of messenger (the word “angel” / greek ανγελοσ MEANS “messenger” just as the hebrew word for angel means messenger) in early Judeo-Christian Texts. This doesn’t necessarily mean there are no female angels per se, simply that all messengers sent to mankind in the early texts were male. Nor does this mean that a messenger can change from male to a non-gender or to a female gender, simply that the angels described were male gender.

I do like your point that the context of the person to whom the messenger appears may affect both the message and the interaction of the messenger. For example, messengers from God seem to use the language and idiom of the individual they are sent to. I do not know to what extent they can or do change their appearance. The early Abbaton literature does mention the angel of death appearing kind to those who have lived good lives and he appears terrible to those who were unkind and did evil. I am not sure how much the author used metaphor in such descriptions.

3) Regarding your theory that angels are “Immaterial” beings
I do not know why you theorize that they are not material beings which have an ability to “materialize”. I suspect this theory of “immateriality” is simply a contamination from greek philosophy left over from the early religious thought which eschewed matter as it related to God in their attempt to create a more trancendent concept of God. (Perhaps this is where the theory of “ex-nihilo” creation came into being as well)



B) FaithofChristian

Regarding your claim that “Angels do not have a gender, all angels and God are in the likeness and image of mankind.” (faithofchristian post# 92),

Your argument seems confused. Your post #95 supports MALE gender, not “genderless” or “non-gender” beings.

I wish you both wonderful spiritual journeys.

Clear
ακτζειω

Man being created in the likeness and image of the Angels and God.
By which says it all, As to what part of Man do you not understand.
Man refers to the Male gender and not to the Female gender.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi FaithofChristian

1) Regarding your changing arguments concerning angel and gender

Your arguments sound confused and inconsistent.
In the Opening Post you offer several scriptures that describe an angel as "...the man Gabriel".
Then in post #92 you claimed "Angels do not have a gender...".

Are you now arguing that angels/messengers described in the early Judeo-Christian texts DO have male gender? If so, we are in agreement and I do not see what you are attempting to argue about nor what your motive is for arguing.

2) Regarding your personal interpretation of Genesis 1:26.
I do not see the advantage of your personal interpretation of this passage over the interpretation of the earliest Christians. I think the early Christian interpretation is more rational and more logical and more coherent than your personal interpretation.

Clear
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Hi FaithofChristian

1) Regarding your changing arguments concerning angel and gender

Your arguments sound confused and inconsistent.
In the Opening Post you offer several scriptures that describe an angel as "...the man Gabriel".
Then in post #92 you claimed "Angels do not have a gender...".

Are you now arguing that angels/messengers described in the early Judeo-Christian texts DO have male gender? If so, we are in agreement and I do not see what you are attempting to argue about nor what your motive is for arguing.

2) Regarding your personal interpretation of Genesis 1:26.
I do not see the advantage of your personal interpretation of this passage over the interpretation of the earliest Christians. I think the early Christian interpretation is more rational and more logical and more coherent than your personal interpretation.

Clear

Look Angels do not have genders.

For some unknown reason, you keep trying to imply angels in the same category as human being of flesh and blood and angels are not like human being nor can b considered in the same category as humans of flesh and blood.
Just because angels look like the human male.
Doesn't mean they have all the aspects of the male human being.

Angels can not Reproduce themselves.
As human beings can.

Have you any idea or clue,Why angels can not reproduce themselves, because angels do not have the male genital system to reproduce themselves.

Only the male human of flesh and blood can reproduce themselves with the woman.
Angels do have these two factors, to reproduce themselves
As Angels would need the male genital system and a woman to reproduce themselves.
Which angels don't have either one of these
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi FaithofChristian

I am trying to find some rational logic and coherence for your personal theory that the “man Gabriel” does not have gender.

In the opening Post, YOU offered multiple versions of Daniel 9:21 “"while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice" and demonstrated multiple versions of the scripture describe him as “the man”.

YOUR conclusion in YOUR opening post concludes “As I don't understand how many people can't accept it, The Angel Gabriel as being a Man.” (FaithofChristian in post #1)

Your next personal theory is : “Look Angels do not have genders.” (FaithofChristian post #99)

You then offered yet another personal theory, saying “…angels do not have the male genital system to reproduce themselves. (FaithofChristian post #99)


I don’t see any rational logic behind these personal theories you offer us.

You first point out that the scripture refers to Gabriel as a “man”, then claim the “man Gabriel” doesn’t have a gender. You then offer another personal theory that “the man Gabriel” doesn’t have male genitalia.

Why do you conclude that “the man Gabriel” is not male?

Why do you conclude that ‘the man Gabriel” has no male genitalia?


Your first personal theory that a “the man Gabriel” of Daniel 9:21 has no gender when both the Greek and the Hebrew words in the text use the male gender (“man”) seems to me to be irrational, illogical, and incoherent.

Your second personal theory, that “the man Gabriel” has no genitalia also seems to be an irrational, illogical and incoherent theory.


1) Can you describe the rationale, the logic, the data and how these create coherent theories?

2) I do not think your personal theories and interpretations are as logical, as rational and as coherent as the early Christian worldviews and their interpretations (e.g. your personal interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that we’ve already discussed). Why should your personal interpretation of scripture have priority over the interpretation of early Christianity?

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and satisfying FaithofChristian.


Clear

ακδρτζω
 
Last edited:
Top