Sunday, March 7, 2010

Aeviternity

Aeviternity has to do with perpetuity. Are we talking in this case about God’s nature or the world or what are we talking about? It is certain the present world will not live for ever. It is certain man will not live for ever since man dies. If man has to live for ever then it will be after Parousia. Thus we are left with one option; that of God. Does God have an end? Does He have certain things that He does not know; does He have certain things beyond his control?

Looking at IS 44:6 it would seem as though God has a place He ends: last because when you place competitors in numerical order from first to last, then you set an elasticity limit or indeed an end to the line. That will correlate with Rev 1:8. However, looking deeper into the verse, it would mean from the time of the beginning, he is the last God to exist. In that case, he has no end. Perhaps looking into the claims in Hebrews that “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8), then it is proper to talk of the aeviternity of God since Jesus is God.

Anything that came out of dust must return unto dust. The reason why man lives after Parousia is because the corruptible is changed to incorruptible and the mortal becomes immortal. Since the angels were amongst the host of heaven that was created, it is certain as heaven and earth will pass away the angels too will pass away.
In addition, since angels were created as ministering spirits (Heb 1:14) for God to serve man, it is sure that in a perfect world, we will no more need their services.
Besides, angels do not have aeviternity because they are made of clay. Lucifer being an angel was made of every precious stone (Ezek 28:13); consequently, every angel was made the same like Lucifer. Rather than take time to enumerate the precious stones, I used a geological generic term (clay) for all of them.

Here is where many go wrong. There is an image created there to provide guidance. Verse 12 talks well of Lucifer. If we consider the law of priority and proximity, the discourse on verse 12-15 talks of Lucifer (Satan), and not Babylon. So how can anyone argue that the passage is not talking about Lucifer? Isaiah was commissioned to take the imagery to the King of Babylon, but the image was that of Lucifer and not Babylon. Perhaps we should make some classification. There is a messenger (Isaiah), Recipient (King of Babylon) and Message (impending doom) delivered in a literary flavor of imagery. My questions to the Thomases would be:
1. Does this passage mention Lucifer (V 12)?
2. Is the passage for the King of Babylon (V 4)?
3. Is the message impending doom?
4. Is the usage of Lucifer an image?
Some have postulated that the term Lucifer was not referring to Satan it was referring to The King of Babylon.

As such we will revisit Ezek 28:13. So who does this verse refer to though: King of Babylon or Lucifer? If the King of Babylon as claimed, it means that human beings are made of precious minerals. Let us infer that since man comes from dust and unto dust shall return, then the first part could refer to the King of Babylon. What about the tabrets and pipes; do humans too have tabrets and pipes?

More so, others claim that the Bible says angels are depicted only as spirits. That is true but they are spirits with a physical nature too, yet the Bible gives us an inside into their nature. Look at Lk 24:37 and Heb 1:14. They have the same root word. They would refer to a spirit higher than man but lower than God. That can only refer to angels. Looking again further, angels were seen to appear as men. If not why would Hebrew say some have entertained angels without knowing (Heb 13:2). They did not know because they looked like men. Though they look like humans, they have spiritual abilities to appear and disappear. If Lucifer was an angel then he could have a nature reminiscent of all angels.

Just because they call Obama-Mr. President does not mean he is not human. Just because they call Lucifer-Satan which means an adversary does not mean he is not an angel. If he is an angel, and angels have a form different from humans, then he has a form, and that form is made of precious stones but with spiritual powers to appear and disappear.

Let us suppose that the passage about Lucifer was allegorical. It is still difficult to explain why anyone would not see that angels have a physical body too when they wanted to interact with humans. How would you describe the appearance of angels in Sodom and Gomorrah? Was that allegorical too? In what shape was the angel that spoke to Balaam? What about the angel that sat on an oak to speak to Gideon? Was the hand that the angel stretched forth to destroy Jerusalem allegorical too? Perhaps this is too much mysticism to a few, but to many it is just the rudiments of the bible that have eluded some of us.

This position is not neither based on “speculation” nor “bad hermeneutics” but on “a whole list of things” ingrained in the scripture. Some to contend the physical nature of angels claim that the Bible does not speak on angels. Then, we may not be reading the same Bible. The one I am reading gives at least ten instances where an angel appeared in concrete bodily form. It was not an anthropomorphic usage, allegoric, some extended metaphor or analogy. Suffer me this brief Biblical study on angels.

Gen 18:12. Abraham saw three men who happened to be angels.
Characteristic number one: angels could take human nature or structure.

Gen 19:1
Lot saw the angels coming; he rose up to meet them. I believe the sighting here was physical ands concrete and not some hallucination. If he saw them then they were not some subjective apparitions but concrete apparition. If they were concrete then they were physical.
Characteristic number two: Angels are physical beings too.

Num 22:23
It was no abstraction. The ass saw the angle standing. The ass is not a spiritual being and so could not have seen a spiritual being. If the ass saw the angel then it was \physical that is why the ass saw it. The angle is Physical; thus, correlates with Characteristic number 2.

Judges 2:1
The angel spoke. Speech is totally a human affair. Animals and birds hum and mutter sounds, but humans speak. That is one characteristic of language.
Characteristic number three. Angels speak.

Judges 6: 11-22
The angels spoke to Gideon, and he spoke back.
Characteristic number four 4: angels can hold conversations.

Judges 13:5
The angel gave instructions.
Characteristic number five: angels are intelligent.

Zech 1: 11-12
The angle preyed to intercede.
Characteristic number six: angels have compassion.

Lk 1:11-19.
Zechariah saw the angel, and the angel spoke to hm. This connects with characteristic two and three.

Some have even claimed that: “Again, being visible does not necessarily mean something is physical”. Anything that is visible has the ability to be seen and thus has material structure. Therefore, if angels could be seen; then, they have material structure too. This does not mean that they are always in a physical body. They were physical and could take human bodies to look entirely human. That is why people entertained them before realizing they were angels (Heb 13:2). If they did not have human bodies and human structure, then those who received them would have known they were unnatural.

Therefore, God has no beginning and has no end. He neither changes in nature nor in Spirit. He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. All other things that have a beginning will have an end according to God’s schedule.
Until then, over to you.

Prince & PA Hamilton Ayuk.

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk).
Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk).

Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Does Al Franken and Tweeden’s photo speak a thousand words?

Does Al Franken and Tweeden’s photo speak a thousand words? Before the advent of photoshop, a photo spoke a thousand words, but in...