Matthew Umbarger

June 2-5, Anno Domini 2021 Wichita, KS Call for Papers The Patristic View of Baptism Public Proclamation or Salvific Sacrament? Co-sponsored by Eighth Day Institute and the Gerber Institute for Catholic Studies, the Florovsky-Newman Week promotes a “return to the sources for Christian unity.” This year we are concentrating on questions related to baptism, and so we invite contributions with a focus on (but not limited to) the following topics: Baptism in Scripture Baptism & Ecumenism Baptism in Iconography Fr. Georges Florovsky Sacramental Theology Baptism in the Church Fathers Church History St. John Henry Newman We welcome contributions from instructors, scholars, students, and ministers from all Christian traditions. Papers will be presented on Th-Fri mornings (June 3-4). The presenter should be prepared to speak for 15-20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of Q-&A. Please send your proposal (max. 300 words) together with a short bio (max. 50 words) by May 15, 2021 to Matthew Umbarger at umbargerm@newman.edu with “Florovsky-Newman Proposal” in the subject of the email. Prospective contributors will be informed as soon as possible, by May 20, 2021 at the latest. We are also accepting short essays on the conference theme for Eighth Day Institute’s blog. Please send your submission (700-1500 words) with a short bio (max. 50 words) by May 1, 2021 to Erin Doom at erin@eighthdayinstitute.org. INFORMATION & REGISTRATION eighthdayinstitute.org/florovsky-newman-week-2021 or 316.573.8413 Sponsored by Newman University & Gerber Institute for Catholic Studies

In the New Covenant, we are instructed to bless and not curse (Romans 12:14). So, when we pray these Psalms, we have to do so with a few provisos: 1. With an understanding that we have moved past that stage of revelation. 2. With the understanding that these Psalms are more about confessing our frustration, and bringing our emotional state to God, than actually wishing harm on someone. 3. With the spiritual understanding that our real enemies are the demonic powers. So, we can absolutely pray these Psalms in spiritual warfare, as long as they are not directed against human enemies.

Yes, Tzephanayahu, the fundamental purpose of sacrifice is worship. We tend to focus to much on the instrumentality of it, what it achieves. But sacrifice works because it is not a tool, but worship. So, consider this: when Jesus offered Himself on the cross, He was actually giving Himself in worship to the Father.

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 3: 14-15

Deuteronomy 18:16 talks about the "yom ha-qahal," the Day of the Assembly, on which God gave His Torah to Israel gathered around Mt. Sinai to receive His Word. The word "qahal" is translated as ekklesia in the Greek Septuagint. This is the word we translate "Church." So, the Assembly of Israel and the Church are the same thing. No distinction. Gentile Christians are grafted onto Israel, Christ's Bride.

I have to say this: the only places that I have found that talk about the bridegroom coming as a surprise are Christian sources, so I am a bit skeptical.

It reminds me of Chuck Missler, who has been shown to rely on and plagiarize New Age sources. See here.

See, I think of spirit/s in less concrete terms. A spirit is a rational life principle participating in God's image and likeness. So, my cactus has a botanical soul, my dog has an animal soul, and I have a spiritual soul, meaning that the life principle specific to me will live forever, is capable of making moral decisions, can carry on rational thought, and, by God's grace, participates in the divine nature. But at its root, my spirit is simply what animates my body. The mystery is how there can be bodiless spirits like angels. But this does seem to be the testimony of Scripture, as DeighAnn shared above. It is a mystery because the only kind of life that we have direct experience with is bodily life. I think we will have to cordially disagree about the relevance of physics for all of this.

Oh. Thank you for the clarification. I understand your point now. That is certainly an interesting, and unique interpretation. I am sure that I have never heard that Jesus was referring to a literal rock when He said that ....

I am open to all kinds of things. Michael37's example is certainly very Babel-ly. The ambitions that drove the construction of the Tower of Babel are still very much a part of our human drives. They manifest themselves in personal ways, but I suspect there must be national and even globalist examples, as well. And I do think that the coming of the Man of Sin looks to be a recapitulation of the Babel event. However, I would not hazard a guess as to how close we are to that. (But the enemy is always attempting to move towards this, I think).

Hebrews 13:2: Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Trying to ignore most of the comments about the Catholic Church .... Truthfully, I completely disagree with Augustine on this particular point. The evidence from Enoch and other second Temple literature is pretty good testimony to the "angelic beings" interpretation of the "sons of God." And the New Testament seems to attest to it, as well, as you mention. But Augustine didn't invent it. Very similar ideas show up in rabbinic literature. (Maybe you tried to say something about that. I couldn't understand everything that you wrote about "the Rabbis"). But, already in Targum Onkelos, which is at least as old as the second century AD, you get "beney ravravaya" as the translation for the "beney Elohim." That translates to "the sons of the lordly ones." So, obviously not a reference to God, because it is in the plural. Even though I have to disagree with Augustine and the others about this, I appreciate what they were trying to do. They have a quandary. Jesus said that angels do not marry nor are they taken in marriage. But here you have a story about angels that seem to do just that. So, Augustine is simply trying to harmonize two difficult passages. Even if he is wrong, his motivation is a conviction that the Scriptures are true, which I admire. I wonder what you think the Catholic Church's motive for doing this could be? What does it mean to "presume it to be a papish thing"? Though Augustine's view on the "sons of God" is dominant in the Catholic Church today, it has never been defined as dogma, and I don't suppose that it ever will be.

Not sure what the "ten day trial" is.

DeighAnn, I think that we basically agree. I was responding to some of the objections that others had posed here based on those texts that refer to angels interacting with human beings, including eating things (as Abraham's three visitors did). Whether or not an angel can choose to assume bodily form is an interesting question. But it is certainly not their natural state, as you demonstrate with those brilliant texts you assembled for us. In fact, elsewhere Aquinas goes so far as to say that the bodies that angels assume are not even living bodies, but a sort of temporary organic machine that they use to interact with the physical world. As for whether or not demons can do the same sort of thing, I acknowledge that there is no explicit evidence that they can. I think that this partly explains the phenomenon of possession. Some will probably counter that Genesis 6 talks about the sons of God (angels?) having sexual relations with the daughters of men. This is a troublesome text, and it has been argued about for ages. Personally, I think that the best solution has been proposed by a biblical researcher named Bruce Vawter in a book that he wrote on Genesis in the 1970s. He suggests that what is going on is probably pagan sex rituals here. A priest in the guise of a false god is vicariously copulating with the daughters of men in question. Obviously, these gods are nothing more than demons, i.e., fallen angels, or "sons of God," and the priests involved are surely possessed by them. But we have to humbly confess that we don't have much biblical revelation on the matter. All this to say, I agree with you: angels don't (under normal circumstances!) have physical bodies that could travel through a material portal manufactured with a supercollider.

And I didn't intend for this to become a theology discussion, or I would have started in that part of the forum. But, since we're here, I am enjoying the give and take. But I apologize if it's a problem that it has gotten into theology.