21 May '19 15:19>2 edits
@Suzianne
Eladar is correct that this thread continues, tangentially, from a previous one. However, you are correct that I never supposed or said that Abraham would have known about Paul. That would be anachronistic, obviously.
My question concerns a sort of hierarchy of authority, but not a chronology of authority, involving God, angels, apostles, and Paul.
In Galatians, Paul claims to be both an apostle, and to have a higher authority even than angels. This is puzzling. Someone should think about this.
Furthermore, I am not convinced by the idea that angels' authority is equivalent to God speaking directly to man. There is a practical problem, as I see it, for a man who finds himself addressed by an angel, or what he takes to be an angel (viz. Joseph Smith), given the previous case of a fallen angel who led mankind astray. How is mortal man to distinguish angels from fallen angels? I don't accept the claim, made by some posters here, that an angel talking to man simply is God talking to man. There is very definitely a hierarchy in heaven; this is well-documented. I'll search out a link, if you insist.
You asked why a fallen angel would not tell Abraham to kill his son, to defeat the prophecy that Abraham's seed would be propagated through Isaac. My idea was of a more general nature, that a fallen angel would tempt Abraham to disobey God's command, whatever that command was, as Satan tempted Eve to disobey (whatever the command was). God gave a direct command, not to eat the fruit of a certain tree in the Garden, and a fallen angel tempted Eve to do it. As I see it, the issue is not "which particular tree was forbidden", but "disobedience in general."
And now we are discussing a prima facie similar case: God has told Abraham in direct speech to kill his son, but an angel appears and tells Abraham to disobey that command. As I see it, the issue is obedience/disobedience, not the particulars of how Abraham's lineage will be propagated through Isaac (since God could resurrect a killed Isaac).
How is Abraham to know that this is not a fallen angel, telling Abraham to do what Abraham obviously wants to do (namely not to kill his son) against what God previously told him to do?
Why should Abraham think that an angel can countermand what God said before? I don't really expect a definitive answer to the question. I just want people to think about it. KellyJay said he'd never thought about this before, but now he has; and even if thinking about it does not ultimately change his opinion about the story of Abraham and Isaac, his opinion will now be better informed, having thought about it.
Eladar is correct that this thread continues, tangentially, from a previous one. However, you are correct that I never supposed or said that Abraham would have known about Paul. That would be anachronistic, obviously.
My question concerns a sort of hierarchy of authority, but not a chronology of authority, involving God, angels, apostles, and Paul.
In Galatians, Paul claims to be both an apostle, and to have a higher authority even than angels. This is puzzling. Someone should think about this.
Furthermore, I am not convinced by the idea that angels' authority is equivalent to God speaking directly to man. There is a practical problem, as I see it, for a man who finds himself addressed by an angel, or what he takes to be an angel (viz. Joseph Smith), given the previous case of a fallen angel who led mankind astray. How is mortal man to distinguish angels from fallen angels? I don't accept the claim, made by some posters here, that an angel talking to man simply is God talking to man. There is very definitely a hierarchy in heaven; this is well-documented. I'll search out a link, if you insist.
You asked why a fallen angel would not tell Abraham to kill his son, to defeat the prophecy that Abraham's seed would be propagated through Isaac. My idea was of a more general nature, that a fallen angel would tempt Abraham to disobey God's command, whatever that command was, as Satan tempted Eve to disobey (whatever the command was). God gave a direct command, not to eat the fruit of a certain tree in the Garden, and a fallen angel tempted Eve to do it. As I see it, the issue is not "which particular tree was forbidden", but "disobedience in general."
And now we are discussing a prima facie similar case: God has told Abraham in direct speech to kill his son, but an angel appears and tells Abraham to disobey that command. As I see it, the issue is obedience/disobedience, not the particulars of how Abraham's lineage will be propagated through Isaac (since God could resurrect a killed Isaac).
How is Abraham to know that this is not a fallen angel, telling Abraham to do what Abraham obviously wants to do (namely not to kill his son) against what God previously told him to do?
Why should Abraham think that an angel can countermand what God said before? I don't really expect a definitive answer to the question. I just want people to think about it. KellyJay said he'd never thought about this before, but now he has; and even if thinking about it does not ultimately change his opinion about the story of Abraham and Isaac, his opinion will now be better informed, having thought about it.