The Ex passage makes no sense if it is not understood that it was Moses'
privates which were touched. I don't know offhand where you get the idea
that angels were supposed to be sexless creatures since Enoch certainly
portrays them as sexual. I'm not Peter, however, so I won't argue the
point with you until the cows come home. Believe what you will since
you're the one who will miss the significance of the text (and not merely
with respect to Ex 4.25).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.