Jump to content

Photo

More Angels And Such Like (Some Adult Themes Herein-Beware!)


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,714 posts
2,127
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 05 March 2014 - 12:53 PM

In another post, Bro. Garry said:

 

 

I have stayed away from this topic only because I have not found enough definitive scripture one way or the other to dogmatically state whether the "sons of God" were men or angels. I just put this with the LONG list of questions I will ask my Lord when I see Him in heaven. I do tend to "lean" towards their being angelic beings but the questions and complications that brings up are many. Such as, if they are offspring from an angelic being, they would have no imputed sin from Adam. It is clear however, that angels are capable of sin since Satan (who was NOT an angel but a cherubim) was able to take away many angels that fell with him. It is also clear that the offspring were evil continually in their thoughts, imaginations and actions since they were destroyed with the flood.

 

Maybe as a topic of another thread, would be the question "Is man sinful and commit sins solely because of our imputed sin from Adam giving us a sin nature by default, or does man, separate from any influence from Satan have it within himself to be sinful?" I sometimes wonder if God's purpose for binding up Satan for a 1,000 years during the millennial reign, isn't a proof that even with Satan's influence upon man taken away (Flip Wilson: "the devil made me do it") that man still can chose and commit sin of his own accord. Please don't answer this question on this thread! Let's open another thread if you think this is a worthy topic of discussion.

 

I thought this worthy of conversation, and as he requested, I have brought it here.

 

inherent sin from the line of Adam not being passed by the sons of God, if they were, indeed, angels, is a compelling thought. One that I don't believe has been brought up. Would a fallen angel, IF able to successfully copulate with a human female, pass on their particular sin as the sin of Adam is passed from father to child? Would it be, like super-sin? Or, another question to bring to the table, to angels, fallen or otherwise, even in bodily form, have blood? If not, how could they reproduce, since a majority of the male, um, fluid, is made up of blood cells?

 

Concerning the evil thoughts continually, however, this was spoken specifically about men, not any half-angel offspring of whose reality we discuss. As well, the Lord sad, after the flood, "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." (Gen 8:21). So even after the flood, man's imagination was evil from youth, really no different than it had been before the flood.

 

Now, the issue of Satan being cast 1,000 years into the bottomless pit, I see it like you do: Man has blamed Satan for his sin for thousands of years, (Like Flip Wilson, as you said). We know that Satan initially induced man to fall and brought sin upon mankind, but it was MAN that fell, and man could have chosen NOT to fall. And I suspect, had that been the case, Lucifer would possibly have been judged then and there and his influence would have been removed. Just my thought-not doctrine.  But since sin is IN man now, as you infer, I believe that as natural man continues in sin, even with Jesus ruling in perfection upon the earth, and even after 1,000 years without Satan's direct influence, (nor, I suspect, his angels, though again, just speculation), that man will turn to Satan in droves when he is released, will be primarily to allow no excuse for man when they are judged in their sin. No blaming anyone: even with God on earth, even with the wicked one removed, they still continue in sin and rejection.



#2 2bLikeJesus

2bLikeJesus

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
713
Excellent
  • LocationRoseburg, OR

Posted 05 March 2014 - 02:07 PM

This is exactly how I have thought of the 1,000 year reign of Christ.  The removal of any excuse by man that it was not his fault that he sins, but it was entirely on the shoulders of Satan and therefore, judgement against man in their eyes would be unjust.  Only Eve was deceived NOT Adam.  Adam sinned with his eyes open and willingly for whatever motive.  I reject the conjecture made by some (don't ask me where or how they come up with this stuff) that Eve through stealth mixed the forbidden fruit in with what she gave to Adam. I can only imagine that those attempting to hold such a view are just following what most people in today's society do, place blame on someone else and never accept personal responsibility for their actions.  In fact the first defense Adam gave to God when asked if he had partaken of the tree was:  Genesis 3:12 (KJV12  And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. Man is always trying to deflect blame for his sin on someone else.  As you have rightly said, man has been blaming Satan for his sins since Adam and Eve.  God will show that His judgement is a righteous judgement.  

 

Bro. Garry



#3 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,714 posts
2,127
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 05 March 2014 - 02:59 PM

I liken this to the Pharisees: they continually, for three years, witnessed Jesus performing impossible miracles, even admitting that He was sent from God because such things were not possible, except Gos be with Him. And that was early in His ministry.  Yet, once on the cross, they said, "Come down from the cross and we will believe you!" No, they wouldn't have: they would have grabbed Him and nailed Him back up, because they had already willingly and knowingly rejected Him for who He was. There is nothing great enough to change the mind for one willing to reject.



#4 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2014 - 12:45 AM

The more interesting question is:

 

When a saved man marries an unsaved woman does their children turn out to be giants?



#5 Standing Firm In Christ

Standing Firm In Christ

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,213 posts
1,247
Excellent
  • LocationSee Bio

Posted 06 March 2014 - 01:04 AM

Another thought...

Hebrews 10:5 (KJV) 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Just as God had to prepare a body for His Son, would not He have had to prepare bodies for fallen angels? (In order for them to reproduce, as some claim happened) and if He prepared flesh and bone bodies for them, would this not mean He ordained such a union between they and women?

See where such nonsense leads? That's right... Calvinistic Puppetmaster Gospel.

#6 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,714 posts
2,127
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:33 AM

The more interesting question is:

 

When a saved man marries an unsaved woman does their children turn out to be giants?

Where does the Bible say that the children of the SOG and DOM were giants? It says:

 

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

There are two clear statements made here:

 

1: There were giants in the earth in those days. end of statement one.

 

AND ALSO AFTER THAT...

 

2: "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

So, there were giants, and then some folks had some babies and they became, (not, they were-they became, they made an effort and becamme) mighty men.

 

The union didnt bring about giants, they were already there.



#7 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:37 AM

Where does the Bible say that the children of the SOG and DOM were giants? It says:

 

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

There are two clear statements made here:

 

1: There were giants in the earth in those days. end of statement one.

 

AND ALSO AFTER THAT...

 

2: "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

 

So, there were giants, and then some folks had some babies and they became, (not, they were-they became, they made an effort and becamme) mighty men.

 

The union didnt bring about giants, they were already there.

They were already there? Well, were did they come from? Does the union of unsaved folks (and only unsaved folks) bring about a race of giants? 

 

The "and also after that" refers to a period of time AFTER those days prior to the flood. That is, after the flood there were also giants born of women like in the case of Goliath. Therefore, the giants were a result of the "sons of God" mating with the daughters of men. This is why none of the people in the bible associated with the sons of God were to be spared. In every case any people that had giants dwelling among them were to be totally wiped out.

 

..."and after that (i.e. after those days) WHEN  the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men". The word "when" is used as a conjunction in this case explaining the time and manner by which the giants came to be. Therefore some of the giants existed before the flood and some after the flood and this came about as a result of a cohabitation between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

 

In every case in the OT the "sons of God" were angels. Every case in the NT the "sons of God" are born again believers but there were no born again believers in the OT. Anyone who thinks those folks in the OT were born again cannot differentiate between the ministry of the Spirit in the OT and his ministry in the NT.  In fact, the whole fallacy of teaching that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were born again men is a failure to understand that no one in the OT was born again or had the nature of Christ created within him. 



#8 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,714 posts
2,127
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:58 AM

They were already there? Well, were did they come from? Does the union of unsaved folks (and only unsaved folks) bring about a race of giants? 

 

The "and also after that" refers to a period of time AFTER those days prior to the flood. That is, after the flood there were also giants born of women like in the case of Goliath. Therefore, the giants were a result of the "sons of God" mating with the daughters of men. This is why none of the people in the bible associated with the sons of God were to be spared. In every case any people that had giants dwelling among them were to be totally wiped out.

 

..."and after that (i.e. after those days) WHEN  the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men". The word "when" is used as a conjunction in this case explaining the time and manner by which the giants came to be. Therefore some of the giants existed before the flood and some after the flood and this came about as a result of a cohabitation between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

 

In every case in the OT the "sons of God" were angels. Every case in the NT the "sons of God" are born again believers but there were no born again believers in the OT. Anyone who thinks those folks in the OT were born again cannot differentiate between the ministry of the Spirit in the OT and his ministry in the NT.  In fact, the whole fallacy of teaching that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were born again men is a failure to understand that no one in the OT was born again or had the nature of Christ created within him. 

Are we going to continue the same fruitless circles in this thread, as well? Not really the point of thids thread, but okay.

 

Clearly, the wording does not meet your understanding of it; I'm not going to reiterate what I have said, so feel free to read it again, but it clearly is making two separate statements, one on giants and one one the SOG and DOM marriages. Nowhere are they connected.

 

As far as whether the sons of God are 'always angels" only once does the context pretty clearly back that up. Both times the sons of God are seen presenting themselves before God, this could easily be believers presenting themselves before the Lord, as believers did in various places in the OT. Does not have to be angels, either in content or context. And Satan often is seen among brethren, because he is a counterfeiter.

 

As well, I don't believe the earth and man would be judged and destroyed because of what Angels did, fallen or otherwise-they would be judged of themselves.



#9 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2014 - 11:15 AM

Are we going to continue the same fruitless circles in this thread, as well? Not really the point of thids thread, but okay.

 

Clearly, the wording does not meet your understanding of it; I'm not going to reiterate what I have said, so feel free to read it again, but it clearly is making two separate statements, one on giants and one one the SOG and DOM marriages. Nowhere are they connected.

 

As far as whether the sons of God are 'always angels" only once does the context pretty clearly back that up. Both times the sons of God are seen presenting themselves before God, this could easily be believers presenting themselves before the Lord, as believers did in various places in the OT. Does not have to be angels, either in content or context. And Satan often is seen among brethren, because he is a counterfeiter.

 

As well, I don't believe the earth and man would be judged and destroyed because of what Angels did, fallen or otherwise-they would be judged of themselves.

No sense of answering you again, bro. It doesn't matter that much though I will point out you started the thread and you asked the question about "super sin" in the offspring by which I simply posted another question about how the giants came into being. I shouldn't think I should be rebuke for posting an opinion you may not agree with.


Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 06 March 2014 - 11:16 AM.


#10 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,610 posts
586
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 11 March 2014 - 06:59 PM

There were also Giants after the flood.

 

Deut. 3:11  For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
 
And then there was Goliath and his sons.  
 
2Sa 21:16  And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David.
2Sa 21:18  And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant.
2Sa 21:20  And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.
2Sa 21:22  These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
1Ch 20:4  And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; at which time Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Sippai, that was of the children of the giant: and they were subdued.
1Ch 20:6  And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot: and he also was the son of the giant.
1Ch 20:8  These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500