- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 27 2009,04:56) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 27 2009,00:04) Hi KW,
Yes it seems only some of them are called sons.
Ps 89
6For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?
Psalms 89:5-7(NIV) reads:Quote The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD,
your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones.
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD ?
Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?
In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared;
he is more awesome than all who surround him.Psalms 89:5-7(NIV) reads:
Quote And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
It seems the various translators has a difference of opinion about who this passage was speaking against. I favor the angels over the saints because it seems to fit the context better.
I was watching TV and the same time I was writing and seem to have substituted “against” for “of” in this post. Please forgive me for my careless error.Nick Hassan wrote:
Quote So if sons of God can mean angels how can you be sure Gen6 is not referring to them?
The strongest argument just going by the context of Genesis is that the sons of God is referring to the line of Seth but other arguments such as the “sons of God” is aliens or angels will also work even though they are weaker as there is no mention of them previously except for the guardians of the tree of Life. Still we have more than just the text of Genesis to go by. That text shows us that angels and the people of God are both referred to in scripture as the “sons” or “children” of God but it also tells us that angels do not marry and are not given in marriage. I assume from what Jesus said that angels or demons do not have the desire for sexual intercourse and not constructed for it. I assume that because God condemns sex out of marriage and God made the angels. So the question becomes how do you interpret what Jesus said?
Hi KW,
Men are not called sons of God in scripture before Gen6
These verses deserve consideration too.2 Peter 2:4
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;Jude 1:6
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,Nick said:
Quote So what convinced you that these SONS were men? Nick,
How about verse 3,Quote My Spirit shall not always strive with MAN If the sons were angelic beings, then why did God punish MAN?
What does it take to get people to read the Bible in context?
thinker
Hi TT,
Gen6
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4There 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.
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Man is punished for wickedness
I realize you have been taught in accordance with the traditions of men but the traditions of men are often not in agreement with the traditions of God.
Nick Hassan wrote:
Quote Men are not called sons of God in scripture before Gen6
Neither are angels so what is your point as the only way we can define the term is from other parts of scripture.
Nick Hassan wrote:
Quote These verses deserve consideration too.
I am not informed about the traditional beliefs you have been taught so you need to inform me so I will understand what you speak of. As it sits I have no idea how you think these two passages relate to Genesis 6.
2 Peter 2:4(NIV) reads:
Quote For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
And
Jude 1:6(NIV) reads:
Quote And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Here is a source of the tradition we speak of.
Book of Enoch 2:1-8 reads:
Quote And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.
I do not put stock in it.
Here is the site that has the whole book of Enoch on it, or at least a lot of it.
Hi KW,
It is you who quotes Enoch.
At least it gives some possible validity to the thought they were angels but yours seems to be guesswork.Kerwin wrote:
Quote title “sons of God” is a generic term that is applied to more than just the angels. You have to figure out who is being spoken about by the context of the passage. In Job 1-2 they are presenting themselves to God in heaven and human beings cannot do that so the assumption is that the scripture is mentioning angels. Job 38 is speaking of the son of God that were there at the foundation of the earth and humans were not. Greetings Kerwin,
The sons of God in Job were also the godly line of Seth. People say that they were angels because they presented themselves before the Lord. Since the Lord was in heaven then the sons of God must have been angels. But the narrative oes not say that the scene was in heaven. God is present wherever men gather to worship Him.We are exhorted to comme boldly before the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16). But we are not in heaven when we come before the throne of grace. Psalm 95:2 says to “come before His presence with thanksgiving.” But we are not in heaven when we do this.
Therefore, the expression “they presented themselves before the Lord” does not prove that the scene took place in heaven. The sons of God are ALWAYS men in Scripture.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 27 2009,15:22) Hi KW,
It is you who quotes Enoch.
At least it gives some possible validity to the thought they were angels but yours seems to be guesswork.It is you who preach pretty much word for word what the false book of Enoch states. We could go more into the origins of the teaching you believe in because it sounds mighty close to the gods of Greek mythology mating with humans and their children being heroes of renown. Enoch even has a war of the Giants which happened in Greek mythology.
You have still not answered the question that “Since angels do not marry and are not given in marriage why do you think they have sex or even lustful thoughts?”
I do not believe in the trinity in the way it is traditionally taught for I find no biblical support for it but more importantly neither, Jesus or His closest apostles and disciples ever taught such a concept. Not until the years 85 A.D.? on until today has this nefarious doctrine been concocted promoted and defended or rather been given center stage and precedent, as Gospel truth, even to the extent that it gives the wrong idea that says erroneously, that if you do not believe in this seemingly benign dogma you are not saved, nor a True and Genuine Christian, as opposed to a nominal christian and non-christian as well, but rather you are lost, and can never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I however, do believe that Jesus is God and do not really see how by believeing this I am denying all that kerwin has stated that all who believe JESUS is God supposedly deny. If you can add some clarity to this I would be most appreciative, and will try to explain why I believe JESUS is God and its ramifications as best and succinctly as I can, all of which militates against and does deny any idea of a trinity, but leaves JESUS as the only true and living almighty God with both Him and His awesome name above and beyond any other name or any other god, whether imagined or real; to wit He has been given a name that is above all names…(Phil.2:9)and JESUS HIMSELF, even as THE EVERLASTING FATHER (Is 9:6 )”…is in the heavenly places, far above all principality, power and dominion and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come.(Ephesians 1:20-21 )
Hi TRE,
So how do you read 1 Cor15?24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. “
John 1 (King James Version)
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2The same was in the beginning with God.
Anyone who reads this verse and believes that Jesus “Is” the Word cannot believe in the trinity. The reason is simple.
First of all there is no 3 in 1 described here pertaining to the “beginning” and yet it is explaining God entirely.
Second, those who believe in the trinity also believe that the Son is not the Father and the Father is not The Holy Spirit so therefore saying the word was God would make Jesus(if he is the word) The Son, either The Father or The Holy Spirit and the son would be counted twice.
If the Word is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit i.e. God.
It is important when pointing out to someone who believes in the trinity that everytime they say God they are referring to a 3 in 1 composition.
When this point is kept in mind it becomes clear that if there are 3 personas in 1 and Jesus is one persona of the 3 then 1/3 of the persona of God died according to that belief.
If anyone wishes to debate this answer please do. But as far as this one verse there is no debate.
well if we were, for some strange unfathomable reason, absolutely restricted to just this one passage then Trinitarians would not be reasonable in believing in the Trinity. Thank the triune God above that this is not the case ehhhh? lol…. The 3 in 1, as you put it, is a doctrine based on the full counsel of God, not just one verse or passage.
Secondly, the second part of your post is, no offense, not reasonable or rational at all. The Logos is the Son is God… ok…? The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Just because is more than 1 name given to the Son, it hardly follows from this that we must therefore multiply personages. If this were the case then the Bible itself would be polytheistic, since God the Father has many names, YHWH-Yireh, YHWH-Rapha, YHWH-Niss, etc
As far as 1/3 of the godhead dying when Jesus died, this is so simplistic I can't believe that I have to respond to it…. yet… I am compelled….
Look, just as when a human dies, their existence does not terminate because a human is composed of body and spirit, so too, in the case of Jesus, when His physical body died on that awful Roman cross, His spirit lived on, and, most definitely, since He is both God and man, His existence continued beyond the death of His physical body.so to sum up, this post is certainly no slam dunk rebuttal of Trinitarianism, and just because you say that there is “no debate” regarding you particular and rather…. unique…. interpretation of John 1:1, it hardly follows that no debate exists.
blessings,
kenHi E,
You tell us Jesus did not lie and we agree.
Then why do you espouse what he never plainly taught?
Trinity is from the addled intellects of unspiritual theologians, not scripture.Is Jesus your Lord?
Quote (epistemaniac @ April 15 2009,07:07) well if we were, for some strange unfathomable reason, absolutely restricted to just this one passage then Trinitarians would not be reasonable in believing in the Trinity. Thank the triune God above that this is not the case ehhhh? lol…. The 3 in 1, as you put it, is a doctrine based on the full counsel of God, not just one verse or passage. Secondly, the second part of your post is, no offense, not reasonable or rational at all. The Logos is the Son is God… ok…? The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Just because is more than 1 name given to the Son, it hardly follows from this that we must therefore multiply personages. If this were the case then the Bible itself would be polytheistic, since God the Father has many names, YHWH-Yireh, YHWH-Rapha, YHWH-Niss, etc
As far as 1/3 of the godhead dying when Jesus died, this is so simplistic I can't believe that I have to respond to it…. yet… I am compelled….
Look, just as when a human dies, their existence does not terminate because a human is composed of body and spirit, so too, in the case of Jesus, when His physical body died on that awful Roman cross, His spirit lived on, and, most definitely, since He is both God and man, His existence continued beyond the death of His physical body.so to sum up, this post is certainly no slam dunk rebuttal of Trinitarianism, and just because you say that there is “no debate” regarding you particular and rather…. unique…. interpretation of John 1:1, it hardly follows that no debate exists.
blessings,
ken
If The word is God, wouldn't that mean what ever the word is, is what God is?The scripture doesn't say that the Word is the Son of God it says “was” or “is” God.
Also with out going off topic( and I will not let this go off topic) The many names of God are attributes such as Lord of Hosts, Almighty, Protector and so forth. but let's admit here that John 1:1 is completely anti-trinity as it only speaks of 2 things as it pertains to the beginning.
Is this scripture not including all of God?
That can't be because according to your belief God “Is” 3 in 1
so this scripture would mean that the Word = 3 in 1 so if Jesus is The Word and Jesus is the Son of God that would mean that Jesus is The Father, The son and The Holy Spirit.Because the scripture says that the Word is “with” God you can't simply say it is calling Jesus God because the Word i.e. Jesus i.e. The Son is “with” God who according to you is either 1 of the 3 or all three.
This is not about a single verse it is about an obvious flaw in trinity philosophy/theology.
Also if the Word “is” God then God “is” the word, it doesn't say that the word is what God is but that the word is God or what God was but was God. There is no sonship here at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
