Are the sons of God the angels?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 81 through 100 (of 170 total)

←1 2 3 456 7 8 9 →

Author
Posts
May 28, 2017 at 11:31 pm#819389
Proclaimer
Participant
Yet we know that Humans can be forgiven from their bad ways and wronful thinking – Why? Because they are GREATER Sons of God than Angels. Greater, in that Humans are made ‘In the Image of God’, whereas Angels are not.
Scripture teaches us why angels cannot be forgiven like men can be. The scripture I quote explains it well.
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age — and then have fallen away—to be restored again to repentance, because they themselves are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to open shame.…
In other words, angels have tasted of the Kingdom of God and some still rejected God in spite of living in the blissful presence of God. How can you be forgiven if you have tasted of the kingdom. If you reject that , then what else is there for you?
On the other hand, most humans have not experienced the Kingdom to that degree and many have not seen at all and yet have believed. They are blessed. But a human who has tasted and then decides to fall away and reject God, well what excuse do they have? Certainly not ignorance. Angels cannot plead ignorance, but most humans can. I know for a fact that most people I know that dislike God, it is not really because they dislike him, but that they dislike religion. I am willing to be bet that if they were shown heaven and how beautiful God was and how full of love he was, they would change their mind. But some are too foolish to even give God a chance.
May 29, 2017 at 1:27 am#819390
Jodi
Participant
Hi t8,
Yah I apologize, that was a VERY idiotic question on my part and I am feeling quite dumb and like a jerk! I’m sorry. What I should have simply said was that I don’t agree with the Sethite view that Seth’s descendants were all righteous and would have been considered Sons of God and all of Cain’ s descendants were evil. I will watch the whole video and see what he says as to his proof they were fallen angels, before I respond again.
May 29, 2017 at 1:52 am#819391
Jael
Participant
Please remember that ‘Father’ means, ‘He that brings forth [that which formerly was not]’.
Did God ‘bring forth the Angels’?
And do not forget that a ‘Son’ is ‘He who does the Will of the Father’.
Do [Holy] Angels ‘do the Will of the Father’?
And is not the definition of ‘God’, ‘He (or That) which is Supreme, Rules, Reigns, Sustains, above all [in context]’
Is the Father, ‘God’? (For clarity, I am referring to our Christian, and the same Jewish, God – ‘YHWH’ by name)
By default, then, ‘Father’ is ‘God’ and ‘God’ is ‘Father’…that is: ‘YHWH, Father of Spirits, creator (Recursively, ‘Father’!)
With these premises, are [Holy] Angels ‘Sons of God’?
If a ‘Son’ fails to do the Will of his Father, is he still a ‘Son’?
Unto the wicked, he would say, ‘Depart from me, Ye doers of iniquity, thou art no longer my Sons – I know Ye not!’
But unto the holy, it is said, ‘The Father loves his Son and shows him all that he doeth, and the Son doeth the Will of his Father’
May 29, 2017 at 3:56 pm#819392
Proclaimer
Participant
Thanks Jodi and Jael.
I watched a video just now with an opposing view. I have to say it doesn’t start well for me. He seems to believe a whole host of stuff that I do not agree with and uses verses out of context. For example, he appears to believe there are scriptures that say clearly that Jesus is God and Hell is eternal punishment. Regardless, I gave this guy a chance to explain his view that the sons of God are not angels, rather men. Again I think he failed. But you can make your own mind up if you decide to watch it.
May 30, 2017 at 1:34 am#819393
Jael
Participant
For me, there’s not much store put by in a video/utube of someone spouting their view over anything someone writes in, say, a Blog, webpage or forum.
Its all, ‘Their opinion’!
The good hope is that such persons MIGHT have done better research or received greater revelation (Greater?) concerning the scriptures (From whom does limited and possibly misleading revelation come?)
As can be discerned from what t8 said, even those who appear to somehow show a truth will also show great lapses and falsities… The unwary will believe BORT the truth AND THE FALSITIES!!!
As I have said before (maybe not only here):
“The BEST LIE consists of 95% truth…..!”
May 30, 2017 at 6:54 am#819394
Jodi
Participant
Hi t8,
I’m just going to go through my notes from watching the video.
The dude brings up Jude 1 and identifies that the strange flesh couldn’t mean homosexuality as strange means other or another, he then uses that to say they had to be angels. What he forgets or just doesn’t know is that there are 4 verses in the bible that forbids beastiality. It is horrible, unnatural, perverse, it defiles and is an abominable sin, resulting in the punishment of death. It is mentioned in Deut 27:21 and when you get to Deut 29 you see the warning not to follow as Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude is speaking of beastiality not sex with angels. The dude tries to use this to support that the men approaching Lot wanted to have sex with Angels. Nope, I really dont think so! The angels looked just like men, Lot recognized them as angels, however the wicked men only identifies them as MEN.
He explains 2 Peter and Jude identifying that its referring to fallen angels. As I have mentioned before I think it is far more biblically sound to identify them with the prophets mentioned in Jeremiah 23, where we see God’s prophets of being kicked out of God’s abode and punished into darkness, we also see in Jeremiah their fate is also compared with that of Sodom and Gomorrah. As you continue to read the rest of Jude it supports my stance all the more as he talks specifically about men and what draws a man to sin.
The dude says, “clearly the union caused the corruption of the flesh.” This goes against what Jude attributes it to, and is contrary to scripture throughout the bible. In the NT we see warning not to follow the ways of Cain. He was a devil- slanderer and murderer. There are ample scriptures that talk about man’s corruption, none of them even hint at being the cause of fallen angels having sex with humans.
He talks about Genesis 4:26 and he does bring up its incorrect translation. It should read, “At this time they profaned in the name of YHWH.” So what we see is in fact that corruption, not just what Adam brought into the world, or Cain, but also men began to even defile God’s name before we reach Genesis 6. He brings up the scripture that says God did not make his name known unto Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, well okay. Obviously in Genesis 4 His name was known. Lev 19:12 “you shall not profane the name of the Lord.” You have to know his name if you are going to begin to profane it, which is said to occur in Genesis 4. His point is to say the text doesn’t support that people at that time worshiped in His name. Enoch walked faithfully with God and God’s name was known clearly at that time. If some men are profaning His name I would think Enoch was surely worship God with it.
Yes all people during the time of Genesis 6 can most certainly be considered the sons of Adam. Those that are led by the Spirit are Sons of God, sounds like Enoch was certainly led by the Spirit. He talks about Jesus being begotten by God. Scripture clearly states in several places that Jesus was begotton of the seed of David according to the FLESH and DECLARED to be the Son of God with power according TO the spirit of holiness BY the resurrection of the dead. David’s seed, God according to His promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour. We also read that Jesus learned obedience by what he suffered and being MADE perfect he became the author of salvation. We have the first Adam and the second Adam, the clear difference between the two in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the man Jesus inherited imortality, having become heavenly. I don’t think this dude knows what the word Christ represents, which is anointed. Jesus was the prophesied man who would be anointed. Jesus represents Christ as the man anointed with God’s Holy Spirit. We shall be Sons of God being Sons of the resurrection.
He brings up 1 Corinthians 10 and doesn’t have a clue as to what it represents, this has got to be one of the most reaching points he tries to make. Woman ought to have a symbol on their head because of angels. Who are these angels? He wants them to be evil angels and they are nothing but the sort!! They are the angels that are present delivering unto righteous woman prophecy and delivering their prayers!! They are righteous angels and he’s trying to turn them into evil ones in order to fit his doctrine. 🙁

May 30, 2017 at 5:25 pm#819395
Proclaimer
Participant
The dude brings up Jude 1 and identifies that the strange flesh couldn’t mean homosexuality as strange means other or another, he then uses that to say they had to be angels. What he forgets or just doesn’t know is that there are 4 verses in the bible that forbids beastiality. It is horrible, unnatural, perverse, it defiles and is an abominable sin, resulting in the punishment of death. It is mentioned in Deut 27:21 and when you get to Deut 29 you see the warning not to follow as Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude is speaking of beastiality not sex with angels. The dude tries to use this to support that the men approaching Lot wanted to have sex with Angels. Nope, I really dont think so! The angels looked just like men, Lot recognized them as angels, however the wicked men only identifies them as MEN.
Well whether that is the case or not, I don’t see this point as crucial in the case he makes. But are you saying that Sodom was judged because of beastiality? If so, how do you arrive at that conclusion.
As an aside, men and angels are often interchanged. That might be because angel can mean messenger and men can be messengers. Note the men/angels that were at Jesus tomb and rolled away the stone. Which was it?
Matthew 28:2
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Mark 16:5-6
But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
Luke 24:2-5
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?
John 20:12
and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
Some think angels can take physical form like men. Others think that they could be the firstfruits from among men. Like Moses and Elijah to appeared next to Jesus in glorified form. Perhaps Moses and Elijah if they came to Earth to walk amongst us, would look like men.
Regardless, we are said to become like the angels.
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
May 30, 2017 at 5:51 pm#819396
Proclaimer
Participant
The dude says, “clearly the union caused the corruption of the flesh.” This goes against what Jude attributes it to, and is contrary to scripture throughout the bible. In the NT we see warning not to follow the ways of Cain. He was a devil- slanderer and murderer. There are ample scriptures that talk about man’s corruption, none of them even hint at being the cause of fallen angels having sex with humans.
Going by memory here. Noah was:
1. Righteous
2. Without blemish.
The latter word blemish/blameless is mentioned other times in scripture and often in context of genetics. ‘A lamb without blemish’. However, I can understand that it might be used as of a person’s character. If this was the case, why does it need to be mentioned as I would have thought ‘righteous’ would have covered that meaning. A bit like saying, tall and high. e.g., that building is tall and high. Or that person is small and tiny. I admit though that this might be the application.
May 30, 2017 at 6:04 pm#819397
Jael
Participant
t8, you asked ,
“They are now called ‘Demons’ (from ‘Demonic’) to reflect their destructive behaviour and influence in the physical world.
Do you have a verse, or is this inferred?
Well, No, I do not have a verse and, yes, it is inferred.
Your query would tend to have a suggestion that God created a specific group of ‘out of order’ spirit creatures – which would direct me to ask you, ‘Csn you point out s verse that states this – or are then you inferring?’
My guess is that it is way far easier, and crucially, correct, to say ‘Demons are fallen Angels’ than to say, ‘Demons are explicit creations of God’.
Qualifications:
1) Almighty God is ‘the Father of Spirits’
2) Satan is ‘the Father of the lie’ and ‘the destroyer’
3) Demons are destructive Spirits
4) Fallen angels seek to corrupt and destroy the souls of mankind.
May 30, 2017 at 6:13 pm#819398
Jael
Participant
Jodi and t8, why are you two arguing over a random meandering of some guy who (as both of you point out) is clearly missing ‘a few sandwiches short of a picnic’!
May 30, 2017 at 6:15 pm#819399
Jael
Participant
Sorry, I meant, ‘Can I ask why…….’.
May 31, 2017 at 6:00 am#819400
Jodi
Participant
Well it is good I think to see what the other side puts forth as evidence to support their belief, it usually draws me to learn more.
I was thinking a little further on a few of this dude’s claims. He had said the wicked men had wanted to have sexual relations with the angels and I argued that in the scripture it appears that only Lot identified them as angels, the wicked men called them men. I wanted to add that if they did in fact know they were angels, they would have also had to assume they were fallen angels, but if they were fallen angels they wouldn’t have had to have been so persistent, beating on Lots door, now would they? If they were fallen angels these angels would have gladly taken them up on it, I’d imagine. However if they thought in fact they were righteous angels they would have ran for their lives, lol!! So I think its safe to go with the text where it shows only that they understood them to be men!!
Another thing on what he said in regards to strange flesh in Jude, is that it had to have meant angels. This actually seems to go against one of his own points that he makes. He said the angels change into human fleshy bodies and therefore come to have all the desires of the flesh. If the angels turned themselves into men, then those going after strange flesh wouldn’t apply to them, now would it? As strange should be considered “other” or “another” type of flesh as he points out. The belief by this guy is the fallen angels turn themselves into human flesh, so that wouldn’t be another kind of flesh really. The scripture has to be talking about beastiality.
May 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm#819401
Jael
Participant
Jodi, it is certain that the Angels appeared in the guise of human beings. Where the scriptures states them as Angels it is only to ‘remind’ or ‘inform’ the reader that these were not creatures of mankind.
And there is no way they were fallen Angels (I struggle to understand how you came to even imagine that as a point of thought!!). The Angels came to ‘SAVE’ Lot from the immorality of the goings on in S&G. Fallen Angels would not have ‘SAVED’ Lot from the crowd ‘pressing upon him’ against the doorway – nor allowed negotiations as to where Lot was to run to for that safety. Remember (read!) that the Angels URGED Lot to come with them because ‘we cannot destroy this place until you leave’ (and it appears their timetable for doing so was very much fixed!). [Holy] Angels CANNOT FAIL in fulfilling their instructions [from God].
And as for ‘Going After Strange Flesh’… This is simple euphemism for anything that is not natural human interaction for the purpose of possibly creating children. Of course, the term includes Oral, Anal and beastiality: anything carnal.
Ignore this if it doesn’t apply – but doesn’t the scriptures warn us about ‘enquiringly about Angels’?
May 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm#819402
Jodi
Participant
Sorry you have misunderstood me. I said that the dude in the video said that the wicked men wanted to have sex with angels. My argument was that they didn’t even know that they were angels, they saw them merely as men, only Lot recognized them for what they were. The point I was trying to make was even if they did in fact think they were angels, as the dude believed (NOT me), that in and of itself makes horrible sense! I’m thinking we are actually on the same page here 🙂

May 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm#819403
Jodi
Participant
HI t8,
Interesting what you said about messengers. My understanding is that when you die you sleep the sleep of death. As scripture says the dead know nothing, nor can they praise the Lord. Moses and Elijah seemed to have been awakened at times to deliver an important message though.
Since I have been in the 3rd grade I have waited anxiously for Isaiah 11 to be fulfilled. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them….8 and the suckling child shall play on the hole of an asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den.
Yes its true, people will not marry or be given in marriage, aren’t those rituals and in that time specific arrangements? Eternity cannot exist without the intention God made of a woman being specifically created as a helper for man and the two becoming one flesh, it is a glorious combination of unity designed by God. How can we possibly imagine an eternal life without the amazement and joy babies and children bring? We should not do such a thing, for our Father promised us through Isaiah that there will be babies sucking on their mothers breasts, of which would be created by the unity of two flesh becoming one.

June 1, 2017 at 8:36 am#819404
Jael
Participant
Hi Jodi, concerning the ‘dudes’ and any suggestion that even if they knew the ‘men’ we’re really Angels… NO, they would NOT have tried to have sex with them.
I think you might misunderstand what Holy (Heavenly) Angels are!! Let me enlighten you: Angels are NOT as you might see them depicted in paintings from the medieval times – nor weeping wet drippy feminine looking softies in white flowing raiments with haloes round their heads.
Heavenly Angels are MIGHTY IN POWER and SUPER IN INTELLIGENCE (but only use these for the glory of Almighty God). They are FIERCE IN VISION (except when they choose to show otherwise in the physical world). Have you read the story of Balaam and the donkey?)
And even Demons are not trifling (Have you read the story of the men who tried to exorcise them when they had no authority from God?)
No, Jodi, people of the time were ALWAYS FEARFILLED when confronted by Angels in the raw, so to speak! (Have you read Ezekiel, Zacharia, – about others such as Mary the virgin and Zacharius (John the Baptist’s Father).
AND, the demon Angels ‘Created Bodies’ for themselves and put themselves (Spirits) in them.
A BODY is not hard for a Spirit to create. It can be rough and crude, larger, or over powerful for the situation BUT IT IS LIFELESS….
When Adam was created, God made the body…and it too was LIFELESS .. until ‘God blew the breath of life into his nostril’… (Note: this is not literal… It simply means that the body was given leave to breath by virtue of now having a spirit in it) ‘and he became a LIVING SOUL’.
But only God can give breath, separately, to enliven a body: ‘God is the Father of [the] Spirits’ therefore the demons could only put THEIR OWN (themselves) in a body to enliven it – which is what they wanted anyway so they could ‘enjoy’ the carnal behaviour they saw in wicked mankind.
Angels, of themselves, cannot procreate – which is the euphemistic ‘Given or taken in marriage’.
Remember (or know now) that in those times and afterwards, sex except with an outright whore meant the equivalent of ‘Marriage’. The ‘joining together of two bodies (male and female) : to be WEDDED : is a MARRIAGE… Which even today is shown by the fact that two people are not lawfully considered married until they have had sexual intercourse – even with their marriage certificate….
June 1, 2017 at 8:59 am#819405
Jodi
Participant
Jael,
You are not following me at all!! First let me say that I do not believe in fallen angels period. Second I am quite aware of who God’s non human messengers are, they are holy, righteous and they FOLLOW the commands and will of God.
What I have been trying to show is that the dude, not “dudes” there is only one guy presenting in the video, that his own argument is ridiculous to begin with because I dont believe in fallen angels, and even more ridiculous because he seems to be contradicting himself. I was arguing from his point of view and showing how its absurd. I was playing out what he thinks, I am not quite sure how you missed that!! Obviously you aren’t really taking the time to read what I am saying as I never referred to any men in the bible as “dudes”, only the guy presenting the video, lol!!
June 1, 2017 at 9:15 am#819406
Jodi
Participant
To further clarify the dude in his youtube video thinks that the wicked men wanted to have sex with angels. I first argued that they didn’t even know they were actually angels, at least not until they were cursed by them. Yes I believe these were obviously Holy messengers of God. In the text the wicked men refer to them and inquire to Lot about them only calling them men.
The dude in the video believes the wicked men knew they were angels and wanted to have sex with them because of that. This makes no sense because the wicked men had to have thought then that they were fallen angels, but if that were the case why would they be with Lot and not prancing around town gladly willing to have sex. If they thought on the other hand they were righteous angels they would be pretty dumb to think they would actually get to have sex with them. They would have been afraid of the angels. So no matter what angle you look at, this dude’s belief is just purely stupid!! Looking at these angles actually makes it all the more obvious that the wicked men didn’t know they were angels.
June 1, 2017 at 9:47 am#819407
Proclaimer
Participant
Well, No, I do not have a verse and, yes, it is inferred.
Your query would tend to have a suggestion that God created a specific group of ‘out of order’ spirit creatures – which would direct me to ask you, ‘Csn you point out s verse that states this – or are then you inferring?’
My guess is that it is way far easier, and crucially, correct, to say ‘Demons are fallen Angels’ than to say, ‘Demons are explicit creations of God’.
Qualifications:
1) Almighty God is ‘the Father of Spirits’
2) Satan is ‘the Father of the lie’ and ‘the destroyer’
3) Demons are destructive Spirits
4) Fallen angels seek to corrupt and destroy the souls of mankind.
My only point to make is that the description of what and who demons are according to the Book of Enoch is then in no way outright unbiblical. In other words, the Bible doesn’t contradict it as you indirectly point out. The Book of Enoch states that demon spirits are the spirits of the Nephilim, the offspring of these fallen sons of God. While these sons of God were bound in chains, their offspring were allowed to roam the earth after the destruction of their flesh via the flood.
A further point to make is it seems a bit of a stretch to say that these sons of God or angels who had access to Heaven and had great authority are now spending their time inhabiting humans (sometimes a hundred at a time) just to drive them crazy. One hell of a demotion in terms of occupation.
June 1, 2017 at 9:53 am#819408
Proclaimer
Participant
Jodi and t8, why are you two arguing over a random meandering of some guy who (as both of you point out) is clearly missing ‘a few sandwiches short of a picnic’!
In order to get a balanced view, you need to hear all arguments. If I was bias and only heard what I wanted to hear, then I might still be a Trinitarian. And while I thought this was a foundational doctrine, sometimes you have to listen to that which might seem heretical. Further, I wouldn’t say we were arguing. I think we were discussing and agreeing 🙂
Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 81 through 100 (of 170 total)

←1 2 3 456 7 8 9 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Are the sons of God the angels?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account