Are the sons of God in the Bible the sons of Seth?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 171 total)

←1 2 3…678 9 →

Author
Posts
June 1, 2017 at 9:42 pm#819449
Jael
Participant
BTW, I think this is the sixth post now about discussing why I should not discuss that video. That is three times as much discussion.
t8, ok I agree about ‘testing all thing’. As for the number of replies and comments as you outline above, that’s nothing unique here: How much ‘twittering’ is generated over some pointless trivial celebrity possibly purpose designed mishap? Way more than the initial ‘untimely’ report of it on prime time tv and someone questioning why it was shown at all!!
But I guess now that the video it’s ‘forum material’ just as a reporter would say, ‘I Report everything – it’s my bread and butter!’
So, do you or Jodi have anything else to add to the list of what we now know about ‘Sons of God’ other than some random guy falsely thought that the two Angels in Sodom might have fallen Angels and the outcome of the speculation as to whether the wicked men would still have wanted to try to have sex with them even if they had known that they were Holy Angels?
June 1, 2017 at 10:40 pm#819450
Jael
Participant
I like to know the other theories out there, even just for the purpose of knowing how to rebuke it if I come across it again. But also that I might actually learn something new too.
t8, then you will spend your whole life in researching these negative theories. This is called, ‘Phylosophising’.
Proving (or Unproving) a negative is like a dog chasing its tail. Every time it thinks it’s caught it’s tail the tail moves away a little.
Or the cat trying to catch the laser light spot on the wall. It might chase it up a high structure before realising that it cannot (or will be difficult to) get back down.
Oh yes, you asked me to ‘complete the picture’ concerning the raising of the dead ‘Saints’ when Jesus died.
At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…
I have pondered on these these verses before and cannot see how they fit into the crucifixion account. There is no other report of this incident anywhere in scriptures – nor any consequence to the act.
Consider that after Jesus died, the Disciples, now called Apostles, were scattered and many fell away from the belief, namely because the leader, the head, had seemingly been cut off! Only the remnant had was left (Just as only the 70 remnant were left after the destruction of Jerusalem: The scriptures testifies of itself by repeating the theme of its testimony).
So, if the ‘Saints’, of which absolutely no mention was ever previously made, were raised from their grave and presented themselves to many afterwards, it would seem that there was, absolutely no impact from it.
Jesus significantly appeared to the apostles in the upper house during one of their secreted prayer meeting to show and reassure them that he was alive – miraculously raised up from the dead. He did not say anything about ‘others’! He appeared again to them when Thomas was with them … And again at the seashore. No mention about ‘the Saints’.
t8, what ‘test’ did you apply to the verses you posted?
Who were these ‘Saints’ and what was their impact on their ‘appearing to many people’?
Is there any significance in the fact that Jesus had not yet been taken up to heaven to sit with his Father – and been given power and authority?
The verses do not say who raised these ‘Saints’…
Jesus? No, he was dead!
God? Why?
t8, now here is something worthy for your researching. Is this account a valid one??
In my book it is NOT. There is no evidence of any purpose nor credibility by timeline.
June 3, 2017 at 9:27 pm#819472
AndrewAD
Participant
In Jude 1:6 when it speaks of the angels who left their first estate,is not the meaning clear that they left their heavenly/spiritual state for a fleshly one so they could cohabitate with women. So either these beings were spirits who of their own will could become flesh or they were flesh from the beginning and just descended from above the clouds to earth.Since they are fleshly beings then it stands to reason they could be physically imprisoned/chained in Tartarus just like the Titans of Greek lore.
Genesis 6 isn’t clear that the gods becoming men or the giant offspring are the reason for the flood though some people assume this.It states in v4 that there were giants on the earth in those days,and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men etc. So the flood may have killed the giants that then existed but after the flood the giants return just like the evil of men’s hearts.”In those days and also after that” could well signify that the sons of God breeding with women went on both before and after the flood. The Lord supposedly realized his mistake in making man and sent the flood to remedy the situation but afterward realizes his remedy did no good since mans’ heart was still evil. And in the same way Canaan comes to be inhabited by giants so the Lord didn’t remedy that either. It seems strange to me that Genesis never states God was upset by these sons of God marrying women and that leaves the door wide open for the book of Enoch which greatly adds to the already tall tales.
June 3, 2017 at 10:34 pm#819474
AndrewAD
Participant
Hi Jodi,
I read a few of your posts and I understand and agree that if God can’t keep his heavenly sons then he can’t keep mere men either.I even heard a sermon years ago by a preacher harping against the”once saved always saved”doctrine which he based on this very subject of fallen angels.He was saying that one could go to heaven and because of freewill get thrown out to hell. That God never takes away our freewill just like with the angels and that angels and men are continually being cast out of heaven for just having a sinful thought so even if you make it inside the pearly gates you may not be saved. Oh praise our freewill for all its wonderful works! I wonder if God has to keep making angels to keep up with all those who are daily falling from grace? And this is the reason the world is growing more evil all the time!! More demons are coming here everyday!! and the end of the world could be at any moment for hell is bursting at the seams! Good grief !!
June 4, 2017 at 3:36 pm#819475
Jael
Participant
Once Saved – Always Saved
There are two possible aspects to this saying… The truth depends on the context of the verse:
1) Jesus has eternally saved us from the eternal sin of Adam. This ‘Once saved’ is an ‘Always Saved’
2) A person saved from ‘Personal Sin’ (I.e. Not in the category of point 1 above) is always saved UNTIL they sin AGAIN…
Point 1 is self explanatory.
Point 2 can be illustrated by two examples:
a) The woman caught in adultery. She was saved from her PERSONAL SINS by Jesus AS LONG AS SHE DID NOT SIN AGAIN.
b) The [good!] thief of the cross. His personal sons were forgiven eternally BECAUSE HE DIED VERY SOON AFTERWARDS and therefore had LITTLE TO NO chance to sin again! Therefore Jesus could quite legitimately say to him: ‘Thou has been found without sin- I will raise you up as an unblemished soul and establish you in Paradise’. Jesus did not count him as one of the 144,000 saints to rule with him in heaven but rather would set him in paradise earth.
‘Once Saved – Always Saved’ — unless you sin again!!
June 8, 2017 at 11:26 am#819494
Proclaimer
Participant
t8, ok I agree about ‘testing all thing’. As for the number of replies and comments as you outline above, that’s nothing unique here: How much ‘twittering’ is generated over some pointless trivial celebrity possibly purpose designed mishap? Way more than the initial ‘untimely’ report of it on prime time tv and someone questioning why it was shown at all!!
Testing all things is not pointless. Only pointless if you give one particular thing too much time over other issues. Wanting to discuss this at length falls into that category IMO. Yes tweeting about the Kardashians is usually pointless too.
June 8, 2017 at 11:34 am#819495
Proclaimer
Participant
But I guess now that the video it’s ‘forum material’ just as a reporter would say, ‘I Report everything – it’s my bread and butter!
Likewise, Paul encourages us to test all things. Test the spirits, the teachers, and the prophets.
Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
John also teaches this.
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
These forums are dedicated to testing all things, so that what remains will hopefully be of God.
June 8, 2017 at 11:40 am#819496
Proclaimer
Participant
t8, then you will spend your whole life in researching these negative theories. This is called, ‘Philosophising’.
I test all things and especially the good stuff. But you do need to listen to opposing views too, but not all the time as you falsely suggest that I do. How else can you test what you believe if you are not open to what the opposing view is. It sounds to me like you are condoning the idea of heaping teachers to yourself to itch our own ears. No, we should never live like that. We need to be able to give an answer in and out of season as to what we believe. We also need to be aware of what others say, in case they are speaking truth and also so we can rebuke them with truth in order to free those under those chains.
What makes you think that I only concentrate on opposing views? Because I posted that one video that opposed my own beliefs on the matter? lol.
I think you should drop this, lest you concentrate on this too much and end up philosophising.
June 8, 2017 at 12:19 pm#819497
Proclaimer
Participant
@jael
At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…
Who were these ‘Saints’ …
It doesn’t say who. It says “the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised”.
…what was their impact on their ‘appearing to many people’?
It doesn’t mention that in the text except to say that they appeared to many. I imagine that would have caused quite the stir.
Is there any significance in the fact that Jesus had not yet been taken up to heaven to sit with his Father – and been given power and authority?
Read what the text says: “After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people”
The verses do not say who raised these ‘Saints’….
It doesn’t need to say who raised them up because only God can do that. We know that Jesus was resurrected already and we know that when we die, we will be with the Lord.
- Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.
Let’s for argument sake that when we die we will not be conscious but rather in a sleep or turned off mode. Then when we die, the very next moment from our view, we will be with the Lord. But it is also possible that we will be with the Lord immediately. As for these saints that came out of the tomb and appeared to many, they could be the first fruits.
You suggest that they died again, but the plan of God is not to die twice, but to be alive forever more. It seems logical that Jesus took the keys of death and freed the captives. These captives were released to the Earth like Jesus, and then Jesus was resurrected. While it doesn’t specifically state what happened to these particular saints, it seems more likely that they followed Jesus into glory (like Elijah and Moses) than to die a second time. God is the God of the living after all.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
June 9, 2017 at 9:35 am#819535
Jael
Participant
I think you should drop this, lest you concentrate on this too much and end up philosophising.
t8, that’s very funny… I’m testing YOUR THEORY!!
In any case, is it really necessary to ‘test the theory’ of something like:
1) The wicked men in Sodom thought the ‘men’ residing that night with LOT were ‘Fallen Angels’?
2) That even if they knew the ‘men’ were Angels, those men would still have wanted to have sex with them?
Well, if those two items from the posts don’t go down as pointless ‘Theological Testing’, I don’t know what is, then!
After watching a few seconds of the video I would have pressed the ‘Back’ button on my browser.
Moreover, simply reading the verses in Genesis shows that:
1) The ‘men’ were clearly Holy Angels sent by God the holy deed of saving LOT
2) The ‘men’ struck those outside with blindness (Note carefully that they did not killed them!) showing they had no malicious sexual intentions towards those wicked ones. And remember that the ‘bodies’ of Angels from God are not real flesh and blood. They cannot function as sex repositories. The wicked Angels BUILT their flesh and bone bodies and put their own spirit (themselves) into them.
Oh, in case you really think I’m in danger of philosophising, I can tell you that all these thoughts came up in a moment when I read the posts.. Yes, it takes WAY MUCH LONGER to write it down than it took for the thought to pass through my mind.
But did Jodi at any time pause and had the thought, ‘Now there’s a point worth commenting on… Could it be true … Let’s test the profane idea… Let’s test the ridiculous imagery?’
A bit like a man cultivating plants and nurturing the thin weedy drooping seedlings just in case they somehow miraculously plumped up and became worthy flowers and fruit. Of course, the man rips out CHECKS and the useless seedlings and doesn’t present them in his field for others to see nor for him to waste his fertiliser on.
June 9, 2017 at 9:59 am#819536
Proclaimer
Participant
Hey I apologise if you were offended by that video, but I will continue to post up videos that both support or counter viewpoints because arriving at truth is sometimes more important than offence. I am interested in the truth and certainly not interested in only hearing views that I agree with. Further, if the video is a joke, then that only shows that the counter-argument might be a joke too. That is part of refuting a teaching. You take their arguments, and systematically refute them.
One thing you cannot say about me, is that I do not heap teachers to myself that teach only what I want to hear. Instead I give all views a chance, even if they at first look ridiculous. Case in hand, I believed in the Trinity once and at that time it seemed ludicrous to even question it. At the time, most arguments against the Trinity were promulgated by the JWs. But God spoke to my heart and so I listened, even if my mind thought it was crazy to listen to opposing views. Fortunately for me, the biggest reason for me seeing it as error was scripture itself. Btu sometimes you have to be open Jael. If not, then how will you grow and challenge your faults that you and I have today?
June 9, 2017 at 10:04 am#819537
Jael
Participant
You suggest that they died again, but the plan of God is not to die twice, but to be alive forever more. It seems logical that Jesus took the keys of death and freed the captives. These captives were released to the Earth like Jesus, and then Jesus was resurrected. While it doesn’t specifically state what happened to these particular saints, it seems more likely that they followed Jesus into glory (like Elijah and Moses) than to die a second time. God is the God of the living after all.
t8, you know the scriptures… It says that it is at the first trump (no, not Donald! A trump is a large version of a trumpet (actually it’s the other way round: a Trumpet’ is a SMALL version of a ‘TRUMP’).
Also, Jesus was resurrected for many many days before he was taken up to heaven in glory and given the promised power and authority. The verse you cite infers that the bodies of the saints were resurrected BEFORE this event.
And as you point out: ‘WHAT SAINTS’?
And Where did they go that impacted anything over and above or equal to the Apostles?
I mentioned (and you ignored) Lazarus and the widows son among others who were raised back to life by Jesus. You suggest that they are REMAINING ALIVE and are living somewhere, in Wisconsin, perhaps!
The claims you made about who raised up the saints is way on speculative. You say ‘God’ raised them… You say that!
My point exactly, God did not ‘raise the Saints’ as you propose. God had given Jesus those ‘saints’ himself: ‘I thank you Father for those you have given me – they were yours and you gave them to me – and none are lost except that one who gave himself over to perdition’.
t8, and as for the verses from Paul, they don’t make any sense as to the point raised.
Paul, many times, makes reference to ‘dying’ because he had an affliction – the struggles he went through also left him LONGING to die so he could ‘Be With Christ Jesus’.. That’s what his saying means!! He LONGS to be IN THE SPIRIT and eschewed the FLESH.
June 9, 2017 at 10:05 am#819538
Jael
Participant
Hey I apologise if you were offended by that video, but I will continue to post up videos that both support or counter viewpoints. I am interested in the truth.
Who’s ‘viewpoint’ was it that the holy angels sent to LOT might have been Fallen Angels?
June 9, 2017 at 10:19 am#819539
Proclaimer
Participant
In any case, is it really necessary to ‘test the theory’ of something like:
1) The wicked men in Sodom thought the ‘men’ residing that night with LOT were ‘Fallen Angels’?
Yes it is worth a look. They were angels and the word ‘strange flesh’ could mean that rather than opposite sex.
2) That even if they knew the ‘men’ were Angels, those men would still have wanted to have sex with them?
Could be the case. They probably looked like men, but I imagine were finer specimens.
After watching a few seconds of the video I would have pressed the ‘Back’ button on my browser.
Many would have the same view if they were presented with a video on why the Trinity is false. Many scientists would also hit the back button if they realised the video they were watching didn’t support ‘The Theory of Evolution’. Your comment would be valid if we were perfect, but we are able to be deceived and able to think the truth cannot be that strange. In actual fact, the truth is stranger than fiction. Surely many people would hit the back button if they realised the video they watched promoted a story about a man who died for all humanity’s sins. See that Jael. You must think you are so right to not be challenged in a similar way.
Personally, I believe when digging for gold, you have to throw away a lot of soil and rocks. If it turns out to be soil or rocks in the video, then you have learned something. What is that? How to talk and free someone who believes the things you refuted. I think you are coming across a bit to haughty in all this. Not saying you are, but that it certainly has the appearance of this.
We are to test all things and all things will eventually be placed under the feet of Christ. If you think it is wrong to refute, rebuke, and correct, then you do not understand the purpose of scripture Jael.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Tell me Jael, what are we to rebuke and correct if we always hit the back button in our lives. And remember light shines through darkness. But it seems you want to hit the back button if something appears as dark or a lie. If we have the light, then there is no reason to be scared or to run the other way. We can expose these lies to help others. Remember, people google subjects to learn and people come here from google to learn about a particular thing they might be struggling with. So refuting something can set them free because the truth sets us free. I am not going to hit the back button on any challenge. I have confidence that the truth is worth fighting for and the lie worth exposing.
Finally, if you disagree with this, then why post here. This is the reason for this site’s existence and it is its working function.
June 9, 2017 at 10:21 am#819540
Proclaimer
Participant
Who’s ‘viewpoint’ was it that the holy angels sent to LOT might have been Fallen Angels?
Not mine. But could have been the viewpoint in one of the videos. I don’t remember that viewpoint.
I think you are making way too much fuss about small things, and ignoring the larger things which is investigating all things to sort the truth from the lie.Remember the Pharisees, they made a big deal about the laws and sabbath and washing of hands, and ignored the greater things of the law.
June 9, 2017 at 10:23 am#819541
Jael
Participant
I guess we could test the theory that Enoch was the first man to fly… in a chariot!
The reality is rather more ‘down to earth’!
Enoch died in a whirlwind that took his body miles away where no one ever found it – buried under mounds of desert sand, perhaps.
Yet many will ‘Test the Spirit’ that he ‘Never died and was taken up to heaven’… Simply because the scriptures says he was ‘no more’!
Yet scriptures states clearly that ‘No one has ever gone up into heaven who did not first descend’.. Except Jesus Christ – because he DID descend… Into Hades.
The ‘descend’ is falsified by trinitarians to claim it means ‘From Heaven’. But it means ‘died’.
Abraham died. Enoch died. Moses died. Samuel died. David died. Solomon died. Daniel died. Ezekiel and the other prophets died.
These were all ‘near’ sons of God. Yet as holy as they were they were NOT Sons of God because the SIN OF ADAM was in them. Only the sacrifice and death of a sunless man could release them from that bondage – only when Jesus Christ did that could they be classed as ‘Sons of God’ and become ‘Heirs of God – brothers with Christ Jesus’.
June 9, 2017 at 10:44 am#819542
Proclaimer
Participant
Cool. Back down to business. I will reply to this later as I have other more pressing things right now. 🙂
June 10, 2017 at 11:38 am#819573
Jael
Participant
Yes it is worth a look. They were angels and the word ‘strange flesh’ could mean that rather than opposite sex.
So you are saying that you were persuaded to think that there was some distance worth travelling, linguistically and scripturally, in persuing the fetted idea that Holy Angels might be Fallen Angels because some nutter posted his putrid idea in a utube video?
Wasnt it ‘obvious’ that the Angels were Holy from the scripture and events?
Where does ‘Strange Flesh’ come into the equation (or ‘your persuation’)?
By the way, then, is there a thread about ‘God is a woman’… when ‘Woman’ is shown in scripture to be ‘Helpmate for a Man’!
Why would you post a video on this as a topic for debate? Or, ok, have a category for ‘Weird Beliefs’…
But I think of this category as a serious one… Therefore ‘investigating’ what is CLEARLY an imposition of Scriptures is ‘out of bounds’ for this category of this website, much like you might say if someone started a thread about not believing in God…
Let me ask you again in another way… What is or was the specific claim that drew your attention from the video that the Angels in Sodom may have been fallen Angels – and did you really think there was merit in posting a ridiculous video that made such a claim.:
‘Test everything’ says scriptures…
But Proverbs 26 has something to say about how to address those who exhibit views that are not worth pursuing.
I don’t see how you think discussing trinity is something worth a click-back in the same vein as ‘Fallen Angels in Sodom saved LOT’.
June 12, 2017 at 10:15 am#819574
Proclaimer
Participant
Jael, when you quote my text, try selecting it, then hit the quote button on the toolbar if you are in Visual mode. If you are in Text mode, try the same, but click b-quote button. Then you will get something like the following:
Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here, Quoted text here.
June 12, 2017 at 10:18 am#819575
Proclaimer
Participant
So you are saying that you were persuaded to think that there was some distance worth travelling, linguistically and scripturally, in persuing the fetted idea that Holy Angels might be Fallen Angels because some nutter posted his putrid idea in a utube video?
Wasnt it ‘obvious’ that the Angels were Holy from the scripture and events?
Where does ‘Strange Flesh’ come into the equation (or ‘your persuation’)?
By the way, then, is there a thread about ‘God is a woman’… when ‘Woman’ is shown in scripture to be ‘Helpmate for a Man’!
Why would you post a video on this as a topic for debate? Or, ok, have a category for ‘Weird Beliefs’…
If you paid attention to what I said and what the video said, then it is plain that no one is saying they were fallen angels. This idea has come solely from your own head. Please pay attention and discuss the topic at hand. Flying off the handle due to your own misconceptions is not a good look Jael. It makes you look like the nutter. Please remove the log and please stop philosophising.
Author
Posts

Viewing 20 posts - 121 through 140 (of 171 total)

←1 2 3…678 9 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

Navigation

Are the sons of God in the Bible the sons of Seth?

Who Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6?

Recent Replies

Forums

Forum Topics

POPULAR WRITINGS

Study Tools

ABOUT THIS SITE

TOPICS

Navigation

Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Create Account