| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 875 Registered: 11-2005 |
Here is some very interesting material that I posted on another forum. I believe that Ellen White proposed that the Sons of God were from unfallen worlds.
The following was my response: To research the verses you mentioned I first looked at Job 1:6-8 KJV: Now there was a day when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job001.html Job 2:1-3 has a similar rendering: Again there was a day when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job002.html Job 38:6-8 mentions: Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons (H1121) of God (H430) shouted for joy? Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job038.html Looking for other examples of how this same phrase is used we find in Genesis 6:1-7 the following: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons (H1121) of God (H430) saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And 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. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) 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. And 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. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And 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. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen006.html In the New Testament we find the following uses of this phrase: John 1:11-13 mentions: He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons (G5043) of God (G2316), [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html Romans 8:13-20 says: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons (G5207) of God (G2316). For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons (G5207) of God (G2316). For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope, http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom008.html Philippians 2:14-16 says: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons (G5043) of God (G2316), without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Phl/Phl002.html I John 3:1-3 says: Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (G5043) of God (G2316): therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons (G5043) of God (G2316), and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Jo/1Jo003.html In the next post I will look at what we might learn about the phrase "the sons of God". ============================================== In the last post we collected together all of the verses we could find using the phrase "the sons of God". We also paid particular attention to the underlying Strongs reference numbers. Here are links to the definitions in Hebrew and Greek: "the sons": http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01121&Version=kjv http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5207&Version=kjv http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5043&Version=kjv "of God": http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0430&Version=kjv http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&Version=kjv Since "the sons" (H1121) is used in both the Genesis and Job references we are especially interested in how it might be used. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01121&Version=kjv tells us: 1) son, grandson, child, member of a group a) son, male child b) grandson c) children (pl. - male and female) d) youth, young men (pl.) e) young (of animals) f) sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels] g) people (of a nation) (pl.) h) of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.) i) a member of a guild, order, class Let's quickly review all the phrases where the sons (H1121) of God (H430) is used: That the sons (H1121) of God (H430) saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:2 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) 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. Gen 6:4 Now there was a day when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6 Again there was a day when the sons (H1121) of God (H430) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. Job 2:1 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons (H1121) of God (H430) shouted for joy? Job 38:7 What meaning seems to do the least injustice to the five verses listed above? I don't agree, or disagree, with the following links, but they do provide interesting "food for thought. Perhaps tall73 or Russel Kelly would have some insights. http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html http://www.biblearchive.com/mambo4_5/on-angels/the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6.html http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=67 ====================================== So based on the five references in the Old Testament to "the Sons of God" what meaning do you think seems to do the most justice to the context of these five verses? There is a very interesting, and I think highly significant, connection made in Genesis 6: * Sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of men * the immediately following two verses stating that it grieved God that he had created man * God decided to wipe out everyone with a global flood except Noah and his family. All of this happens in the same chapter! The truth is the road to freedom. Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 12 Months, and 12 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1085 Registered: 10-2002  |
I can't remember which Doug-Batchelor-ish kind of Adventist evangelist it was, but when I was staying with some missionaries in Osaka they were watching a video of him explaining the Genesis passage essentially in this way: the "sons of God", he said, were basically the chosen people (before Israel -- the descendants of Adam & his son Seth). They were the ones who followed God, but they began to mix and mingle with others (similar to Israel's problems with intermarriage later on). It probably goes without saying that he taught this in a vein that probably diverged from EGW, but he might not have noticed that. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 876 Registered: 11-2005 |
I noticed that was one of the three proposed interpretations. What really struck me as I did my study last night was that before I had associated giants with Sons of God/daughters of man, but never in such close association with God "grieving" and responding with a global flood. To me, the juxtaposition of those two events is profound. This was no ordinary "intermarrying"! It was so detestable to God that in the very next verses He is found "grieving", and then destroying the entire earth. That is just totally amazing to thing about. Something extremely significant -- that never happened before or afterward -- is going on here! As an aside that pales by comparison, Ellen white leads us totally off track (as usual) by proposing that it was "an amalgamation of man and beast". I am just in awe at what actually happened within these few tightly packed verses that causes one of the most extreme reactions ever from God. By comparison, the plight of those left outside the ark pale in comparision. The story line here is that something went terribly, terribly wrong. The truth is the road to freedom. Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 12 Months, and 13 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 130 Registered: 6-2007 |
This "sons of God" was discussed in our Bible study Sunday night as we discussed the flood. The teacher presented the same three views as stated above in a post. The general opinion of the class was that it meant angels...more specifically fallen angels, marrying and having children with human women. That's always what I thought it meant. Laurie | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 4367 Registered: 3-2004  |
Since leaving adventism and reading those passages I started thinking. The Bible only mentions the sons Adam and Eve had. They probably had daughters also. At that time there was no one else to marry, so brother and sister married. Then cousins and soon there were many people. Some moved away from Adam and Eve and forgot about God and the Garden of Eden. There were not the inherited defects that goes along with marrying family as there is now. So that is my thinking. I cannot find anything in the Bible to back it. But Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth and all the human race came from them Diana. | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 240 Registered: 5-2007 |
Enough cliffhanging Gilbert. Give me some conjecture now! I won't hold you responsible for it, promise. | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 19 Registered: 9-2006 |
Fascinating post, Gilbert! Funny, I have been doing some research on this very topic. I found this article interesting and am still digesting it, "Genesis 6-Who Were the Sons of God?": users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/gen6sons.htm. I was particularly fascinated by some of the other cryptic statements, such as the one by Paul, II Cor 11:10, about women having a symbol of authority on their heads in church "because of the angels." Also Jude 6. Gotta run to a meeting. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6930 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, Gilbert, I've noticed that juxtaposition of the sons of God and the daughters of men with the giants upon the earth and the subsequent flood. I have long wondered if there is a connection between the cryptic Genesis mention of these things with the Greek (and Roman and even older) legends of the "heroes". Heroes in Greek mythology were "superhuman" beings such as Hercules who did amazing things. They were often considered to be of "divine ancestry". I have heard it said as well that they were the offspring of humans and Greek gods. In other words, they were considered partly divine. I've surmised that the sons of God in Genesis might have been fallen angels and that something "terribly wrong", as you said, Gilbert, was going on. Perhaps it is possible that there really were offspring from some illicit unions that produced "giants"--or "Greek heroes"... A couple more texts to ponder along these lines: 1 Peter 3:18b-20: "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." 2 Peter 2:4-5: "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; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah..." Put these together with the text Martin used, Jude 6: 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." Very interesting and enigmatic...but I do speculate that the Genesis sons of God may have been evil angels who perpetrated evil on humanity of such magnitude that humanity itself was being perverted, and God wiped it out and imprisoned those angels, stopping that particular kind of evil. To be sure, we have almost no knowledge of what the earth or life was like before the flood. God decisively ended an era and launched another. Hmmm...there surely are some questions I'd like to see answered when I'm in eternity.... Colleen | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 145 Registered: 4-2004 |
Interesting thread. I've looked at this on and off over the years. As pointed out above, the phrase "sons of God" is only found 4 times in the OT. This is a translation of the Hebrew, "bene elohim". From what I've read, most scholars agree that the 3 occurances in Job all refer to angels. New Testament occurances of the same or similar phrases obviously do not. This is where context is so important. I've come to think that the context of the passage in Genesis points to "bene elohim" as angels. In extra-Biblical ancient Jewish literature such as the Book of Enoch it is apparent that many of the Jews believed that these were fallen angels. Appartently, Nephilim means "fallen ones". Josephus also mentions this in his histories. Dane | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2189 Registered: 10-2004  |
And the context of Jude 1:6 makes it even more interesting:
Notice that it mentions sexual immorality. Also, the context of these chapters that mention the fallen angels that have been bound (2 Peter 2 and Jude) talks about false teachers and sexual immorality. Jeremy | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 878 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wow! These are some mind-blowing verses when they are all considered together. For God to have destroyed the world with a flood, I think things had to be much, much worse that just the descendants of Cain marrying the descendants of Seth for example. I, too, lean toward the evil angel theory. What was done was so radical, that God had no choice but to destroy them all. It is almost incomprehensible, and yet there it is just a few verses away from the flood, and so I think they are obviously connected. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1088 Registered: 10-2002 |
I kind of understand both sides. At the same time, the "wickedness" is not without definition -- it is said to be because of the evil in mens' hearts. So we don't need to speculate as to other reasons, since Scripture actually lists the reason right there. In the same way, He will destroy this present world by fire -- and I don't think Revelation talks about it being in the future that fallen angelic spirits will be conceiving with flesh & blood. Yet it will be "bad enough" that God will destroy the earth. The practical problem presented, however, is the idea of angels---spirits---conceiving with flesh & blood and producing offspring. It sounds similar to the Incarnation, for God is also "Spirit" and when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, Christ was conceived. Of course, someone could also say, "See, therefore, such a thing is possible!" However, hmm... I don't know. I would tend to look at Christ's birth as the only time Spirit conceived in flesh & blood. And furthermore, that it was God who did it. Did He once enable any spirit to do such a thing? Anyway, the passages are kind of a good "question mark", which I don't think it's healthy to be too dogmatic about. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1089 Registered: 10-2002 |
*laugh* Maybe this is what Ellen White prophesied about! Maybe when she talked about Christ's birth being imitated & duplicated, maybe she was referring to the release of those spirits who could mate with flesh & blood and produce offspring! **wink** | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1090 Registered: 10-2002 |
Back on the "wickedness" and EGW note -- You know, I think someone mentioned that EGW said that "amalgamation" (etc.) were some of the reasons for the flood. But this is another example of "going beyond what is written". Scripture simply says, "Because of the wickedness of mens' hearts." Although the same passage does talk about some other things, yet it lays the blame squarely on "man" and what was in his heart. I don't think anyone (including Ellen) need speculate on other reasons for the flood. The reason Scripture mentions may sound too simple or "not bad enough" to warrant the flood, yet that is part of trusting God, trusting what He wrote that it is exactly what He needed to share about why the flood came. As an aside, "mere intermarriage" was not a "mere" in Israel's history. It was a really serious thing (as seen with Balaam & the Moabite deception) for which God got really angry at Israel. That said, it was Israel, it was after God had entered into covenant with them at Sinai. This, however, was even prior to Abraham's choosing. Seeing both sides of it, however, the Genesis account wouldn't seem to fully suggest that they were spirits (except for the odd phrase "on the earth"). But what Peter said does seem to indicate that yes, it was spirits that were being talked about. So I think as a kind of synthesis of the lessons here, we can gather this: 1) They were probably spirits 2) The reason for the flood was the wickedness of mens' hearts (not the spirits' wickedness) I don't know how this diminishes or makes unique the Incarnation of Christ (which was not actually producing a new offspring, but was rather the transferance of God the Son Himself from heaven into the womb of Mary). However, in all this, I think there is actually some lesson that God has for us. The lesson, however, is not going to be some super-duper interpretation or new spiritual knowledge. What the lesson will magnify will be the things we have already known -- that God is interested in our hearts above all, and that He has saved us in Jesus Christ. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1093 Registered: 10-2002 |
A quick note on the "Giants" -- apparently this part of the Genesis passage is not talking about the spirits & their offspring. The Genesis 6 passage says that these giants ("Nephilim") were on the earth in those days (in Noah's days) and also afterward. Somehow, although only Noah and his family survived the flood, the Nephilim were on the earth later after the flood. The spirits, on the other hand, were said to be bound in the abyss/tartarus according to the apostles in the New Testament during the days before the flood, so they couldn't have been "on the earth" afterward as the Nephilim were. We find them mentioned again in Numbers 13:33 -- (See also Deuteronomy 9:2) The "sons of Anak" (or Anakim) were said to be in certain towns of the Philistines: 1st Samuel 17:4 tells us that the giant Goliath came from Gath, one of these towns where the giant descendants of Anak (descended from the Nephilim) lived. It seems as if "Nephilim" simply means giants and refers to people who were genetically ...giant.  The "heroes of old" in Genesis 6:4 could then refer to the giants, or it could refer to the children of the sons of God & the daughters of men. The whole "Nephilim" comment in that passage seems like a kind of parenthetical side note, so I'm thinking that the "heroes of old" refers to the giants instead of to the children of the sons of God & daughters of men. If you read from verse 3 and skip 4, then read 5, it flows better. Verse 4 seems like a side-note. (Message edited by agapetos on October 05, 2007) | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1094 Registered: 10-2002 |
P.S. An interesting irony: Here we seem to feel that "sons of God" refers to spirits, but in past threads when reading the expression "holy ones" it has been argued that this refers to saved people in heaven (instead of angelic spirits). I looked up references in the Bible to the term "holy ones", and it seems it does generally refer to angelic spirits, though. Anyway, the 'sons of God' is the term on the table in this thread... sorry! | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2192 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ramone, I totally agree with what you said about the Incarnation being unique. Perhaps the angels thing could be best explained by the fact that angels did appear as men (with temporary bodies [not just spirits], apparently) in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 18-19 two angels (and God Himself) appeared as men, and even ate food that Abraham gave them. And in chapter 19, the two angels went to Sodom where the men of the city wanted to have sexual relations with them! So, since angels apparently can appear as men (even bodily) and eat food, then I don't think it is necessary to say that it was spirits producing physical offspring with flesh & blood. Jeremy P.S. I do want to make it clear that the Bible teaches that angels are indeed spirits without physical bodies (except for when they appear bodily, like in Genesis 18-19), unlike what Adventism teaches (which is that angels ARE physical flesh). (Message edited by Jeremy on October 05, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6935 Registered: 12-2003 |
You're right, Jeremy. Angels are spirits that can take physical forms. And no, we have no evidence that angels and humans can produce offspring. We just have no evidence. We do have evidence, however, that demons and humans can be "sexual"--look up the word "incubus". And Ramone, you're absolutely right that God did not destroy the world to pass judgment on demons. It was all about humans being wicked. Romans 1 is totally clear that men suppressed their knowledge of God by their wickedness. Whatever they might have done with demons was their own responsibility. They chose to suppress their knowledge of God, and God gave them over to their perversions. I suspect that from an eternal perspective (which we can't see but the angels can), Jesus' defeat of the rulers and authorities on the cross had major implications and limited them in ways we cannot completely identify, even if we "sense" some of them. Jesus is enough! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1580 Registered: 9-2006  |
I think it's pretty silly to believe angels could copulate with humans, they may not and in all probability do not, have have the ability to copulate with one another much less with another species. They may not even be classified as a species but individually created beings. Too, to believe this. would more or less indicate that God has no control at all over his creation and he just sits around hopeing for the best and getting the worst, which is just about the way White reads. River | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1096 Registered: 10-2002 |
LOL, River, you made me laugh with your first sentence! Way to inject some needed wit into this! Did I ever say how much fun it is here because of you? Jeremy, the stuff you brought up from Genesis is interesting. I'd forgotten about that. On the note of "spirits", however, the 1st Peter text does call them "spirits" (if we assume that Peter is referring to the "sons of God" of Genesis 6). One interesting note from this has been that in reading Peter, I realize that God spoke to him a lot through the story of Noah & the flood! Peter mentions it at least three times in his two short books, more than any New Testament person save for Christ Himself. I somehow find that really cool. As I was studying these things the other night, I gravitated to the letter to Thyatira in Revelation 2 where it talks about "Jezebel" and "her children". Jesus says of her, "I will strike all her children dead." This leads me now to the possibility that perhaps the "children" of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" may not necessarily be "flesh & blood" children, but may rather be the "fruits" (so to speak) of union with fallen angels or demons. The "children" of Jezebel seem to be the fruits/results/gains of her "teachings". Of course it could also refer to literal children, but the passage doesn't seem to incriminate her or the Thyatirans for their sexual adultery with each other -- instead it says that she taught them sexual immorality. It seems that just like Jesus warned His disciple to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees & Saduccees", in the "Jezebel" case it seems He was also warning about teachings, and speaking judgment on the "children" born from those teachings. As an aside, this led me further to examine what is meant by "sexual immorality" and "eating food sacrificed to idols". We know that those two things are obvious sins, but they also have spiritual roots. It is possible to do the same sin in one's heart yet without the physical act. The books of James & 1st John talk about "loving the world" as being "adultery" towards God... I believe this is the root, the heart of the sin, which God would have us understand is how He sees things (the root produces the sin, the sin leads to death, as James elaborated on in his first chapter). "Sexual immorality" I believe covers not only the physical sin, but also the intimate giving of yourself to the world, choosing union with the world instead of union with God. What Paul said in 1st Corinthians 6 I think has application not only in physical relationships, but in the attitudes and lusts of the heart. "Eating food sacrificed to idols" is likewise something that has application to us, even if we don't live in a country with overt idolatry (I happen to live in such a place, though). Paul said that "greed" was idolatry, and indeed I think that anything we worship & serve in our hearts is an idol. Additionally, when we do not actually commune with the living God Himself, but when we commune with our human ideas about Him, we are worshiping our idea instead of the living God. I believe ideas are the modern "idols" in western countries. Just as physical idols are the "works of {man's} hands", so man's ideas are also the "works" he creates. His idea becomes a "god" that he worships. He takes it, fashions it, and then leads others to devote their lives to it. Neither the physical idol or the philosophical unphysical one have live or bring life. But the "eating food sacrificed to idols" is interesting. Paul talks about that in 1st Corinthians again, and one of the things he hits on is respecting one's conscience -- not doing things that will cause others' consciences to stumble. And certainly not doing anything against your own conscience! He talks of partaking of the altar sacrifices to demons. The example came to mind of, let's say, an institution that is devoted to ill gains, to greed, etc. When you get your "food" from that institution---even though you are not aligning yourself with its aims---you are partaking of its altar. You're getting your sustinence from it. In a way it is similar to not caring about the "means" because your "ends" are okay. Sure, you're not the author of that institution or whatever, and you're not the one worshiping whatever it's worshiping. But you are getting your "food" from its altar. In contrast, our "food" is supposed to be the words of God He speaks to us. Our food is the Son of God who gave His life for us. We live by His sacrifice and by His Spirit! (Whoa, cool! That explains the two usages of "food"! One, His sacrifice, Two, His Spirit speaking His words!) On the other hand, getting one's "food" from other altars would seem to be when we get our spiritual/physical/emotional/whatever "filling" from something other than the "food" God has provided for us. When we teach people to do this, or to ignore their consciences, we teach them to "make their stomach their god"; we lead them to eat food sacrificed to idols and/or demons. Anyway, thought I'd share that. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1582 Registered: 9-2006 |
Good stuff Ramone, accept this "This leads me now to the possibility that perhaps the "children" of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" may not necessarily be "flesh & blood" children, but may rather be the "fruits" (so to speak) of union with fallen angels or demons. The "children" of Jezebel seem to be the fruits/results/gains of her "teachings". You better lay off watching Star Trek for awhile.  , of course you did qualify that with "Of course it could also refer to literal children" so maybe you can watch a show a week from now on. The rest was good stuff, of course you could shorten that to "You shall worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve." Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, they were good. River I know, I know, your thinking if I ever get hold of River I'll strangle him. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1101 Registered: 10-2002 |
LOL, actually, River, I have no idea what you mean with the Star Trek reference! (That might make it even MORE funny to you, ha! I must be channeling Gene Roddenberry!) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 336 Registered: 7-2005  |
Regarding evil angels having sexual relations with humans...Jesus said: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt 22:30) Am I safe in assuming that this means angels (whether good or bad) do not have the "equipment" to perform intimate acts, as do humans? Honestwitness | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1106 Registered: 10-2002 |
HW, I'd thought of that passage, too. Good question. | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 459 Registered: 3-2005 |
This is a great thread. I've enjoyed reading the insights. I have a question along those lines but not nearly so profound as your posts! Is it a logical extension to say that because good angels took on human form at the directive of God, then therefore evil angels can take on human form at the directive of man; or by their own desire/evil purposes? Are there any other incidents in Scripture where evil angels take on human form. I don't know of any personally. Patria (Message edited by patriar on October 08, 2007) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 340 Registered: 7-2005 |
Some people have taught that an evil angel took on the form of the prophet Samuel, when called up by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28, while others believe it really was Samuel. I don't know which it was. Honestwitness | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 131 Registered: 6-2007 |
We know of many instances where angels took on human form. When the 2 angels visited Lot, the men in the town want to have sex with them. They must have looked like they had the equipment. We know these same angels ate with Abraham, so we know they took human form complete with the ability to ingest food. I believe the fallen angels did have children with the human women. The same phrase "sons of God" is used in Job and we do not question that it means anything other than angel in that context. Laurie | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 461 Registered: 3-2005 |
Honestwitness: Yes, I've heard that line of thought. I personally think a straight reading of the text makes it more likely Samuel even though that potentially creates some tension in other areas of doctrine. But if that wasn't an evil angel, I can't think of any other instances of evil angels taking on human form. Laurie: I know there are plenty of Christians who would agree with you. Geno Gerasi is a Calvary Chapel pastor in the Denver area. He teaches that way. Patria |
