Join in guys/girls

[Guest]

To sum up about fallen angels and demons. It seems that the original Nephilim may have been bound after they sinned. But as to whether the demons (who still roam the earth) somehow descended from them...or just how that works...is hard to understand.

Let me clear a few things up if I may.

1.Are you saying that these half demon/half human beings were bound here? How does that work exactly? How do they stay alive? How is this supported by the bible?

2.Are you saying that the devil, fallen angels, demons, etc. can possess a man, and then when that man has relations with another human woman, somehow this passes on to the children? If so, how can you show this from the bible?

In reading over your posts on this topic. I can't really get a hold on where you are getting this stuff bro. At least not biblically. No offense.

So 1 Enoch would agree that the Fallen Angels had a lot power and that they, in a certain sense, were making their own civilization(s)...or at least were attempting to. It appears that they were opposed to one another. The stuff of the Fallen Angels is the stuff of Fallen People....
Just off work, too tired, gtg,

I realize that this is an important book in a sense, however, do you not see a vast difference between these types of writings and those of the scriptures? One, (the scriptures), rather easily seems to comport with reality, while the other, appears to be not much more than mythology. It has all of the flights of fancy of a myth. The scriptures just don't strike me this way.

And historically speaking, there is a reason this wasn't cannonized by the Jews as well. They may have been part of the culture, may have been even believed by Jude, but that doesn't make them inspired or even true (not even the parts quoted in the by him).

God bless,

[Guest]

This passage (Jn 8:39-44) is not speaking of creative power that the devil has. It is speaking of who's will they (the Jews) do. In that sense, they are of their father in heaven, or Abraham, or the devil. For instance, Jesus says that if "Abraham were your father, you would do the works of...".

In this passage the devil has sons who do his works. Jesus doesn't specifically say how they became sons of the devil; He just says that they are.

I would say not only does Jn. 8:39-44 teach that who's "son" you are is up to you, according to who you obey, but also this passage from the same author.

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him

Now of course no one believe that being "born of God" means that someone "possesed" by the Holy Spirit procreates with another person and has a "son of God". It is a purely spiritual phenonmenon, brought about by "recieving" Him (john 1:12). Nothing is passed along to the child (except through love and teaching).

So again, I would see a "son of God" as one who does the will of the Father, and a "son of the Devil" to be one who does the will of their "father". In both instances, a person determines who their father is by their respective actions/choices.

One who "receives" Jesus, who does not pracitce sinning, he that "believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God".

One who "doeth not righteousness..., neither he that loveth not his brother" is a child of the devil. I would assume we all were this at some point in our lives. I know I was.

God bless brother!

[Guest]

Derek,

In reading over your posts on this topic. I can't really get a hold on where you are getting this stuff bro. At least not biblically. No offense.

To give you an idea of what and how much I've been studying I'll post a link to an article (a long post) @ JWDF (Jehovahs-Witnesses Discussion Forum). An ex-JW, become Christian, I met @ Beliefnet gave me a link to this forum, mentioning one certain "Leolaia" that posts there and who is something of a scholar (see for yourself). I've contacted this person and though she is an ex-JW, she is not a Christian. If I'm not mistaken she claims to be agnostic. Btw, the vast majority of people who post on this forum are ex-JWs...and a minority are now Christian. Also, this article is one among about 400 I have...'been at this for some time now.

Topic: Jude and 1 Enoch

quoted from this article, bold mine, Tertullian on 1 Enoch

"I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has described these actions of the angels, is not accepted by some because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose that, since it was published before the Flood, they do not believe that it could have safely survived that worldwide calamity. But if that is the mere reason for rejecting it, let them also recall that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself .... Noah therefore, no doubt, would have succeeded Enoch in the trusteeship of his preaching, and ... would have safeguarded or renewed this Scripture, under the inspiration of the Spirit, after it was destroyed by the violence of the Flood, just as Ezra restored every document of Jewish literature after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. But since Enoch in the same Scripture had prophesied likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us, since we read that 'every Scripture is inspired of God and is beneficial for teaching'. It now appears that this Scripture has been rejected by the Jews for this very reason, just like all the other parts which speak about Christ. For they have not accepted other Scriptures which describe his life and him speaking in their presence. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude" (Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum, 1.3).

I think you will be surprised what you find here, Derek (especially "parallels" with the Gospels). At any rate, I don't want to debate about this stuff. Christianity for the most part doesn't "teach" what Tertullian and myself believe about 1 Enoch and Fallen Angels, etc. If this makes me heretical, I accept the label...and will stop posting if I'm out of line.
tc,
Rick

P.S. I'm d/l'ding Steve's lectures on Gen 6 and the 1 John passage (above) to see what he has to say....

P.S.S. Brody:
Are you still "around"? (it's your thread)........Hmmmmmm.......

[Guest]

At any rate, I don't want to debate about this stuff.

OK. If you don't want to.

Christianity for the most part doesn't "teach" what Tertullian and myself believe about 1 Enoch and Fallen Angels, etc.

I am not very concerned with what "Christianity" teaches, but what God has revealed in the scriptures. What does the Bible say.

If this makes me heretical, I accept the label...and will stop posting if I'm out of line.

I am sure I speak for everyone here, when I say that you, (and your ideas), are welcome here.

While I do think that this idea is not supported scripturally, I don't think that it makes you a heretic! You're a brother.

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek,

I found this at (the "non-heretical") Bible.org:
The Sons of God
and the Daughters of Men
[Genesis 6:1-8]
By
Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

Well, I don't know...Bible.org folks are ususally DTS & dispensationalists... At any rate:

excerpt, bold mine

According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us."

I began to see the "sons of God" as angels in this passage from the Bible itself (see the texts listed in the article). So I didn't base my thought on this topic from extra-biblical material alone. Angels are also biblically identified as: "stars" and "the host of heaven".

I think 1 Enoch was not only known but believed in the first century -- yes, by Jude, the Lord's brother and the Lord Himself! But I don't necessarily agree with Tertullian every point. Have you seen the parallels to the Gospels in my earlier link? I've believed the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is Christ for a few years now (as did Tertullian and others).

So perhaps I'm not a heretic after all. Maybe I'm "Proto-Orthodox" (?), believing in stuff that later got chucked out the window by the "Orthodox"...(yeah-that). But are Proto-Orthodox people considered heretics today? I DON'T CARE (if they are), lol

Btw, I have information about how the Jews banned apocalypic books (at the Council of Jamnia that Tertullian alluded to). Later the "Church" followed suit at the Council of Laodicea by going against Jewish-Christians and their beliefs. So since the organized church accepted the Jewish Scriptures (OT) -- of course! -- 1 Enoch and other writings had been thrown out at Jamnia. I feel this had to do with a "cessationist" tendency, Anti-Semitism, and an increasing dependence on philosophy (as seen in many doctrines). The church all but abandoned its Jewish roots; it became "Greek"!

Yet today with the discovery of the 1 Eboch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other current NT era writings; the average person with a computer can know more about the roots and beginnings of Christianity than the Early Fathers!!!!
tc,
Rick

P.S. The people at Bible.org are Calvinists. Hence, the excursus on "Does God change His mind?"... Anyway......

[Guest]

I began to see the "sons of God" as angels in this passage from the Bible itself (see the texts listed in the article). So I didn't base my thought on this topic from extra-biblical material alone. Angels are also biblically identified as: "stars" and "the host of heaven".

While the exact phase "sons of God" may be used primarily of angels (5 times total), the phrase is only used in Job and Dan 3. This is the strongest point in favor of your view.

However, this sort of language is by no means restricted to angels. Israel is often called the "children of God" (which we can become per Jn 1:12), "son" (Ex. 4:22-23) and "sons of the living God" (Hos. 1:10b).

So out of the two options, I would tend to go witht the one that comports with reality more.

As for the the Gen. 6 text itself, it never actually says that the Nephilim were the result of this union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.

This view cannont account for how a spiritual "possesion" can pass along anything to offspring. There is nothing in the bible (or science) that I am aware that could support such a notion.

You have said that you don't want to debate this, but you keep posting more information that really isn't worth anything, (to me anyway), until my original points are addressed. Most of them, if true, would disprove your belief. Thanks for the link though. I'll check it out and see if there's anything in there.

God bless,

[Guest]

While exclusive usage of a word means one thing 99 times, there is always the possibililty that it's used ONCE to mean something else. While very expansive as a context, the Scriptures are not a WHOLE context of language as it is used in every instance. Thus we could get a word that means something 99 times, and something else one time. That's unlikely, but possible.

I have oft argued for "opening the door" to a different meaning of a phrase when it is used "most of the time" to mean a particular thing, or in "all other cases" a particular thing. All other uses meaning only "one thing" only makes the probability for a meaning higher, it doesn't lock it in.

What strikes me about angels having sex with humans is that later in scripture it says that we will NOT marry or be given in marriage "like the angels". Thus I conclude that they are sexless beings. Paul also tells us that there will be "male nor female" in the next life.

So while the "Sons of God" having sex with the daughters of men is a highly likely first read, I think it more refers to MALES who are Sons of God having sex with FEMALES who are daughters of men. Again, as Paul reminds us, women come out of men.

Lastly I am reminded of "word wrangling". If you base a doctrine entirely on the meaning of a word or short phrase, you're in a very dangerous area. Words in isolation mean nothing. They must be surrounded by a context or we don't know what they are. Context is in fact how we learn language as children. Short phrases fare little better than single words. If you want to believe that Angels had sex with human women and produced children, I think you base a huge doctrine with sweeping effect on a mere word or phrase. That's dangerous. I'd like some other confirmation.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

Prakk wrote

What strikes me about angels having sex with humans is that later in scripture it says that we will NOT marry or be given in marriage "like the angels". Thus I conclude that they are sexless beings.

Your conclusion could be correct. But I also see this conclusion as an argument from silence. Jesus did not mention they were unable to have sex. Also, he only mentioned “the angels heaven” and did not mention the angels that fell. This keeps the door open in my mind.

Paul also tells us that there will be "male nor female" in the next life.

Could you remind where Paul said this? My memory is failing me.

BTW I have no position on this and have a tendency to agree with TK’s statement earlier in this thread.

just as only God knows who wrote Hebrews, perhaps only God knows who the nephilim were.

TK

[Guest]

"Could you remind where Paul said this? My memory is failing me."

Galatians 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

anothersteve wrote:
"Could you remind where Paul said this? My memory is failing me."
Galatians 3:28:
Quote:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Thanks,

I've always thought of that verse to be addressing the removal of distinctions in God's present kingdom. That would obviously mean we would all be one in Christ in heaven as well. I don't think it's saying we will no longer be male and female in heaven (although that could be the case). Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

PS....is it true that you can drive as fast as you want on the highways in Montana?