Members irishman Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 It's been fun, but enough is enough. I have stated my case thoroughly, and we keep repeating the same old thoughts over and over again. Time to move on (for me at least) In the Hebrew, that means "goodbye". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Yeah, it's kind of a Jepthah's daughter type of discussion.....haha. The Bible leaves it somewhat open to interpretation, and everyone has their own method of interpreting it...many good men and women disagree on topics such as this, and it doesn't really make either of them wrong, since the doctrine doesn't have anything to do with how we are living our lives for God. Fun to think about, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 This is a little OT but, can I point out that the Bible does not say, in Genesis 6, that God "repented" that He had made man? It says "it repented the Lord and "it repenteth me" that I have made man. The former implies that man's wickedness had somehow taken God by surprise or that God had made a mistake in making man and was now regretting it.. I believe that the word "repent" means to "turn against" in this context as well as most others. To read it this way it means "it has turned against me, that I have created man". God had made no mistake in creating man nor had it taken Him by surprise because God always knew what man would do and he was not apologizing or 'regretting' creating us. He knew it would happen, yet He made us anyway. Nevertheless, it still grieved Him: We had chosen the evil instead of the good. Genesis 6: 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Here's the phrase again... It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night. 1 Samuel 15:11 However, here is a place where God DOES repent.... If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. ..and here He repented of destroying the Ninevites.... ...And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Most people seem to have an incorrect understanding of what repentance is. They think it means to be "sorry" for something you did. "Godly sorrow" indeed WORKETH repentence but it isn't repentence. Please understand: God doesn't have to be sorry for anything or regret anything. Repentence means to "Turn from" or "turn against". When God says he Repented of destroying the Ninevites, it means He turned against or turned from his intentions. Likewise, God fully intends to put all sinners in Hell if they don't trust Jesus as savior. But if WE turn from sin and self TO Jesus, that is "take God's side against ourself" then God will "repent". or.turn against the evil that He is going to punish us with. Repent=turn against or turn from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Still fails to prove that the sons of God were angels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 What fails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted July 6, 2013 Author Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Brother Mitchell, In your post #49, you stated: I would not agree that Jesus is revealing things about their nature so much as their limitations, respective to place. He didn´t say anything about what the angels on earth can do or didn´t do. He said clearly that the angels that are in heaven. I just believe what I read, I try not to hypothesize. 1. The reason angels do not marry and reproduce in heaven is because they are all male. 2. God did not say "as the angels of Satan on earth", he said "AS THE ANGELS OF GOD IN HEAVEN" I recognize that this particular posting is now somewhat distant in relation to the process of this thread. However, in responding to one portion of your post, I neglected to respond to another portion. Herein you appear to be indicating that in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking only concerning the righteous angels, that is -- to use the exact quote from Matthew 22:30, "the angels of God in heaven." In accord with Biblical precision, I am compelled to concede this point. Precisely, our Lord Jesus Christ did only speak concerning the angels of God (that is -- the righteous angels), which then does not reveal anything specific concerning the unrighteous angels that followed after the devil in his rebellion against God. As such, I must also concede that through this you have a valid means to support a disconnect between the truths of Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 in relation to the account of Genesis 6:2 & 4. I myself have contended that if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 & 4 are actually angelic beings, who then married human women, that the connection between these passages is that they both speak concerning the matter of angels and marriage. (Note: I do not at all concede on your presented viewpoint concerning the "taking" of wives in Genesis 6:2 as not being actual marriages.) However, if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 & 4 were indeed angel beings, then it would be recognized that they were the angels of unrighteousness. So then, since in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke precisely concerning "the angels of God in heaven," then His declaration would not necessarily apply to the angels of unrighteousness. However, such does still raises the question (a question that has been presented by others a number of times in this thread discussion) -- In what manner can the wicked angels of unrighteousness be entitled "the sons of God"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Pastor Markle, I think it's because they were Sons of God before they "left their first estate" and came down to join to the daughters of men. Meaning, they weren't already fallen angels until that very moment in time. That would be the only explanation really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 And the question as to whether sons of God refers to angels at all should be addressed. In all places where we see the words "angel" or "angels", we do not see them identified as "son of God" or "sons of God." Is it at all remotely possible that sons of God refers to something other than angels? It seems many are dogmatic about sons of God referring to angels when the Word of God does not actually give any indication that they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 And the question as to whether sons of God refers to angels at all should be addressed. In all places where we see the words "angel" or "angels", we do not see them identified as "son of God" or "sons of God." Is it at all remotely possible that sons of God refers to something other than angels? It seems many are dogmatic about sons of God referring to angels when the Word of God does not actually give any indication that they were. I wouldn't say I'm dogmatic, but so far I agree with it more so than other viewpoints. I think most scholars, however, agree that the "Sons of God" in Job were angels of some sort. Now, when the Bible mentions angels, often it refers to the main ones....the actual messengers, Gabriel, Michael the archangel, or otherwise angels that came down to bring a message to a person. However, they are called other things in Heaven, I believe. Aren't the four and twenty "elders" in Revelation a type of angel? Could the "Sons of God" be, maybe, a lower tier of angel? Demons have other names as well, like evil spirit or creatures or beasts. I guess I'm just saying that nobody has convinced me that the Sons of God *have* to be people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 I wouldn't say I'm dogmatic, but so far I agree with it more so than other viewpoints. I think most scholars, however, agree that the "Sons of God" in Job were angels of some sort. Now, when the Bible mentions angels, often it refers to the main ones....the actual messengers, Gabriel, Michael the archangel, or otherwise angels that came down to bring a message to a person. However, they are called other things in Heaven, I believe. Aren't the four and twenty "elders" in Revelation a type of angel? Could the "Sons of God" be, maybe, a lower tier of angel? Demons have other names as well, like evil spirit or creatures or beasts. I guess I'm just saying that nobody has convinced me that the Sons of God *have* to be people. The thing is, even those "scholars" are working off of the assumption that the sons of God were angels. If they indeed were angels, why does the Scripture not out and out say it? Why not "And a son of God told Mary she would have a child..." "And a son of God told stood in the way of Balaam as he traveled..." How do we come to the conclusion that angels are sons of God when the Word nowhere identifies them as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 The thing is, even those "scholars" are working off of the assumption that the sons of God were angels. If they indeed were angels, why does the Scripture not out and out say it? Why not "And a son of God told Mary she would have a child..." "And a son of God told stood in the way of Balaam as he traveled..." How do we come to the conclusion that angels are sons of God when the Word nowhere identifies them as such? Well as a thought...the word "angel" means "messenger". And every time you see the word "angel"...they are delivering a message. In Job, the "Sons of God" were not delivering a message. And in Genesis, if the "Sons of God" were angels who decided to fall away...well, they weren't delivering messages, either. The four and twenty elders in Revelation were not delivering a message, therefore they were not called angels. As a matter of fact, speaking of Revelation....some people believe that the "angels' of the churches are actually the pastors...because again, "angel" simply means "Messenger". "Unto the angel of the church of Thyatira" and etc. "Unto the messenger of the church...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Calvary Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Brother Mitchell, In your post #49, you stated: I recognize that this particular posting is now somewhat distant in relation to the process of this thread. However, in responding to one portion of your post, I neglected to respond to another portion. Herein you appear to be indicating that in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking only concerning the righteous angels, that is -- to use the exact quote from Matthew 22:30, "the angels of God in heaven." In accord with Biblical precision, I am compelled to concede this point. Precisely, our Lord Jesus Christ did only speak concerning the angels of God (that is -- the righteous angels), which then does not reveal anything specific concerning the unrighteous angels that followed after the devil in his rebellion against God. As such, I must also concede that through this you have a valid means to support a disconnect between the truths of Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 in relation to the account of Genesis 6:2 & 4. I myself have contended that if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 & 4 are actually angelic beings, who then married human women, that the connection between these passages is that they both speak concerning the matter of angels and marriage. (Note: I do not at all concede on your presented viewpoint concerning the "taking" of wives in Genesis 6:2 as not being actual marriages.) However, if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 & 4 were indeed angel beings, then it would be recognized that they were the angels of unrighteousness. So then, since in Matthew 22:30 & Mark 12:25 our Lord Jesus Christ spoke precisely concerning "the angels of God in heaven," then His declaration would not necessarily apply to the angels of unrighteousness. However, such does still raises the question (a question that has been presented by others a number of times in this thread discussion) -- In what manner can the wicked angels of unrighteousness be entitled "the sons of God"? Pastor Scott, I appreciate the talk we have had. I have already given on 2 occasions the reasoning behind the conclusion that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are angelic beings. There are and can only be 5 classes of sons of God in the Bible. There are not 7 as you posited and there are not 4 by way of elimination of the careful cross references to Genesis 6 through Job and Revelation 1. There is Adam Israel Jesus Christ New Testament Born Again Believers. Letting that stand as it is, makes us to ponder then, who are the sons of God in Genesis? Who are they in Job 1 and 38? I ask anyone following this thread. You may not like to say they are angels, but are they Adam? Yes or no. Are they Israel? Yes or no? Are they Jesus Christ? Yes or no. Are they New Testament Born Again Believers? Yes or no. After facing those questions squarely, Who are they? So we look for another place the Bible might mention sons of God. There in Job is a verse or 2. It says that sons of God were present and that it was at the very least contemporary with the life of Job, as he is the subject under consideration in the part of the conversation the Lord had with Satan. So, were there any Born Again believers in Job´s time? Was it Adam that was present with the Lord? How about Israel? Was it Jesus, ? Do you think that that biblical conclusions always com from a verse that just says Thou shalt not lie? Paul said we have to compare spiritual things with spiritual things, Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we must study to show ourselves approved unto God. It requires deductions. It requires considering every possibility we can find. After having deduced that the sons of God in Genesis 6 are not Adam, they are not New Testament born again believers, they are not Israel and they are not Jesus Christ, I find in Job the same wording. Comparing Job 1 with Job 38 I see that they are also referred to as morning stars, joyfully and exuberantly praising God for His work of Creation. I see that the sons of God were p´resent at the Creation, that rules out me and you. I see that the sons of God were praising the Lord for His creative work at the time He was working, that rules out Israel, that rules out you, that rules out Adam, but could it be Jesus? He is The Son of God, but sons? (i.e plural?) This stuff isn´t really all that complicated. The church has believed these sons of God to be angels for centuries. This isn´t some new dispensation theory. Clement, Josephus, Tertullian - that is going waaaayyyyy back to the founding fathers of the early church. It was Augustine that placed Sethites on the table, a rank heretic and a father of Catholicism. If they aren´t angels, then who are they? To say they are believers as in John 1:12-13 is to deny New Testament doctrine. In fact, that is just plain ridiculous. I have laid out a case for who are they are. I have refrained from mentioning the giants, the fallen angel aspect, the cohabitation, because to me, if you can´t see they are angels, then it doesn´t matter what the ramifications are. Pastor Scott, you have been very christian in your posts. Thank you and God bless, In fact this thread has been very even keeled over all. Thanks! calvary bro mithcell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standing Firm In Christ Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Where does the Bible specifically identify angels as being sons of God? To date, no one has addressed this question. Just saying, "See, it says sons of God... It is speaking of angels." Does not prove they are angels anymore than saying, "See it says light,... It is speaking of General Electric." Proves light bulbs were in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 I will, it doesn't. It specifically calls angels "ministering spirits". Christ and human believers are the only beings specified as "sons of God". he only exception is "Israel is my son" which is most likely really referring to Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted July 6, 2013 Members Share Posted July 6, 2013 Where does the Bible specifically identify angels as being sons of God? To date, no one has addressed this question. Just saying, "See, it says sons of God... It is speaking of angels." Does not prove they are angels anymore than saying, "See it says light,... It is speaking of General Electric." Proves light bulbs were in the Bible. I specifically answered your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.