Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
4 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.

Another good point and in addition:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It is logical to believe that angels were created individually and not through procreation as indicated in Matt 22:30 and Mark.

Without procreation it would be logical to believe there would be no need of genitals, hormones or sex. Fallen angels may be different but there is no indication of this in Scripture.

There is just too many clues against the devil/human hybrid theory. Although it is strangely fascinating to imagine, it makes the least Scriptural sense among theories IMO. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

God created each creature to reproduce after their kind. Angels, fallen or otherwise, and humans are of different kinds, created with different purposes, and do not reproduce. I'm sorry, they do not, they cannot.

Are you sure extraterrestrials didn't reproduce with humans?

s-l300.jpg

tumblr_m7yp12J9Fq1qcmlw4o1_500.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, wretched said:

Another good point and in addition:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

It is logical to believe that angels were created individually and not through procreation as indicated in Matt 22:30 and Mark.

Without procreation it would be logical to believe there would be no need of genitals, hormones or sex. Fallen angels may be different but there is no indication of this in Scripture.

There is just too many clues against the devil/human hybrid theory. Although it is strangely fascinating to imagine, it makes the least Scriptural sense among theories IMO. 

 

We had a pastor once, who when teaching this stuff, would say that this only counted for the angels "In heaven". But as he would say, the ones which came to earth "cohabited with women" even though the Bible says "took them wives".  I guess maybe it makes the story more fascinating for some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

We had a pastor once, who when teaching this stuff, would say that this only counted for the angels "In heaven". But as he would say, the ones which came to earth "cohabited with women" even though the Bible says "took them wives".  I guess maybe it makes the story more fascinating for some people.

As angels are spirit beings, I cannot see how they can marry anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:4-6)  Written by John the Apostle to the churches. Kings and priests.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9&10)  Those redeemed of God from ALL kindred and tongue and people and nation, made kings and priests, to reign on the earth."  

Israel was made to be a holy nation, a nation of kings and priests to God, and so they were for some 1500 years until Christ came and they rejected their Messiah.   This is not to say all promises have been taken away from them-certainly there will be a remnant saved of Israel, but that promise to be a nation of kings and priests was given and fulfilled, and subsequently rejected by them when they rejected the expected Messiah.

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, beameup said:

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

John was a Christian and a Hebrew.  He was part of Israel and part of the Church.  God has only one group of elect, believers in all ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
14 hours ago, beameup said:

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly".  Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].  Synagogues are called an "assembly".  You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect".  You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

unless my memory is faulty, there was only once that the word 'church' was used to indicate anything BUT the New testament churches, and that was when speaking of the church in the wilderness, the children of Israel in their wanderings. It fit the general description as a called-out assembly, being the Hebrews called out of Egypt.

Apart from that, the term church always refers to the body of Christ, the New Testament local churches, and the context is quite clear that this is to whom those seven letters are addressed. At this point, the synagogues had rejected Jesus and God completely-why would we assume their candlesticks were in place? And are you intimating that the synagogue at Philadelphia was doing things so perfectly that the Lord had nothing but commendation for them? A synagogue full of Jews who had rejected Jesus?  No, I think you're reeeeally reaching here.  The churches are those to whom these seven letters are written, though as a whole, they and the entire book are written to him that has an ear to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:32 PM, Critical Mass said:

So are you saying that born again Christians (aka sons of God) marrying and having children with unsaved women (aka daughters of men) will produce offspring 9 to 15 feet tall?  Because that's the stature of the giants in the bible.

No sir, I am NOT saying this at all.  Indeed, I have no need whatsoever at all to be saying this; for Genesis 6:4 does NOT indicate that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") were the offspring of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men."  So then, let us consider what Genesis 6:4 actually DOES indicate.

Concerning Genesis 6:4

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God 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.”

Grammatically, this verse presents a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction “and.”  The first of these independent clauses is the statement, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”  This statement simply reveals the existence of “giants” (Hebrew, “n’philiym”) “in the earth” at the time of “those days.”  It does not reveal anything more about those “giants.”  It does not reveal anything about their character or their conduct.  It does not reveal anything about their origins or their parentage.  It does not reveal anything about their size or their stature.

Then the second of the independent clause in Genesis 6:4 encompasses the remainder of the verse, “And also after that, when the sons of God 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.”  This statement begins with a phrase of addition and of time – “also after that.”  Herein the adverb “also” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that is in addition to the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Furthermore, the prepositional phrase, “after that,” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that occurred in time after the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached. 

Now, this is significant for a correct understanding of this verse, because of the principle that cause does not follow after effect, but that effect follows after cause.  Since this second independent clause speaks concerning the reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men,” and since it speaks of this reproduction as occurring in time AFTER the existence of the “giants” (“n’philiym”) “in the earth,” it is NOT possible for this reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men” to be the cause for that existence of the “giants in the earth.”  The cause for the existence of these “giants” CANNOT come AFTER the effect.

However, the information of this second independent clause in Genesis 6:4 DOES reveal who actually WERE the offspring of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men.”  After the opening phrase of addition and time, this clause presents a “when-then” statement.  First, the “when” side of the statement is grammatically presented as a compound protasis of two parts, as follows: (1) “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and (2) when “they [the daughters of men] bare children to them [the sons of God].”  This “when” side of the statement reveals the cause for the “then” side of the statement.  This cause is that “the sons of God” engaged in sexual relations with “the daughters of men” (which, according to Genesis 6:1-2, “the sons of God” had taken as their wives) and that “the daughters of men” in turn became pregnant and bear children unto “the sons of God,” their husbands.

Second, the “then” side of the statement (the apodosis) reveals the effect (or, result) of this procreation between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”  Indeed, this effect (or, result) is that “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  Herein the subject of this effect (or, result) statement is “the same,” and it indicates that this statement is about the very “same” children that “the daughters of men” bare unto “the sons of God.”  These very “same” children grew up to become, NOT the “giants” (“n’philiym”), BUT “mighty men,” who were “men of renown.”  As such, it is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:52 AM, Ukulelemike said:

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." (Rev 1:4-6)  Written by John the Apostle to the churches. Kings and priests.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9&10)  Those redeemed of God from ALL kindred and tongue and people and nation, made kings and priests, to reign on the earth."  

Israel was made to be a holy nation, a nation of kings and priests to God, and so they were for some 1500 years until Christ came and they rejected their Messiah.   This is not to say all promises have been taken away from them-certainly there will be a remnant saved of Israel, but that promise to be a nation of kings and priests was given and fulfilled, and subsequently rejected by them when they rejected the expected Messiah.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

The word used there is Ekklesia, which simply means "assembly". 

That is correct.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

Israel in the wilderness was an "assembly" [Acts 7:38].

That is correct.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

Synagogues are called an "assembly". 

There is not a single case of this in the New Testament Scriptures.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

You are using the rules of "Replacement Theology" and assuming that all scriptures refer only to "the church" (Body of Christ), and that God has only one group of "elect". 

False!  He is not using the principle of "Replacement Theology" for his presentation.  Rather, he is using the principle of precise grammar and context for his presentation.  He quoted Revelation 1:4-6, wherein God the Holy inspired the apostle John to write the following, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.  Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."  Herein God the Holy Spirit applied the doctrinal truth, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father," unto "the seven churches which are [that is -- present tense at the time of John's writing] in Asia," and thereby applied that doctrinal truth unto church age believers.

Furthermore, in Revelation 1:11 our Lord Jesus Christ Himself specified the particular locations of these seven churches, saying, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."  Now, at least one of these churches (Ephesus) was started by the apostle Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles; and it certainly included a Gentile membership.

What is actually happening is that you are showing a disregard for precise grammar and context in your Bible study.

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

You are "assuming" that Revelation was written to and for "the church" (Body of Christ).

He has no need whatsoever at all to assume this, since God the Holy Spirit inspired the following statements to be included in the book of the Revelation:

Revelation 1:4 -- "John to the seven churches which are in Asia . . ."

Revelation 1:11 -- "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."

Revelation 2:1 -- "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write . . ." 

Revelation 2:7 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches . . ."

Revelation 2:8 -- "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write . . ."

Revelation 2:11 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches . . ."

Revelation 2:12 -- "And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write . . ."

Revelation 2:17 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches . . ."

Revelation 2:18 -- "And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write . . ."

Revelation 2:29 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Revelation 3:1 -- "And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write . . ."

Revelation 3:6 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Revelation 3:7 -- "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write . . ."

Revelation 3:13 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Revelation 3:14 -- "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write . . ."

Revelation 3:22 -- "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

Revelation 22:16 -- "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.  I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

So then, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have proclaimed the above declarations.  Yet Brother "Beameup" denies that the book of the Revelation was written to and for the church and to and for church age believers.  I wonder who is actually correct -- God the Son and God the Holy Spirit or Brother Beameup?  As for myself, I will choose to follow God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

(By the way, those who deny that the epistle to the Hebrews was written to New Testament, Hebrew believers of the New Testament church stand in contradiction with the Holy Spirit inspired declaration of Hebrews 12:22-24.)

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, beameup said:

Was John a "Hebrew"?  Was John part of "Israel"? Do the promises of Exodus 19:5-6 apply to Israel, or has the church "replaced" Israel?

1.  Yes, John was a Hebrew and a part of Israel.  Now let me ask -- Was John a New Testament believer; and was John a part of the New Testament church, the body of Christ, the one new man, wherein is joined together both Jewish and Gentile believers into one spiritual body?

2.  Yes, the promises of Exodus 19:5-6, as given in Exodus 19:5-6, apply only to Israel.  No, the New Testament church has NOT "replaced" Israel, such that the promise in Exodus 19:5-6 does NOT apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church.  Yet the truth of Revelation 1:4-6, as given in Revelation 1:4-6, DOES apply to the New Testament believers of the New Testament church, and not to Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

No sir, I am NOT saying this at all.  Indeed, I have no need whatsoever at all to be saying this; for Genesis 6:4 does NOT indicate that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") were the offspring of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men."  So then, let us consider what Genesis 6:4 actually DOES indicate.

Concerning Genesis 6:4

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God 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.”

Grammatically, this verse presents a compound sentence, containing two independent clauses that are joined with the conjunction “and.”  The first of these independent clauses is the statement, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”  This statement simply reveals the existence of “giants” (Hebrew, “n’philiym”) “in the earth” at the time of “those days.”  It does not reveal anything more about those “giants.”  It does not reveal anything about their character or their conduct.  It does not reveal anything about their origins or their parentage.  It does not reveal anything about their size or their stature.

Then the second of the independent clause in Genesis 6:4 encompasses the remainder of the verse, “And also after that, when the sons of God 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.”  This statement begins with a phrase of addition and of time – “also after that.”  Herein the adverb “also” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that is in addition to the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached.  Furthermore, the prepositional phrase, “after that,” indicates that the reality of this independent clause is something that occurred in time after the reality of the previous independent clause to which it is attached. 

Now, this is significant for a correct understanding of this verse, because of the principle that cause does not follow after effect, but that effect follows after cause.  Since this second independent clause speaks concerning the reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men,” and since it speaks of this reproduction as occurring in time AFTER the existence of the “giants” (“n’philiym”) “in the earth,” it is NOT possible for this reproduction of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men” to be the cause for that existence of the “giants in the earth.”  The cause for the existence of these “giants” CANNOT come AFTER the effect.

However, the information of this second independent clause in Genesis 6:4 DOES reveal who actually WERE the offspring of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men.”  After the opening phrase of addition and time, this clause presents a “when-then” statement.  First, the “when” side of the statement is grammatically presented as a compound protasis of two parts, as follows: (1) “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and (2) when “they [the daughters of men] bare children to them [the sons of God].”  This “when” side of the statement reveals the cause for the “then” side of the statement.  This cause is that “the sons of God” engaged in sexual relations with “the daughters of men” (which, according to Genesis 6:1-2, “the sons of God” had taken as their wives) and that “the daughters of men” in turn became pregnant and bear children unto “the sons of God,” their husbands.

Second, the “then” side of the statement (the apodosis) reveals the effect (or, result) of this procreation between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”  Indeed, this effect (or, result) is that “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  Herein the subject of this effect (or, result) statement is “the same,” and it indicates that this statement is about the very “same” children that “the daughters of men” bare unto “the sons of God.”  These very “same” children grew up to become, NOT the “giants” (“n’philiym”), BUT “mighty men,” who were “men of renown.”  As such, it is grammatically invalid to claim from Genesis 6:4 that the “giants” (“n’philiym”) were the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men.”

"AND ALSO AFTER THAT" i.e. there were giants in the earth after the flood too (which there were) as a result of the sons of God procreating with the daughters of men. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp?

Again, the teaching that these "sons of God" were born again Christian is ridiculous. Or that only saved men married unsaved women and not the other way around.

Anything but believe the bible.

Edited by Critical Mass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

Again, the teaching that these "sons of God" were born again Christian is ridiculous. Or that only saved men married unsaved women and not the other way around.

Anything but believe the bible.

I used to believe as you do until one day I asked my daughter to diagram the sentence for me.  Then miraculously my pastor preached on the topic the very same night and now believe properly.  Giants and the sons of God are not the same and the sons of God then and now always refers to a saved person, one who has trusted in the Savior.

Mr. Critical Mass it's testimony time.  On your original introduction post, would you share your testimony with us please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

"AND ALSO AFTER THAT" i.e. there were giants in the earth after the flood too (which there were) as a result of the sons of God procreating with the daughters of men. I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp?

Again, the teaching that these "sons of God" were born again Christian is ridiculous. Or that only saved men married unsaved women and not the other way around.

Anything but believe the bible.

Yea, it's pretty straight-forward.  Prior to Augustine, it was universally understood to be fallen angels bene Elohim (or called "Watchers" in the Book of Enoch). The reference in Genesis 6 is "the sons of God" cohabiting with "the daughters of Men" bath 'adam                                                                    [     angels could eat and drink in the O.T. and were the objects of sexual-desire by the Sodomites, which tells us that they could "materialize" on earth]

The older view, held nearly unanimously by ancient writers prior to Augustine of Hippo, is that the Benei Ha'Elohim (Sons of God) or The Watchers were fallen angels in extra-Biblical traditions. While there has always been a minority of churchmen who followed this view

The view posited by St. Augustine in the fourth century is that the Sons of God refers to the god-fearing line of Seth; and the daughters of men refers to the daughters of the unbelieving line of Cain.  http://creationwiki.org/Bene_Elohim

4th Century Catholic Church doctrine still has tremendous influence on doctrine today.  A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  Gal 5:9

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...