Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

The Kingdom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 minute ago, Critical Mass said:

A semicolon means that the two independent clauses are closely related. Yes Therefore, the giants are associated with the Sons of God and daughters of men. The giants are the might men of old.No Giants in the bible are always really tall men like 9  feetYes to 15  feet No. Born again males (and for some reason only born again males are backslidding here according to your interpretation) having children with unregenerated women do not produce freakishly tall giants. 

 

No, The term "also after that" means "in accordance" or "in imitation of" etc.. Maybe it's saying that the sons of God and their progeny became a "force to be reckoned with" just like the giants were.. The giants were simply tall people, or 'races' of tall people, which were feared because of their size. You'll find the same thing in the Book of Numbers. Likewise, the Philistines had a "giant" but David had "mighty men". The term "mighty" means powerful. Boaz, for instance, was a "mighty man" of wealth. Look it up, that's what it says. Anyway, the sons of God just became powerful like the giants. They were living like the world, instead of following God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, Critical Mass said:

Nope. "Those days" are the days before the flood. Moses dealt with giants during his time and he is letting his readers know how they came about thus justifying why they all needed to be slaughtered. They were the result of angels (aka sons of God) leaving their original habitations and procreating with women producing mighty, yet wicked, giants. Og of Bashan and Goliath being examples.

Bro, this ain't Jack and the Beanstalk :D They were just tall men, Like, you know, Watusis, pro basketball players, or linebackers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Jude 1:6-7  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

so verse seven is conected to verse six, Going after strange flesh was similar to what the Angels did.Cain was of the evil one, the seed of the serpent.

"their own habitation" is oikētērionThe angels that sinned "gave up" their glorified bodies in order to "materialize" on the earth and mate with human women.  (ie: the "angels that sinned" permanently became physical beings, in order to contaminate the human DNA through sex)

For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house oikētērion G3613 which is from heaven:  2 Cor 5:2   We shall receive "glorified bodies". :D
 

δέ εἰ τὶς ἀγνοέω ἀγνοέω

Edited by beameup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, wretched said:

MC, I am not disagreeing with you here just quoting you because of the subject you were on.

All God ever wanted from Israel was heart felt faith. He gave them all the Law and all the Ordinances so they could demonstrate with obedience their heart felt faith in Him. But what Israel did in reality was turn the Law & Ordinances into works in themselves without faith MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT throughout the OT and the Gospels.

Jesus demonstrated with this adulterous woman His real message to the Jews which was a total lack of heart felt faith in Him. If they had had it, they would understand mercy and be without hypocrisy.

Matthew 22: 37, Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38, This is the first and great commandment. 

39, And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Ritualizing the Law and Ordinances as Israel sinfully did throughout the OT leaves no understanding of love and mercy. Here is a good IFB church example:

Long time church members who back bite and look down on another woman member who dresses immodestly. I could give you 10s of these by the way. Makes me often wonder if these types of "Christians" are saved at all or if they are simply religious tares living by a new set of law and ordinance.

Prayerfully teach privately the lady in Immodest clothing without gossip/backbiting and snubbing their noses, that is what true faith and salvation generates in a person. This is what Jesus is explaining with this adulterous woman. If this immodestly clad lady is truly born again, she will get it, it might take some patient prayer, but she will.

The reason why the Gospel of the Kingdom and that of Peter, James and is contained in Hebrews seems markedly different than that of church Epistles from Paul has nothing to do with mixing works and faith to save. It has to do with Jewish understanding ingrained in them by of the Law. Jesus' point eluded them throughout the OT and the Gospels and they still wanted to ritualize their work in their flesh without obedience in heart felt love and faith. However, it is obvious that many of these ordinance bound Jews were saved because of how the Gospel was presented to them specifically.

This and this alone is why the Gospels were explained so differently to Jew and Gentile IMO. It is the same Gospel but to completely different types of mindsets and understanding.

I wonder sometimes if God named them differently for the exact same reason. Think about it: to a Jew bound by ordinances, just the title "Gospel of Grace" is a stumblingblock. But to a gentile, it is welcome good news.

 

 

I am not sure if Gentiles means Greeks or just non Jews, but there seem to be three groups named in the gospels, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Jude 1:6-7  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

so verse seven is conected to verse six, Going after strange flesh was similar to what the Angels did.Cain was of the evil one, the seed of the serpent.

Three groups of sinners in the Bookof Jude,: #! The Israelites in the Wildreness, #2  the angels which kept not their first estate, and #3 the Sodomites. And three(3) sins are mentioned: Defile the flesh, despise dominion, speak evil of digities. Match the sin with the sinners: The Israelites spoke evil of dignities (namely Moses), the angels despised dominion (the dominion of God), and it was the Sodomites who" defiled the flesh". ...not the angels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 hours ago, John81 said:
21 hours ago, John81 said:

I had to ask because some teach that Eve and Satan had sex and offspring.

You have yet to show Scripture which indicates angels are capable of mating with humans.

I had to ask because some teach that Eve and Satan had sex and offspring.

You have yet to show Scripture which indicates angels are capable of mating with humans.

Sex would be a physical union, I doubt it, that is not very subtle, I think the union was in the form of 'agreement', and ate the same time a dissagreement withThe LORD.

 

21 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

On the other hand, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "giants" (Hebrew, "n'philiym") existed on the earth before "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" produced children.

In addition, in Genesis 6:4 itself God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" became "mighty men (not "n'philiym") which were of old, men of renown."

Finally, in Numbers 13:32-33 God the Holy Spirit through inspiration indicated that the "n'philiym" were still on the earth in the time of Moses (which means that they were not completely removed by the flood), and that they were "men of great stature."

In truth, I do NOT CARE what the Jewish commentators thought, or what the Jewish translators of the Septuagint thought, or what the Book of Enoch says, or what the church fathers thought, or what Augustine of Hippo taught.  On the other hand, I CERTAINLY CARE what God the Holy Spirit inspired.

(Yet it must be remembered that Brother "Beameup" will not receive this response because he has "blocked" my postings from his awareness.)

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 [from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being] and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men [powerful; by implication, warrior]

'Men' does not = Human or 'of Adam'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 hours ago, John81 said:
5 hours ago, John81 said:

Apparently there is no Scripture which indicates angels can mate with humans just as there is no scriptural indication angels can choose to no longer be spiritual beings in favor of becoming physical beings.

I had to ask because some teach that Eve and Satan had sex and offspring.

You have yet to show Scripture which indicates angels are capable of mating with humans.

Jude 6&7 might do, but you could take it otherwise, more light will tell. 'they left their original abode, this might mean they went to dwell in bodies of dust, if not where did they leave and where didi they go, and why was it in like manner as sodom & gamorah?

Edited by Old-Pilgrim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Old-Pilgrim said:

Jude 6&7 might do. but you could take it otherwise, more light will tell.

These verses have been addressed as they don't indicate angel/human mating or angels somehow renouncing their spiritual nature and making themselves physical. Neither do they indicate any such is even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, John81 said:

These verses have been addressed as they don't indicate angel/human mating or angels somehow renouncing their spiritual nature and making themselves physical. Neither do they indicate any such is even possible.

A spirit in a body is still a spirit. Humans are a spirit with a body of dust, angels normaly have no body, what about people who are possesed with anunclean spirit(s), or an evil spirit, when Jesus cast them out, they were still spirits but they had to leave the vesel from which they were cast out, and had to go to the place which was appointed to them; sooner or later. As far as scripture goes, I think Genesis 6 is the clearest, there are many topics which lack 'proof texts' so you only need to prove the meaning to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 minutes ago, John81 said:

These verses have been addressed as they don't indicate angel/human mating or angels somehow renouncing their spiritual nature and making themselves physical. Neither do they indicate any such is even possible.

Who addressed them I never saw that, but if they are quoting greek and all that, do we all need to go and learn greek from an apostate teacher in order to find out his error?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Chester,

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

A semicolon means that the two independent clauses are closely related.

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

Therefore, the giants are associated with the Sons of God and daughters of men. The giants are the mighty men of old.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Indeed, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

Born again males (and for some reason only born again males are backslidding here according to your interpretation) having children with unregenerated women do not produce freakishly tall giants or necessarily "mighty men of old". 

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

This was going on after the flood too. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that the men who visited Lot were angels but still desired them.

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 11:38 PM, Critical Mass said:

This is the "strange flesh" as mentioned in Jude 6,7.

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Chester,

Indeed, a semicolon that is followed by the coordinating conjunction "and" DOES grammatically indicate a coordinating relationship between the two statements of the two independent clauses.

False.  The semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" do NOT indicate that the "giants" were associated with "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men."  Rather, the semicolon and the coordinating conjunction "and" grammatically indicate that the two events of the two independent clauses are related to one another.  Yet what is that relationship?  That relationship is revealed by the additional phrase, "also after that."  You see, if you desire to speak concerning the grammatical construction of the passage, you need to speak concerning ALL of the grammatical construction; and ALL of the grammatical construction includes the entire phrase, "and also after that."

Frist, the use of the adverb "also" indicates that the second independent clause reveals an additional reality to the first independent clause.  Indeed, the use of the adverb "also" grammatically reveals that the second independent clause is NOT an explanation or definition of the first independent clause.  Furthermore, the adverbial (prepositional) phrase "after that" indicates that the reality of the second independent clause occurred in time AFTER the reality of the first independent clause.  Brother Scott, that is not correct. The phrase, "in those days", indicates that the existence of giants was contemporary with the actions of the sons of God, namely "when men began to multiply...."  and the term "in those days" is speaking of the entire period before the flood. and, according to the context the results of the two realities existed at the same time, such that the "giants" and the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" existed on the earth during the same period of time.  However, the realities of the two independent clauses originally occurred in a sequence of time, with the reality that "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" procreated and had children occurring AFTER the reality that "there were giants in the earth in those days."  Now, since the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" occurred AFTER the existence of the "giants," it is impossible that the "giants" could be the resulting children of that procreation.  By definition the effect does NOT occur before the cause.

Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the procreation of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" did NOT produce the "giants," since the "giants" existed in the earth BEFORE the children from "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were brought forth.  Indeed, my viewpoint, based upon the English grammar of the verse, indicates that the children of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" were simply human males who grew up to become "mighty men which were of old, men of renown," NOT the "giants."

Really???  Where in the Biblical account of Genesis 19:1-12 does God's Word indicate that "the men of Sodom . . . knew that the men who visited Lot were angels"?  (By the way, the men of Gomorrah never encountered the two angels, since Lot lived in Sodom, and since the angels visited Lot in Sodom.) 

False.  The adjective "strange" means "foreign, uncommon, unnatural."  The "strange [unnatural] flesh" after which "Sodom and Gomorrha" and "the cities" around them "in like manner" with Sodom and Gomorrha were "going after" is explained in Romans 1:27 -- "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

 

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...