Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Sons of God?


Recommended Posts

  • Members
There were three books of Enoch. 1 Enoch (the one mentioned in Jude) is only recognized by the Ethiopian Coptic Church. Possibly written as late as 70AD. It's possible that whoever authored it did it in order to provide the "book" that Jude quoted. So it may have been written AFTER Jude's epistle. Even if it weren't written after Jude's letter and perchance Jude did quote it doesn't mean it was inspired scripture. Paul quoted a heathen prophet yet that doesn't mean the prophet was inspired (Titus 1:12). Apostate Jews "recognized" it but so what? None of them "recognized" their Messiah when he came along. Should we trust them here? Anyways' date=' Jude never says anything about a BOOK. He just tells you what Enoch prophesied.[/u']

Bill


That's right. I agree with you.
Jude didn't need a book. God told prophets what would happen in the future so I have no problem believing He could tell Jude something that happened in the past.

Here's another..........
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Did Jude get this from a book? Who witnessed it to write it down? Seems like only God or Michael the Archangel could have passed on this info......before it could be written in ANY book. I believe God must have just told it to Jude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

If I may post here, (I am a "newby") I believe that the phrase "The sons of God" refers to the line of Seth also. I believe that the mingling with the "daughters of men" was another attempt by Satan to destroy the priestly line through which the Messiah would come (As prophesied in Gen. 3:15). There were many subtle attempts throughout scripture that seem to be aimed at destroying the coming of the Messiah, in fact, even one right after the resurrection of Christ (when Mary apparently wanted to hug, or touch the Lord, and He rebuked her because he had not ascended unto the Father. Fleshly hands could have destroyed the purity of the sacrifice, and redemption for all men...with the subtlety of a loving embrace!).
Anyway, I believe that, as someone has already said, the "sons of God" consistently refer to God's children throughout the Bible.

Not everyone was still in the lineage of Seth (by faith), and the world was vastly growing. The "Giants" that were produced (I believe) were powerful men, but ungodly men who could wreak havoc upon the children of Seth (the godly line) and were as "giants among men".

Just my opinion, but most logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Irishman,
Welcome to Oniline Baptist.
Yes, Of the sons of God, named in Genesis 5, Methuselah and Noah were the last two alive the year the flood came. Methuselah died the same year as the flood. So the only godly people left were Noah and his family.

Think about this;
Notice, that the "sons of God" "took them wives". These guys were not sleeping around, they were creating permanent families. Jesus said they were "marrying and giving in marriage", so the word "marrying" seems to indicate they were actively engaged in the "practice of marriage"; It appears they were polygamists.
If a patriarch "chose wives" from many other patriarchs, creating marriage alliances, and then "went into them" "generating" (see Genesis 5:1) for hundreds of years "begatting sons and daughters" and his "sons and and daughters" begatting more sons and daughters, after hundreds of years this one patriach's descendents would number in the thousands, if not millions. A man like Lamech, or Methuselah, as the patriarch of a huge tribe of descendents would truly be economically, politically, and militarily powerful....a "mighty man of renown". "mighty man" does not always mean a "Warrior". For example, the bible says that Boaz was a "mighty man of wealth" (Ruth 2:1)

The phrase, "and also after that" can mean "after the same fashion" or "likened to that" (such as "after his kind")
And subsequently, such a huge "tribe" would be a force to be reckoned with, "after the same fashion" as the giants.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; simply makes the statement
and also after that, and also likened to that
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them,
the same the sons of God
[became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good post heartstrings,. So then Noah was the only "son of God" that entered into the post flood world? It still stands that the term referred then to the godly line, since he "found grace in the eyes of the Lord." By the time Babel came into the picture (Gen. 11) there could have been millions of peole on earth, but still a remnant of God's people.

Job 38:7 however sounds as if it refers to angels. Any offspring of God can be called his child, as well as spiritual offspring. (Same as Paul claiming Timothy as his son, 1 Cor. 4:17) It seems as if it could go either way, but the many attempts on destroying the royal seed, seems to lean toward men and not angels, being the "sons of Gos in Gen. 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks Irishman
Yes, all of the named men, listed in Genesis 5 are in the lineage of Christ. By the time of the flood, all of them had already died. All we know is that Methuselah died the same year as the flood. I personally believe that he died just before the flood came....just in the same year. Noah was the only named "son of God" left, unless you can count Shem, Ham and Japheth. But I personally believe that Noah's wife must have been a believer as well.

Notice that the "sons of God" in Job 38, shouted as the cornerstone was being laid.
Do we know for sure that this event was the first act of creating the world?

Could the following event be the first laying of the cornerstone?
Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Will not ALL of the "sons of God", from all time, shout for joy, in the millenial Kindom? Could Job 38:7 be a prophecy of this event?
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

At any rate, isn't Jesus the cornerstone?
....and the Lamb slain from the foundation.......not "before"?
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

I think Paul calls Timothy a "son" here because Paul had "begotten" Timothy through the Gospel......
14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

To be an earthly "son", one has to be "begotten" by a father or "adopted". "sons of God" must also be "begotten" or "adopted"..
Have angels ever been begotten? Hebrews 1:5
Do angels have the Spirit crying abba Father? Galatians 4:6
Are angels heirs of God throught Christ? Galatians 4:7
Are angels chastened as sons? Hebrews 12:7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
My question to those who think that the "sons of God" were the "godly line of Seth" is why only did righteous men marry wicked women? How come none of the "daughters of God" of the "godly line of Seth" married wicked men?



Neither Genesis 5, nor 6 mention any women's names either, not even Noah's wife orhis sons' wives, names appear, but that doesn't mean they had no names. Genesis 6 also does not mention that Noah was a preacher, but 2 Peter 2:5 does.
Just becasue it doesn't say it there, doesn't mean it didn't happen. They may or may not have.
Jesus said "marrying and giving in marriage" was going on before the flood, so some righteous daughters very well could have been "given".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Even if it weren't written after Jude's letter and perchance Jude did quote it doesn't mean it was inspired scripture. Paul quoted a heathen prophet yet that doesn't mean the prophet was inspired (Titus 1:12). Apostate Jews "recognized" it but so what? None of them "recognized" their Messiah when he came along. Should we trust them here? Anyways, Jude never says anything about a BOOK. He just tells you what Enoch prophesied.

Bill


I wasn't arguing that it was scripture, sorry if I made it sound that way. My point is that the "sons of God = Godly line of Seth" is a very modern doctrine that dates back only a few hundred years. Back in Judes day, the only interpretation of this event in scripture was that sons of God were angels. It wasn't until the Age of Reason just a few hundred years ago that people came up with the "sons of God = Godly line of Seth" interpretation. That means all old testament and new testament believers up until the late 17th century found in scripture knew of no other interpretation of scripture except that the sons of God were angels.

You will find absolutely no reference to the sons of God being mankind before that date. Instead, you find the opposite interpretation , which is what I was trying to show with the Book of Enoch quote in Jude, and other writings of believers and nonbelievers (Philo of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose, etc...) that mentioned the old interpretation.

We as Baptists have joy in knowing that our doctrine can be traced all the way back. Baptists weren't offshoots of some religious split, and we don't just create new doctrine because it sounds more reasonable. But this is one belief that stops just a few hundred years ago that leaves no trail back to the beginning where Christ established his called out assembly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kubel,
Did the folks in the following verse live in the first century?
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

What about these?
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

And these?
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Just because somebody lived in the first century, does that mean they rightly divided the word or taught sound doctrine?

Would you do me one favor? Of the men you listed, will you please choose the one who is the earliest and the most doctrinally sound, and show me what this man wrote about the "sons of God"? I would really like to see it.
And would you show me how you know, without a shadow of a doubt, the NOBODY back then believed that "sons of God" were the sons of Seth? And are you going to trust what the Bible says or what some man says it said? Psa 118:8 [it is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. I want to know what the BIBLE says. The BIBLE.... tells us exactly who "sons of God" are because there are direct definitions in the word of God. I want to see one....just one direct defintionin the Bible....which tells me something like.....
"brethren, now are angels the sons of God" or....
"because angels are sons they have the spirit of hIs son crying abba Father" or...
"unto the angels saith He, thou art my son this day have I begotten thee....."or
"behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon angels that they should be called the sons of God"...you know anything which says an angel is a son, or even just connects the word "angel" with the phrase "son of God". That's all I will believe is what the Bible says. Do you not have just one verse? Just one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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...