Do Angels Have An Earthly Ministry Today?

[Major]

Yes, let's look at Matthew 22.
28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Jesus is asked by the Sadducees about the resurrection and how marriage HERE ON EARTH pertains to when those PEOPLE FROM EARTH go to heaven or are resurrected.
He says they don't marry, not that they are asexual. So the angels likewise do not marry in heaven. If angels are asexual, how is it they were men with Abraham? How is it that violent homosexual men wanted to have sex with them in Sodom? Obviously they have the body parts when they take human form. If they can eat with Abraham, then their body parts worked like ours also.
I know of no place in the Bible that alludes to lack of male or female identity when we go to heaven. We do get new bodies, but that is it.
Even if we are asexual in heaven, it stands to reason that while on earth we are male and female and change when we pass into heaven. Why would it be different for going the other way? Jesus was male as a human. In Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Jesus, in pre-incarnate form (Lord God), walked in the garden making sound, and had a presence which Adam and Eve hid from.
Jesus called the omni-everything God of heaven, Father. Not Indeterminate Parental Unit. Nor generic "Maker" or "Creator".
Jacob wrestled with the Lord, who took the form of what? A man. Jesus was apparently not a good wrestler, since He could not make Jacob give up.

Question may be, "Why would God allow this?". Why does He allow bad things to happen? I think we know why. We need challenged to become more than we are. Growth will not take place without shtuff happening.

All angels in the Scriptures are MALE. There are no female or children angels. I understand that is hard for some to accept and believe me, I did not have anything to do with it. All I am saying is that there is NO record in Scripture that supports female angels.

YES, the pre-incarnant Lord Jesus came in the form of a man. I am not sure of your point here on this.

The fact that they do not marry eliminates them from sexual activity therefore it seems to me that they must be Asexual.

The angels that came to Sodom were obviously men but there is no record of them displaying their genitilial to the men in Sodom so that really is a mute point I think.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

You may see no need for the truth to be told but many others do. I feel that the truth of God's Word is always more important than the opinions of men.
Here's another example as found in chapter 48:1-3...

1 "And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."

Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? You do not have to have a Doctor's degree to see that this is an attack on the deity of Jesus.

Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8..........
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.

...very good stuff...! And very thought-provoking. I like your logic.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

You may see no need for the truth to be told but many others do. I feel that the truth of God's Word is always more important than the opinions of men.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Major, I started a conversation but not sure if I did it right. Did you get it?

 

[agua]

You may see no need for the truth to be told but many others do. I feel that the truth of God's Word is always more important than the opinions of men.

I agree but since you seem to think you hold the truth, and any opposing argument doen't, that kinda makes disussion with you a waste if time don't you think. But this style of rhetoric is usual on Christian forums and disappointing really.

Here's another example as found in chapter 48:1-3...

1 "And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits."

Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? You do not have to have a Doctor's degree to see that this is an attack on the deity of Jesus.

I see nothing in this quote that causes me concern. Being named doean't necessarily imply being given a name ( Jesus ) but it may also mean being designated as "the Son of Man. I think it's logical that this "name" of Son of Man was given to Jesus while he was in Heaven. We can see this in prophecy from Daniel.

Dan 7:13-14 NIV "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Do you think Jesus wasn't designated as the Son of Man in heaven when it was planned for Him to come to Earth ?

Also we know Jesus was in the furnace with Shadrach and co. and a guard said He was like a Son of God

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Do you object to this designation/name being used for Jesus ?

Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8..........
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Jesus is Eternal, without beginning or end. Head of Days? Lord of Spirits? These terms are NOT found in the Bible. IF the Book of Enoch were valid, composing well over 100 chapters, there should be numerous New Testament references to it; but there aren't. Although some people claim that the Bible quotes the Book of Enoch over 100 times, this is simply not true. Just as the Qur'an, the Book of Enoch borrows from the Word of God. In sharp contrast to the Book of Enoch, the New Testament often quotes the Book of Genesis.

Head of Days and Lord of Spirits are both ok terms by me what do you find offensive in them ? I don't see any problem with how many times this Book is quoted in the Bible because the important message concerning the fornication of the Angels is mentioned. I think this was common knowledge back then and there was no need to carp on about it really.

BTW if you want to continue having discussions with me you'll need to stick to the subject matter and stop using logical fallacies and trying to claim the high ground. This style of debate is rejected on many respectable atheist forums and should be seen as an embarrassment on any Christian forum. Obviously with your post count this has been tolerated and/or approved of by the the Site Owner and Admins here and that's disappointing.

More Christians would visit, and become more involved in, these sites if they were operated as a Church Body and provide the witness of how Christians should interact.

 

[LanceA]

I agree but since you seem to think you hold the truth, and any opposing argument doen't, that kinda makes disussion with you a waste if time don't you think. But this style of rhetoric is usual on Christian forums and disappointing really.



I see nothing in this quote that causes me concern. Being named doean't necessarily imply being given a name ( Jesus ) but it may also mean being designated as "the Son of Man. I think it's logical that this "name" of Son of Man was given to Jesus while he was in Heaven. We can see this in prophecy from Daniel.

Dan 7:13-14 NIV "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Do you think Jesus wasn't designated as the Son of Man in heaven when it was planned for Him to come to Earth ?

Also we know Jesus was in the furnace with Shadrach and co. and a guard said He was like a Son of God

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Do you object to this designation/name being used for Jesus ?



Head of Days and Lord of Spirits are both ok terms by me what do you find offensive in them ? I don't see any problem with how many times this Book is quoted in the Bible because the important message concerning the fornication of the Angels is mentioned. I think this was common knowledge back then and there was no need to carp on about it really.

BTW if you want to continue having discussions with me you'll need to stick to the subject matter and stop using logical fallacies and trying to claim the high ground. This style of debate is rejected on many respectable atheist forums and should be seen as an embarrassment on any Christian forum. Obviously with your post count this has been tolerated and/or approved of by the the Site Owner and Admins here and that's disappointing.

More Christians would visit, and become more involved in, these sites if they were operated as a Church Body and provide the witness of how Christians should interact.

We don't know that the person in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was Jesus. It could have been an angel so we don't know it was Jesus.

 

[agua]

We don't know that the person in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego was Jesus. It could have been an angel so we don't know it was Jesus.

Sure. I like to think it was Jesus though considering the size of the miracle. I'm ok if you think it wasn't.

 

[Big Moose]

All angels in the Scriptures are MALE. There are no female or children angels. I understand that is hard for some to accept and believe me, I did not have anything to do with it. All I am saying is that there is NO record in Scripture that supports female angels.

YES, the pre-incarnant Lord Jesus came in the form of a man. I am not sure of your point here on this.

The fact that they do not marry eliminates them from sexual activity therefore it seems to me that they must be Asexual.

The angels that came to Sodom were obviously men but there is no record of them displaying their genitilial to the men in Sodom so that really is a mute point I think.

I wasn't arguing that there were female angels or children angels. I agree there is no baby making sexual activity in heaven. I don't know if we are understanding "asexual" the same way.

1. sexually inactive: without sexual desire or activity
2. without sex-linked features: lacking any apparent sex or sex organs

You seem to be using #1 and I was using #2.
I don't know that they have a sexual identity in heaven. There is no procreation in heaven, so I doubt spiritual bodies have any of the "equipment" such as male genitalia. Scripture is not clear on this so it could be either. Makes no difference as to whether they, in human form, have the equipment.
It is when they become human in form that they take the male body with all the equipment. The "equipment" must be there to be considered male. Otherwise, they would be a eunuch.
I believe that the angels, following Lucifer, revolted because they were jealous of humankind and all God had created for them. So envy was the reason they left their "estate", and beauty of the daughters of men was the reason they took human form and poisoned the blood line of mankind, so as to ruin God's plans for his "precious" humans. Just as our enemies use our laws and way of life to cause destruction to our culture and our freedom. You say "God would never allow this", yet He allows many things to happen mainly because love must allow created beings to show they love, or sadly have a lack of love.

 

[Major]

I wasn't arguing that there were female angels or children angels. I agree there is no baby making sexual activity in heaven. I don't know if we are understanding "asexual" the same way.

1. sexually inactive: without sexual desire or activity
2. without sex-linked features: lacking any apparent sex or sex organs

You seem to be using #1 and I was using #2.
I don't know that they have a sexual identity in heaven. There is no procreation in heaven, so I doubt spiritual bodies have any of the "equipment" such as male genitalia. Scripture is not clear on this so it could be either. Makes no difference as to whether they, in human form, have the equipment.
It is when they become human in form that they take the male body with all the equipment. The "equipment" must be there to be considered male. Otherwise, they would be a eunuch.
I believe that the angels, following Lucifer, revolted because they were jealous of humankind and all God had created for them. So envy was the reason they left their "estate", and beauty of the daughters of men was the reason they took human form and poisoned the blood line of mankind, so as to ruin God's plans for his "precious" humans. Just as our enemies use our laws and way of life to cause destruction to our culture and our freedom. You say "God would never allow this", yet He allows many things to happen mainly because love must allow created beings to show they love, or sadly have a lack of love.

I believe that you are correct. The truth is that I am no expert and what I post here is my way of thinking. YOU may be absolutely correct Moose.

The verse in Matthew 22:30 when really studied can be rather ambiguous. I have always used it to prove IMO that we as resurrected saints in heaven will be like angels in that we will not have sexual relations with our mates/wives or husbands.

For me... and I speak just for me, that has always answered the question back in Genesis 6 whether or not the "sons of God" were demons who then had sex with humans and propagated a totally different demonic race of hybrids. IF angels, whether good or bad according to Matt. 22:30 are unable (A-sexual) to have sexual relations then that possibility is removed and the "sons of God" are actually human men who were well know and had a reputation and were not demons at all. Now again......that is just me and what I have concluded as how the Scriptures have spoken to me, which does not mean anyone else has to agree.

In Matthew 22:30 it does not appear to me that Jesus attempted to prove anything. He simply spoke of the resurrection as a done deal and it was the end of God's program. It seems to me that He is saying that in our resurrected, glorified bodies, life will be on a higher plan than in these present natural bodies.

Because of that, IMO, there will be no marriage in heaven between humans because we will be one great family loving each other perfectly with a pure heart and a holy love. Lust, selfishness or anything that would defile will be illuminated completely.

I understand then that the words of Jesus here in Matthew are a "contrast" and He is meaning that when we get to heaven..."we will be equal to the angels". That is, the angels do not marry or are given in marriage and we as resurrected saints will be like them. We will be pure and spiritual ever praising God and beholding the face of the Lord Jesus as the angels are doing now.

Always good to talk with you. Blessings to you!

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I believe that you are correct. The truth is that I am no expert and what I post here is my way of thinking. YOU may be absolutely correct Moose.

The verse in Matthew 22:30 when really studied can be rather ambiguous. I have always used it to prove IMO that we as resurrected saints in heaven will be like angels in that we will not have sexual relations with our mates/wives or husbands.

For me... and I speak just for me, that has always answered the question back in Genesis 6 whether or not the "sons of God" were demons who then had sex with humans and propagated a totally different demonic race of hybrids. IF angels, whether good or bad according to Matt. 22:30 are unable (A-sexual) to have sexual relations then that possibility is removed and the "sons of God" are actually human men who were well know and had a reputation and were not demons at all. Now again......that is just me and what I have concluded as how the Scriptures have spoken to me, which does not mean anyone else has to agree.

In Matthew 22:30 it does not appear to me that Jesus attempted to prove anything. He simply spoke of the resurrection as a done deal and it was the end of God's program. It seems to me that He is saying that in our resurrected, glorified bodies, life will be on a higher plan than in these present natural bodies.

Because of that, IMO, there will be no marriage in heaven between humans because we will be one great family loving each other perfectly with a pure heart and a holy love. Lust, selfishness or anything that would defile will be illuminated completely.

I understand then that the words of Jesus here in Matthew are a "contrast" and He is meaning that when we get to heaven..."we will be equal to the angels". That is, the angels do not marry or are given in marriage and we as resurrected saints will be like them. We will be pure and spiritual ever praising God and beholding the face of the Lord Jesus as the angels are doing now.

Always good to talk with you. Blessings to you!

I would like to join your conversation if it's still going.

I have read on both sides of the possibility/impossibility of the angels being the sons of God and/or being able to breed with human females. I still haven't made up my mind about which is right (and I'm sure it does not affect my salvation either way); however, one point hasn't been brought up here, I think.

Here it is: The angels who supposedly bred with human females were surely not the ones Jesus was talking about in Matthew 22:30, because I believe He is talking about the good angels in Matthew.

On the other hand, the evil/fallen angels could have acted on motives exactly as Big Moose portrays. It may even be possible that unsaved mankind even today is still being influenced by that Satanic plan when they are playing with genetics and trying to make "super humans". Were not all the angels watching when God was creating man and earth? Perhaps they gained knowledge about RNA and DNA enough to be able do what they allegedly did with human females (not in Scripture, I know...this is theory). According to one interpretation of 2 Peter 2:4, who mentions these particular angels, they are now chained in the abyss for future judgment, presumably not being allowed to continue their mischief. However, other fallen angels might be using unsaved man to produce vehicles of flesh for demons to inhabit/possess (who are constantly looking for willing victims to possess).

I know the thought of this sounds bizarre, but I have to admit much of the Bible (especially OT) seemed bizarre to me until I started reading the Bible with a more studious approach and questioning why some things were there and what they meant. And I still don't know what to think about the truth of this particular matter. But is interesting, even while I know it is theory.

 

[calvin]

I wasn't arguing that there were female angels or children angels. I agree there is no baby making sexual activity in heaven. I don't know if we are understanding "asexual" the same way.

1. sexually inactive: without sexual desire or activity
2. without sex-linked features: lacking any apparent sex or sex organs

You seem to be using #1 and I was using #2.
I don't know that they have a sexual identity in heaven. There is no procreation in heaven, so I doubt spiritual bodies have any of the "equipment" such as male genitalia. Scripture is not clear on this so it could be either. Makes no difference as to whether they, in human form, have the equipment.
It is when they become human in form that they take the male body with all the equipment. The "equipment" must be there to be considered male. Otherwise, they would be a eunuch.
I believe that the angels, following Lucifer, revolted because they were jealous of humankind and all God had created for them. So envy was the reason they left their "estate", and beauty of the daughters of men was the reason they took human form and poisoned the blood line of mankind, so as to ruin God's plans for his "precious" humans. Just as our enemies use our laws and way of life to cause destruction to our culture and our freedom. You say "God would never allow this", yet He allows many things to happen mainly because love must allow created beings to show they love, or sadly have a lack of love.

Aren't you making a monumental assumption about the manhood of transfigured angels?
Nowhere do we read of these angels of the Lord being naked. How would anyone know if they had genital under their clothing or not?
Please consider:
Dan 8:15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man.
This person it turns out is the Angel Gabriel. There is nothing to suggest that he was naked.
Dan 10:5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist.
It is most likely that this 'man clothed in linen is Gabriel.
Eze 9:11. Eze 10:2. Eze 10:6,7. They all sppeak of a person dressed in linen, and that person described as a man is obviously an Angel of some uncertain rank.
So, how can we talk of these persons as though we have seen them naked?

 

[calvin]

I would like to join your conversation if it's still going.

I have read on both sides of the possibility/impossibility of the angels being the sons of God and/or being able to breed with human females. I still haven't made up my mind about which is right (and I'm sure it does not affect my salvation either way); however, one point hasn't been brought up here, I think.

Here it is: The angels who supposedly bred with human females were surely not the ones Jesus was talking about in Matthew 22:30, because I believe He is talking about the good angels in Matthew.

On the other hand, the evil/fallen angels could have acted on motives exactly as Big Moose portrays. It may even be possible that unsaved mankind even today is still being influenced by that Satanic plan when they are playing with genetics and trying to make "super humans". Were not all the angels watching when God was creating man and earth? Perhaps they gained knowledge about RNA and DNA enough to be able do what they allegedly did with human females (not in Scripture, I know...this is theory). According to one interpretation of 2 Peter 2:4, who mentions these particular angels, they are now chained in the abyss for future judgment, presumably not being allowed to continue their mischief. However, other fallen angels might be using unsaved man to produce vehicles of flesh for demons to inhabit/possess (who are constantly looking for willing victims to possess).
I know the thought of this sounds bizarre, but I have to admit much of the Bible (especially OT) seemed bizarre to me until I started reading the Bible with a more studious approach and questioning why some things were there and what they meant. And I still don't know what to think about the truth of this particular matter. But is interesting, even while I know it is theory.

Well some further things to think about:
In the book of Job, it talks about the 'sons of God' and there can be little argument that they are heavenly beings, aka angels. But it also talks about Satan, who is also an angel (some think an archangel) be that as it may, he is never ever referred to as one of the 'sons of God' (I think he might be in the book of mormon but that would be irrelevant) Because Satan is in rebellion, he can not classify as a son of a righteous God.
We are told that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, no place are we told he can disguise as a human.
Consider ::
Rom 1:19. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

When v19 says what can be known about God it implies that there is heaps of stuff that can not be known. We need to focus then on only what can be known, because God has shown us.
V20 makes it plain enough that the observable creation teaches us about His nature if we study the things we can see, touch and smell that have been created.
Nowhere in the creation do we find a male without a female compliment. Surly this strongly suggests that there would be no gender imbalance in heaven, if there is none here.
The idea of angelic jealousy has been around for at least 40 years. Granted something must have induced those bad angels to sin, but it could also have been something to do with politics amongst the angels. Please take a fresh look at
Jude 1:6, And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—.

It is clear that they had been assigned positions of authority, and they maybe went beyond those boundaries perhaps trying to displace other (higher?) angels. We just don't know, but there is nothing in that text to implicate either the Earth or the people on it.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Well some further things to think about:
In the book of Job, it talks about the 'sons of God' and there can be little argument that they are heavenly beings, aka angels. But it also talks about Satan, who is also an angel (some think an archangel) be that as it may, he is never ever referred to as one of the 'sons of God' (I think he might be in the book of mormon but that would be irrelevant) Because Satan is in rebellion, he can not classify as a son of a righteous God.
We are told that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, no place are we told he can disguise as a human.
Consider ::
Rom 1:19. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

When v19 says what can be known about God it implies that there is heaps of stuff that can not be known. We need to focus then on only what can be known, because God has shown us.
V20 makes it plain enough that the observable creation teaches us about His nature if we study the things we can see, touch and smell that have been created.
Nowhere in the creation do we find a male without a female compliment. Surly this strongly suggests that there would be no gender imbalance in heaven, if there is none here.
The idea of angelic jealousy has been around for at least 40 years. Granted something must have induced those bad angels to sin, but it could also have been something to do with politics amongst the angels. Please take a fresh look at
Jude 1:6, And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—.

It is clear that they had been assigned positions of authority, and they maybe went beyond those boundaries perhaps trying to displace other (higher?) angels. We just don't know, but there is nothing in that text to implicate either the Earth or the people on it.

You've made some good points... I used to study on this matter for extended times and tried to engage people into conversation (with various reactions!). Since I've never come to an actual conclusion in my mind about it, I've turned it over to God. Both sides of the issue seem to have pros and cons. Maybe I should sit down one day and list them out, seeing which ones cancel the others out and see what is left. In the meantime, I asked God to lead me to His understanding, trusting He is faithful to finish what he starts in me. If He led me to investigating this matter, He will bring me to a conclusion as well. If He did NOT lead me to this, but it was instead one of those "vain imaginings" put in my head by Satan, then I trust Jesus will show me that as well. I rest in Him...

 

[Big Moose]

Aren't you making a monumental assumption about the manhood of transfigured angels?
Nowhere do we read of these angels of the Lord being naked. How would anyone know if they had genital under their clothing or not?
Please consider:
Dan 8:15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. And behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man.
This person it turns out is the Angel Gabriel. There is nothing to suggest that he was naked.
Dan 10:5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist.
It is most likely that this 'man clothed in linen is Gabriel.
Eze 9:11. Eze 10:2. Eze 10:6,7. They all sppeak of a person dressed in linen, and that person described as a man is obviously an Angel of some uncertain rank.
So, how can we talk of these persons as though we have seen them naked?

It is an assumption, of course, I am not calling it absolute truth, just as "sons of God" being Seth's line cannot be absolute truth. Assumptions are made very often to try to understand scripture.
Now, angels ate with Abraham...where did the food go? Oh so they had stomachs but not male equipment? To me that's a stretch.
Jacob wrestled most of the night with who we assume is Jesus in pre-incarnate form, since the text says he was the Lord. Jacob would have known if his opponent was a man or not, complete with the male equipment. Have you ever wrestled? It is inevitable that you brush up against such things, especially wrestling for that long of a period. I can't believe I have to explain these things.
The Bible says they are men as humans, so why would you assume they didn't have all the parts? Why call them "men" if they were not actually men?

 

[Major]

It is an assumption, of course, I am not calling it absolute truth, just as "sons of God" being Seth's line cannot be absolute truth. Assumptions are made very often to try to understand scripture.
Now, angels ate with Abraham...where did the food go? Oh so they had stomachs but not male equipment? To me that's a stretch.
Jacob wrestled most of the night with who we assume is Jesus in pre-incarnate form, since the text says he was the Lord. Jacob would have known if his opponent was a man or not, complete with the male equipment. Have you ever wrestled? It is inevitable that you brush up against such things, especially wrestling for that long of a period. I can't believe I have to explain these things.
The Bible says they are men as humans, so why would you assume they didn't have all the parts? Why call them "men" if they were not actually men?

Just for the thinking....Jesus shared a meal with the two men on the Emanuas Road after His resurrection. How does that plan into this?

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

It is an assumption, of course, I am not calling it absolute truth, just as "sons of God" being Seth's line cannot be absolute truth. Assumptions are made very often to try to understand scripture.
Now, angels ate with Abraham...where did the food go? Oh so they had stomachs but not male equipment? To me that's a stretch.
Jacob wrestled most of the night with who we assume is Jesus in pre-incarnate form, since the text says he was the Lord. Jacob would have known if his opponent was a man or not, complete with the male equipment. Have you ever wrestled? It is inevitable that you brush up against such things, especially wrestling for that long of a period. I can't believe I have to explain these things.
The Bible says they are men as humans, so why would you assume they didn't have all the parts? Why call them "men" if they were not actually men?

I think that makes sense... And I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only who makes assumptions when trying to understand Scripture. Sometimes my assumptions are later found to be wrong, but God is good about showing me.

 

[Big Moose]

I would like to join your conversation if it's still going.

I have read on both sides of the possibility/impossibility of the angels being the sons of God and/or being able to breed with human females. I still haven't made up my mind about which is right (and I'm sure it does not affect my salvation either way); however, one point hasn't been brought up here, I think.

Here it is: The angels who supposedly bred with human females were surely not the ones Jesus was talking about in Matthew 22:30, because I believe He is talking about the good angels in Matthew.

On the other hand, the evil/fallen angels could have acted on motives exactly as Big Moose portrays. It may even be possible that unsaved mankind even today is still being influenced by that Satanic plan when they are playing with genetics and trying to make "super humans". Were not all the angels watching when God was creating man and earth? Perhaps they gained knowledge about RNA and DNA enough to be able do what they allegedly did with human females (not in Scripture, I know...this is theory). According to one interpretation of 2 Peter 2:4, who mentions these particular angels, they are now chained in the abyss for future judgment, presumably not being allowed to continue their mischief. However, other fallen angels might be using unsaved man to produce vehicles of flesh for demons to inhabit/possess (who are constantly looking for willing victims to possess).

I know the thought of this sounds bizarre, but I have to admit much of the Bible (especially OT) seemed bizarre to me until I started reading the Bible with a more studious approach and questioning why some things were there and what they meant. And I still don't know what to think about the truth of this particular matter. But is interesting, even while I know it is theory.

I agree with you on your indecision on this. I was raised in the camp of "sons of God" being Seth's line. The last few years I have heard the angel theory and after hearing Fred Price Jr. 's outline on this, it makes more sense to me. So I lean towards the angel theory. Mr. Price gave many supporting verses, talking about the angel's folly being sexual perversion in nature. The weighing of these theories is very interesting. Good to have you in the conversation.

 

[Big Moose]

Just for the thinking....Jesus shared a meal with the two men on the Emanuas Road after His resurrection. How does that plan into this?

Great thought! Have to think that one over.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I agree with you on your indecision on this. I was raised in the camp of "sons of God" being Seth's line. The last few years I have heard the angel theory and after hearing Fred Price Jr. 's outline on this, it makes more sense to me. So I lean towards the angel theory. Mr. Price gave many supporting verses, talking about the angel's folly being sexual perversion in nature. The weighing of these theories is very interesting. Good to have you in the conversation.

I started reading about aliens from space and giants in ancient times a few years ago, and came across the theory in someone's comments. He was saying he believes the aliens are actually demons manifesting themselves visually (with special effects no less!) in these, The Last Days.

I started googling and found all kinds of websites that subscribe to this theory (and expands on it in multiple directions...none being in the Bible). I think the recent interest in the Book of Enoch has caused this theory to abound. I followed the train of thought to see where it would take me, trying to see with a critical eye and reading the Bible verses put forth.

I can definitely see why the theory has taken root in many circles, but I still don't come to a conclusion because if it was necessary for us to know for certain, wouldn't the Bible be more explicit? The only reason I can see why maybe this theory has surfaced today (IF it is from God), is to help people not be deceived into believing the aliens are going to save the world, instead of Jesus. But I do think the Book of Enoch is not scripture and it may have surfaced through the machinations of Satan to deceive us as well...and take our minds and thoughts off our walk with God. (NOTE: I forgot to mention that many of the Christian websites on this theory made sense to me but I am cautious lest I may be in danger of placing assumptions on those scriptures they give.)

Either way, my salvation does not depend upon knowing for certain about these angels, and probably...only time will tell.

That's my opinion, and I'm not changing it soon! PS Thanks for your welcome of me to the conversation!

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Just for the thinking....Jesus shared a meal with the two men on the Emanuas Road after His resurrection. How does that plan into this?

Could you give scripture location about this event? I want to see what you are talking about. Thanks