What about Ufos and Cryptozoology then?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
It is OK to disagree. It is HOW we disagree that matters. Allow me to show you something.

You just said............
" The Fallen Angels were restrained after that and could no longer have intercourse with women."

Now where in the Scripture do you base the comment on?

Are you saying that AFTER THAT, and THAT being the flood? But you see, there are no Scriptures that I know of that validate that idea.

Matthew 22:30 was said to the Pharisees before the church was founded and they had based there assumption of there not being a heaven on Old Test. Scriptures. Jesus was confirming that there was a heaven, and in that heaven, HUMANS would be LIKE ANGELS and would not marry or be given in marriage in the resurrection......Heaven.

The teaching therefore is that if there was no Sexual relation for angels in marriage in heaven there would then be none for resurrected saint. MEANING then is = Saints in heaven will be like Angels and will be ASEXUAL.

There is no Scripture that suggests any restraint as ASEXUAL means NO SEX therefore there was nothing to restrain!

Now anyone is free to disagree and believe what ever you want to believe. All I am saying is to base your belief in the Scriptures on such an important issue.
II Peter 2:4 (NAS) "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment;"
 

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
But you see brother......."The word MARRIAGE is mentioned in the Bible, it is a symbol of the sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage. "
There is a lot of symbolism and unspoken parallels being mentioned here. Yes, in a pure relationship there is an indication of marriage and sex. But not when it is flesh and demons. It was pure sexual in nature - no marriage.
 

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
I understand the view popularized by Augustine that you are conveying here. Genesis 6:1-4 does not properly indicate what righteousness actually was. So what was the righteousness of Seth when God hadn't even clarified what that would look like yet? There was no law, no temple, no nothing. The sacrifice of the time covered the whole family whether it was Seth or otherwise. Cain was marked by God after he murdered Abel showing that God was still preserving Cain and did not allow any harm to come to him.

Also, Nephilim actually means 'fallen one'. Where does the distinction between sons of God and daughters of men arise if there were only full-DNA humans? Nephilim are mentioned in the Bible, we may agree, but why make the distinction of giants called something other than sons, daughters, giants of men, or just people? It indicates another species of another source by its own right.
 
So God destroyed the godly and ungodly together with the flood? That sound out of character. God never judges the righteous with the unrighteous. Even if there is benefit of the doubt He will restrain himself (see: Sodom and Gomorrah). There was a literal sexual intercourse and child-birth of women and fallen angels prior to the flood. The Bible says that exactly. There is no distinction of lineage of Seth or Cain. It was "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them" that God eventually had to judge the perversion.
Those seemed to be the fallen angels!
 
II Peter 2:4 (NAS) "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment;"

I understand, but if your thesis is accepted,

Most understand that Peter means to describe angels who were cast from heaven along with Lucifer, the devil, when he rebelled which was befor Creation.


If your idea is valid and He judged and punished these fallen angels. Specifically, Peter uses the Greek word "Tartarus," which was a part of the Greek underworld. If they were there, then how does it figure that they were also the subject of Genesis 6?? In fact Peter says that these angels remain there, being held in chains, or pits, of darkness until God is ready to fully judge them for their sin.

How can they be in two different locations?
 
I have an UP - an unidentified plant in my garden and it's annoying me because I don't know the name for it.
I'm not going to rush out and then say hang on a minute God didn't create that one just because I can't find it's name in my plant book.

And then have people say well you must be imagining things because we don't have that plant or its a cryptoplant or it shouldn't exist. It just might be a rare species.

Maybe my garden is the only place on earth that it grows lol.
 

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
I understand, but if your thesis is accepted,

Most understand that Peter means to describe angels who were cast from heaven along with Lucifer, the devil, when he rebelled which was befor Creation.


If your idea is valid and He judged and punished these fallen angels. Specifically, Peter uses the Greek word "Tartarus," which was a part of the Greek underworld. If they were there, then how does it figure that they were also the subject of Genesis 6?? In fact Peter says that these angels remain there, being held in chains, or pits, of darkness until God is ready to fully judge them for their sin.

How can they be in two different locations?
Too much to stuff to type and will never change either of our minds. I appreciate the discussion, brother.
 

Garee

Account Closed
lobbying (present participle)

  1. seek to influence on an issue.

    synonyms:
    seek to influence · try to persuade · bring pressure to bear on · importune · persuade · influence · sway · petition · solicit · appeal to · call on · urge · press · pressure · pressurize · push · campaign · crusade · drum up support · speak · clamor · ask · call · drive · promote · advocate · recommend · speak/plead/argue in favor of · champion · insist on · demand

It is much, much better to just read the Scriptures as they are written by God to us!

Why add nonsense, to common sense in order to make no sense?
I would agree much better to have his understanding that he purposely hides parables The signified togue of God .Seeing without parables he spoke not.

Why literalize the gospel meaning in hid in parables ,That would not make biblical sense and cause confusion in the end of the matter.

Parables teach us how to walk by faith (the unseen understand) whem mixed with the temporal.
 

Garee

Account Closed
It would seem the word “angel” is a word that causes much division in the case of sons of God. The messenger of God . . prophets as apostles “sent ones” with no other meaning added. How beautiful are the feet shod with the gospel

The English word messenger works out the best when comparing it to the whole Bible. Messengers of God they were being unevenly yoked with daughters of men. . Jeopardizing the spiritual seed, Christ. . Daughters of men are the corrupted creation. Natural unconverted mankind

Sons of God, the new creation . . . . Two literally becoming one chaste virgin bride. One husband Christ

Messengers are not like God . . . gods in the likeness of men. God is not a man as us .and neither is there any infallible flesh mediator called a daysman that umpires between temporal man seen and eternal God not seen .

Be careful when entertaining human messengers both could benefit as the Spirit of Christ works in both when sharing the good news as it is written.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
 

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
It would seem the word “angel” is a word that causes much division in the case of sons of God. The messenger of God . . prophets as apostles “sent ones” with no other meaning added. How beautiful are the feet shod with the gospel

The English word messenger works out the best when comparing it to the whole Bible. Messengers of God they were being unevenly yoked with daughters of men. . Jeopardizing the spiritual seed, Christ. . Daughters of men are the corrupted creation. Natural unconverted mankind

Sons of God, the new creation . . . . Two literally becoming one chaste virgin bride. One husband Christ

Messengers are not like God . . . gods in the likeness of men. God is not a man as us .and neither is there any infallible flesh mediator called a daysman that umpires between temporal man seen and eternal God not seen .

Be careful when entertaining human messengers both could benefit as the Spirit of Christ works in both when sharing the good news as it is written.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
My first agreement with you, Garee. Well said.
 
It would seem the word “angel” is a word that causes much division in the case of sons of God. The messenger of God . . prophets as apostles “sent ones” with no other meaning added. How beautiful are the feet shod with the gospel

The English word messenger works out the best when comparing it to the whole Bible. Messengers of God they were being unevenly yoked with daughters of men. . Jeopardizing the spiritual seed, Christ. . Daughters of men are the corrupted creation. Natural unconverted mankind

Sons of God, the new creation . . . . Two literally becoming one chaste virgin bride. One husband Christ

Messengers are not like God . . . gods in the likeness of men. God is not a man as us .and neither is there any infallible flesh mediator called a daysman that umpires between temporal man seen and eternal God not seen .

Be careful when entertaining human messengers both could benefit as the Spirit of Christ works in both when sharing the good news as it is written.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

You are correct IMHO.

The word "angel" is used to describe different things and entities all through the Bible.

The word is used to describe heavenly spiritual beings, both good and bad.
LUKE 1:19..........
"
And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings."

It has been used to describe the visible manifestations of God Himself as seen in the phrase, "Angel of the Lord" = Christophany!
EXODUS 3:2 ......
"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."

It has been used to describe Humans who were messengers of God.
ACTS 6:15.....
"
And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, (Stephan) saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

It has also been used to refer to the types and shadows of the Law.
COLOSSIANS 2:18..........
"
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,"

It has been used to describe "children".
MATTHEW 18:10...........
"
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

The Hebrew word "malak" (angel) - "malak" and "aggelos" are indeed equivalent to one another. It has been translated into our English bibles as "ambassador," "angel," "king," and "messenger."

The key to knowing who and what the word is meaning in its usage always comes down to LOCATION and CONTEXT!
 
You are correct IMHO.

The word "angel" is used to describe different things and entities all through the Bible.

The word is used to describe heavenly spiritual beings, both good and bad.
LUKE 1:19..........
"
And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings."

It has been used to describe the visible manifestations of God Himself as seen in the phrase, "Angel of the Lord" = Christophany!
EXODUS 3:2 ......
"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."

It has been used to describe Humans who were messengers of God.
ACTS 6:15.....
"
And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, (Stephan) saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.

It has also been used to refer to the types and shadows of the Law.
COLOSSIANS 2:18..........
"
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,"

It has been used to describe "children".
MATTHEW 18:10...........
"
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven."

The Hebrew word "malak" (angel) - "malak" and "aggelos" are indeed equivalent to one another. It has been translated into our English bibles as "ambassador," "angel," "king," and "messenger."

The key to knowing who and what the word is meaning in its usage always comes down to LOCATION and CONTEXT!
Have to take into account the word and the context, but the ones mentioned in Job were not merely humans!
 
Have to take into account the word and the context, but the ones mentioned in Job were not merely humans!

Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying to you my friend. The "sons of God' in Job by both LOCATION (Heaven) and CONTEXT (Came in front of God)
demands that those "sons of God" were in fact angels.

Then the fact that they came with Satan then indicates that they HAD TO BE FALLEN ANGELS!

Then the fact that there were NO HUMANS in heaven in the book of Job means that the "sons of God" in Job could not be humans.
The Bible truth is that even TODAY there is only ONE human in heaven TODAY.....the God-Man Jesus Christ.
 

Garee

Account Closed
Agreed. That is exactly what I have been saying to you my friend. The "sons of God' in Job by both LOCATION (Heaven) and CONTEXT (Came in front of God)
demands that those "sons of God" were in fact angels.

Then the fact that they came with Satan then indicates that they HAD TO BE FALLEN ANGELS!

Then the fact that there were NO HUMANS in heaven in the book of Job means that the "sons of God" in Job could not be humans.
The Bible truth is that even TODAY there is only ONE human in heaven TODAY.....the God-Man Jesus Christ.

I do not think anyone sugested in heaven .In heaven is where the prayers are heard

The context of the first chapter had to do with saints as sons of God making thier request known .The spirit of error as a fasle messenger is acreditied as the accuser of the brethern accusing the saints on earth day and night .Hoping that Job a mesenger of God that some call angels would give up walking by faith the unseen .

Satan did not come with the legion . . .many spirits of lies .he came along side a legion of saints acussing them . Not acusing other what you call falen angels.

Angel as mesengers of God (Apostles) . How beautiful are thier feet shod with the gospel found in his in parables. in that way we wash the feet of each other.

The meaning of the word mesenger works the best . Why they used angels only causes confussion .
 

Nazarene Servant

Account Closed
I do not think anyone sugested in heaven .In heaven is where the prayers are heard

The context of the first chapter had to do with saints as sons of God making thier request known .The spirit of error as a fasle messenger is acreditied as the accuser of the brethern accusing the saints on earth day and night .Hoping that Job a mesenger of God that some call angels would give up walking by faith the unseen .

Satan did not come with the legion . . .many spirits of lies .he came along side a legion of saints acussing them . Not acusing other what you call falen angels.

Angel as mesengers of God (Apostles) . How beautiful are thier feet shod with the gospel found in his in parables. in that way we wash the feet of each other.

The meaning of the word mesenger works the best . Why they used angels only causes confussion .
We must also remember that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in Paradise that day.
 
I do not think anyone sugested in heaven .In heaven is where the prayers are heard

The context of the first chapter had to do with saints as sons of God making thier request known .The spirit of error as a fasle messenger is acreditied as the accuser of the brethern accusing the saints on earth day and night .Hoping that Job a mesenger of God that some call angels would give up walking by faith the unseen .

Satan did not come with the legion . . .many spirits of lies .he came along side a legion of saints acussing them . Not acusing other what you call falen angels.

Angel as mesengers of God (Apostles) . How beautiful are thier feet shod with the gospel found in his in parables. in that way we wash the feet of each other.

The meaning of the word mesenger works the best . Why they used angels only causes confussion .

The Scripture itself tells us that the LOCATION of Job is in fact HEAVEN..........
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

Take the time to READ the literal word of the Scripture.......... "and Satan came also among them."
Satan was AMONG the "sons of God". Good angels would never ever be associated with Satan! They would be in OPPOSITION to him but b=never would they allow him to be AMONG them.

If God was NOT in heaven when Satan and these angels came to report to Him......where do YOU believe that He was?????
Yes, heaven is where prayers are heard, because that is where God Lives my friend......LOCATION = proper understanding.

In both passages Job 1:6 and 2:1, Satan and the “sons of God” appear before the Lord. It is important to notice that the “sons of God” presented themselves before God. Therefore, since the holy angels in heaven are continually in the presence of God according to Matthew 18:10, the “sons of God” are not holy angels. Instead they are the followers of Satan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top