Who are the sons of God?

Pastor Larry, are you saying that one can 'inherit' either salvation or damnation? That is what it seems like you are saying.

 

I guess then nobody had a brain before the 5th century A.D.

 

I am not following you here. How did you get that from what I said? While I believe in federal headship of Adam (sin is imputed to us), I don't see how that is relevant here. Perhaps you can explain what you mean.
______________

Having reread your post above, perhaps you are referring to the two lines of descent. The issue is the seed of the woman and the seed of serpent. The seed of the woman are believers the seed of the serpent are the unbelievers. All men are sinners in Adam. Those who are believers have a new Father, thus they are of a different line.

So I am not arguing physical descent per se. I would simply argue that all men in Adam are unbelievers and only in that sense depravity and damnation are "inherited."

[ September 29, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I appreciate the clarification. When one talks of 'seed' one normally means the physical continuity from generation to generation, i.e. father to son.

When people hear the 'seed of the serpent' etc., that is what many of them seem to assume. That is the basis behind the argument that ALL of Cain's line were demonic or something along those lines.

Perhaps it is then quite important that we see what sinners some of the folks in the Christ line were!

At any rate, I appreciate your clarification for the sake of this thread if nothing else, and, no, I know you were not following me here.

God bless.

[ September 29, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Given the amount of debate about this, "no-brainer" seems like a bit of an overstatement. We see plenty of examples of demon possesion in the NT, could it have involved this (rather than direct reproduction)? The word Nephilim is used in other places to describe giants of supernatural size, like Goliath, isn't it?

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Num 13:32 So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size.
Num 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

Eric

 

Sorry ... I think I was misunderstood., I meant "following" in the sense of understanding ... as in "I am not understanding your question to me." Sorry for not being clear. I assume none of us have complexes about being followed around ...

 

The Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch were used and quoted by NT authors. II Peter and Jude, Rev. and some quotes by Jesus were from Enoch. In Genesis, the giants, daughters of men, etc. also are found in Enoch.

suzanne

 

1. Where is the Scripture that denies such a possibility?

2. Jesus said they are not given in marriage. If angels are male, of course they don't reproduce/marry.

3. The fact that they are spirits doesn't preclude the fact that they still have form. The seraphim and cherubim are described in terms of form.

 

In Genesis 19, the bible records the account in Sodom where two angels came to visit Lot.
In verse 3 we're told, "they did eat". In verse 10 we're told, "..and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut the door". Finally, in verse 16 we're told, "..laid hold upon his hand.. his wife's hand.. his daughters hands.."

It would seem that angels are given the ability, as God directs, to take some kind of physical form.

Also, didn't Jabob wrestle with a "man", and later he said that he had seen God face to face?
Hmm....

 

It would seem to me that the sons of men and the daughters of men--were the lost folks of Genesis 6. They had never been born again! The Sons of God were the ones who were saved in that day. They began to intermarry--placeing the yoke of marriage on themselves--unequally!

Many say that they were fallen angels. Impossible--since the angels are not human and are not capable of reproduction. If they were--how come its not being done today? Even if they were a seperate species--it would be like a dog and cat--you cannot "breed" these two species together. Its impossible.

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

In context of Mark 12:25, for example, Jesus is talking of a marital relationship which includes activity that could bring about a seed (descendant) and then says that there is no relationship of that kind in heaven, neither among the resurrected nor among angels. It may come short of saying they have no such possibility in those exact words, but it strongly implies it. It remains for those who deny this to prove it is wrong.

The Bible does use the masculine pronoun to refer to angels. This offers no proof whatsoever that they were male in the sense of sexuality or of sexual reproduction.

The fact that they have form, or even can appear to be human in form, proves nothing as their ability to reproduce, and especially nothing their ability to "cross-breed" with humans.

 

rlvaughn, so all this just proves that you cannot prove your position is right and that mine is wrong.

I believe the statements found in 2 Peter and Jude refer to Gen. 6. It isn't as though my position is without Scriptural reasoning.

Btw, "sons of God" does not have to refer to saved people. It is "sons of Elohim". Another use of this very phrase is definitely angels.

I want to know the justification for saying that "daughters of man" refers to lost women. Were there no saved women at the time and lost men?

 

LOL, by Noah's day there was only ONE righteous man -- and we don't know about the women!

 

The saved women must have been ugly.

 

Brother PreachtheWord, I fail to remember that I have tried to prove any position was right. I only made some comments on what I think is wrong with the "angels" position. I believe the weight of the evidence, taken together, is against the fallen angel theory: no contextual justification for inserting angels into Genesis 6; no evidence whatsoever that angels could reproduce, or if they could that they could reproduce with a human; failure of "proof texts" to connect angels with Gen. 6, etc.

I've read on this topic and seen people err by assuming the "even as" of Jude verse 7 means even as the angels which kept not there first estate. But Jude's comparison is actually of the "certain men who crept in unawares," the "filthy dreamers" of Jude's time, to those of Sodom & Gomorrah. Notice that the "likewise also" of verse 8 answers to the "even as" of verse 7 - even as Sodom and Gomorrah, likewise also these filthy dreamers. How does that isolated verse connect to Genesis 6? Well, that's where II Peter 2:4 comes in. But, the connection of thought in Peter's verses 4-10 is not about tieing the angels (v.4) to Noah's day (v.5). Peter is giving examples: God didn't spare the angels that sinned; God didn't spare the old world of Noah's day; God didn't spare the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah; but God does know how to punish the ungodly and spare the godly. Nothing about angels having sex with humans in any of these verses.

 

Nothing to say for certain that they didn't either. Maybe the scriptures are just being discreet. A question I have is if no angelic intervention, why the super race of men?
Murph

 

Or I could ask, why would you suppose "angelic intervention" would create a "super race of men"? Have you been watching too much Star Trek??