Angels?

[Paleouss]

Greetings JD731. I pray that you are doing well. Grace and hope to you in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Two things. (1. Every man mentioned in Luke's genealogical table was the son of the name that preceded him. No one preceded Adam but God.
The idea that we should come away with is that God wants us to know that Adam was his son.

Well...I'm not sure that this is exactly true.

Although we can confidently assume they are sons, being a "son of God" isn't the point of Luke 3:38. As I said in another post, the word "son" does not appear in the Greek text (it is added only in English). It seems to me to be a stretch to claim that the main take away is that Adam was a "son", with the theological implication of "image" you want, when the Greek text never actually says "son".

Second, Luke's intentions in giving the genealogy is to confirm that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophesy regarding 'of whose line or seed' the Christ will come. THIS should be the main take away. One of the ways God gives us proof that Jesus is the Christ is by letting use know from which seed or lineage He will come. Jesus fulfills this and Luke shows that.

Adam was certainly like God. He was in his image, a trinity.

He was in His image and a trinity (body, soul, spirit). I agree. But this is not what Luke 3:38 is trying to teach us (for the original Greek has no word "son" or "image"). You seem to be inferring your theology into the text to get your desired result with Genesis 6:2,4.

All the others were sons of Adam after the fall and were in the image of the fallen Adam.

Again, you bring your theology into the verse by doing a shift of language from "son" to "image" (and the text doesn't even have "son"). The original Greek never uses the word "son". So the whole reason you were using Luke 3:38 is because you thought it was using a similar term or phrase like Genesis 6. But you found out it doesn't actually have that "son" phrase in the original Greek. I don't see the point any longer.

Second, the term "image" cannot be found in any translation. I most likely agree with what I anticipate is your theology of the "image" of Adam and those that followed him. However, the text isn't explicitly teaching this and I'm pretty sure its not interfering with an interpretation that Genesis 6:2,4 are referring to godly men.

This brings me to conclude from my ability to reason that they were alienated from God and if the Spirit of God really is Life, then none of those people possessed him. They were dead spiritually, not just because they sinned but because they were born in the image of the fallen Adam, the father of them all.

You present to me your theology that (1) "they were alienated from God", (2) "none of those people possessed Him", (3) "they were dead spiritually". But your theology on this issue seems to be getting in the way of God's truth.

God's word tells us that “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb 11:4). Notice the word "faith" here. Abel had faith. Can Abel have faith without the leading of the Spirit?

God's word tells us that Abel's "works" were "righteous" (1John 3:12). Being simplistic, being righteous is being in right standing. Can a lost man without the leading of the Spirit do righteous works?

God's word tells us that "Then men began to call on the name of the LORD" (Gen 4:26). Can lost men "call on the name of the LORD" without the leading or revealing of the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that a reasonable mind would understand that due to the facts I just presented, and the previous one's in post #16, that your theology is wrong somewhere or it is being incorrectly applied to this situation. Most likely the latter.

There is no man who is a son of God between Adam and Jesus Christ. A man must be born again

As an addition to what I just previously wrote. Consider this...

The Holy Scripture tells us that by faith Abraham obeyed (Heb 11:8) when he was called to go out, by faith Abraham obeyed when he was tested (Heb 11:17), by faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive (Heb 8:11), by faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esua (Heb 11:17), by faith Jacob blessed each of the sons of Joseph (Heb 11:20)... AND, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb 11:4)

Which means... Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced [them] and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. They "died in faith" were "strangers" on this fallen earth and were credited a Savior's future payment that was to come for them (because they were children of God).




Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)

 

[JD731]

Greetings JD731. Thank you, I am doing better.

We are in total agreement that we can know that Adam was a son of God based on the fact that the Bible frequently speaks of those that follow God in familial terms. Additionally, that Luke 3:38 gives good reason for us to say that Adam was a child of God, i.e, a son of God. However, the point of my last post, #34, was that Luke 3:38 does not contain the term "son of God" or "sons of God" in the original Greek. Therefore, the force of your augment is weakened due to the fact that there is no 'phrase' to compare to the idiom found in Genesis 6:2,4.

The Translators of the KJV thought the word was son. I want a sure Christian faith so I only accept one English translation to teach me and I do not doubt it in any way. Some tell me that it is a fault, but I say I am never guessing. If we all were taught by the same words there would be much less division. As it is, the Greek scholars agree on almost nothing.

Lk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Conversely, I presented in post #16 a representation of godly men, in context, who could be considered the subjects of the idiom "sons of God" (which is a phrase of ownership) in Genesis 6:2,4. Further, I presented in post #8, the most reasonable, imo, reading of how the only verses that do contain the exact idiom ḇə-nê- hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm (Job) should be read that then gives evidence that Genesis 6:2,4 are human.

Peace to you brother

I do not believe the phrase "sons of God" denotes ownership but relationship. A strong case can be made for that. Every creature God created with intellect, reason, and will is a son of God. Men are earthly creatures and the angel realm occupies the heavenlies. Men are physical and angels are spiritual. Since the fall, men die physically and since any created being must occupy a place, the dead body, the physical, returns to the dust and the elements from which they were taken, but the spiritual part, the soul, is eternal and must occupy a place. The soul of man is not created to occupy the heavens so those lost souls who are separated from their bodies have no place to go. Eternal torment. we are told, was created for the devil and his angels. This would include the sons of God who left their habitation (the heavenlies). They are not physical creatures so they are not subject to physical death or the ravages of time. They are as old as creation and their numbers are fixed. Like man, they were created innocent but they were tested and 1/3 of them fell. Since the test the 2/3 holy angels are sealed in righteousness and cannot sin never to be tested again. So then, lost souls of unsaved men goes to the place of Spirits and when the earth is renewed at the end of the day of the Lord, they with the angels who sinned will be cast into the lake of fire which God says is the second death.

Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven (this would be the second heaven): Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (read whole context)

Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Re 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. (not to the children of God. The children of God, the church, the body of Christ, having been born again, will abide with the Father in heaven, the New Jerusalem, a satellite city. This is the reason for the rapture of the church)

Note: in post #40 the word centuries should be millennium.

I do not have perfect understanding and might later change my mind on somepoints as i get more light and understanding of the mind of God.

 

[Ben1445]

The Translators of the KJV thought the word was son. I want a sure Christian faith so I only accept one English translation to teach me and I do not doubt it in any way. Some tell me that it is a fault, but I say I am never guessing. If we all were taught by the same words there would be much less division. As it is, the Greek scholars agree on almost nothing.

Lk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


I do not believe the phrase "sons of God" denotes ownership but relationship. A strong case can be made for that. Every creature God created with intellect, reason, and will is a son of God. Men are earthly creatures and the angel realm occupies the heavenlies. Men are physical and angels are spiritual. Since the fall, men die physically and since any created being must occupy a place, the dead body, the physical, returns to the dust and the elements from which they were taken, but the spiritual part, the soul, is eternal and must occupy a place. The soul of man is not created to occupy the heavens so those lost souls who are separated from their bodies have no place to go. Eternal torment. we are told, was created for the devil and his angels. This would include the sons of God who left their habitation (the heavenlies). They are not physical creatures so they are not subject to physical death or the ravages of time. They are as old as creation and their numbers are fixed. Like man, they were created innocent but they were tested and 1/3 of them fell. Since the test the 2/3 holy angels are sealed in righteousness and cannot sin never to be tested again. So then, lost souls of unsaved men goes to the place of Spirits and when the earth is renewed at the end of the day of the Lord, they with the angels who sinned will be cast into the lake of fire which God says is the second death.

Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven (this would be the second heaven): Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (read whole context)

Re 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Re 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. (not to the children of God. The children of God, the church, the body of Christ, having been born again, will abide with the Father in heaven, the New Jerusalem, a satellite city. This is the reason for the rapture of the church)

Note: in post #40 the word centuries should be millennium.

I do not have perfect understanding and might later change my mind on somepoints as i get more light and understanding of the mind of God.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:4-7
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



It’s pretty clear to me that Job uses the description, sons of God, differently than the rest of the Bible.

 

[Ascetic X]

We are in Christ and are sealed in him by the Spirit. We cannot fall.

I Corinthians 10:12

Therefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

 

[JD731]

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:4-7
Let dations of the earth?declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



It’s pretty clear to me that Job uses the description, sons of God, differently than the rest of the Bible.

Let me help you in your thinking some here. If you approach the text already knowing what you think about it, it will not be able to teach you anything. You must draw your doctrine from the words and the context.

First, we know that Job is a historical man.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job;

We know what God thinks of Job.

"and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."
"there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

He had a family.
Job 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

More important for our conversation is what was his relationship to God? Are we told? Can we know? The answer is yes, we are told.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,

The relationship between Job and God is, he was a servant. That is what the text says and unless there is something said somewhere that directly alters this, I am going to believe that Job is a servant in the high favor of God. He is not a son of God.

Now we are introduced to some entities that are called "the sons of God." They came to God in a matter of a day to present themselves before him. The text says that Satan came with them. This suggests he was closely affiliated with them, How closely affiliated we are not told here. We do know from Ez 28 that he is a fallen cherub, a class of heavenly creatures we read about in the scriptures. The conversation that God initiates with him suggests that Satan was well aware of Job and he accuses God of putting a hedge about him against his attacks on Job. Satan already knew that what God said, that there was none like him in the earth was true, but it was not, in Satan's estimation, because of Job's reverent trust in God but because of God's love and protection of Job that he could not tempt him to fall.

Logic and reason kicks in for me now. If Job was a man who knew and reverenced God and the day came that the sons of God presented themselves before the Lord and Job was not present with them in spite of the wonderful assessment of God upon his person, then I am saying the sons of God are not men or Job would no doubt have appeared with them since there was no greater on the earth. Neither was Job a son of God because God had already identified him as a servant. Now, I am believing the words I am reading and the matter is settled for me even though I am seeing through a glass darkly.

Let me reiterate something here. There are no men of the seed of Adam during the years between him and Jesus Christ who is a son of God but there were those who were called the sons of God because they are the sons of God. There are some wonderful truths to be learned from the book of Job and one must remember that it is prophetic as well as historical and devotional.

My advice is to believe the words in one Bible you accept to be true and consider the context. There is safety in that. There is no safety in having more that one Bible with words you are not sure are true. A false teacher with a high IQ and much learning can convince you of about anything if he can first convince you the words do not mean what they say.

 

[Ben1445]

Let me help you in your thinking some here. If you approach the text already knowing what you think about it, it will not be able to teach you anything. You must draw your doctrine from the words and the context.

Do you always go back to square one with a text. I agree that it is fine to read it for new perspective. But to say that you must approach it without knowing about it is to say that you have not familiarized yourself with Scripture. There are only so many years of your life that you should acceptably be allowed to be scripturally illiterate.

First, we know that Job is a historical man.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job;

We know what God thinks of Job.

We know some.

"and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."
"there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Undoubtedly this is not all God thinks of Job.

He had a family.
Job 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

You are spending a lot of time off topic.

More important for our conversation is what was his relationship to God? Are we told? Can we know? The answer is yes, we are told.

8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,

The relationship between Job and God is, he was a servant. That is what the text says and unless there is something said somewhere that directly alters this, I am going to believe that Job is a servant in the high favor of God. He is not a son of God.


Now we are introduced to some entities that are called "the sons of God." They came to God in a matter of a day to present themselves before him. The text says that Satan came with them. This suggests he was closely affiliated with them, How closely affiliated we are not told here. We do know from Ez 28 that he is a fallen cherub, a class of heavenly creatures we read about in the scriptures. The conversation that God initiates with him suggests that Satan was well aware of Job and he accuses God of putting a hedge about him against his attacks on Job. Satan already knew that what God said, that there was none like him in the earth was true, but it was not, in Satan's estimation, because of Job's reverent trust in God but because of God's love and protection of Job that he could not tempt him to fall.

Logic and reason kicks in for me now. If Job was a man who knew and reverenced God and the day came that the sons of God presented themselves before the Lord and Job was not present with them in spite of the wonderful assessment of God upon his person, then I am saying the sons of God are not men or Job would no doubt have appeared with them since there was no greater on the earth. Neither was Job a son of God because God had already identified him as a servant. Now, I am believing the words I am reading and the matter is settled for me even though I am seeing through a glass darkly.

I know people who think that Satan just showed up for church that day and this was actually a description of a church service. I disagree with them.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sons of God in the book of Job are angels.
That doesn’t tell me about Genesis.

Let me reiterate something here. There are no men of the seed of Adam during the years between him and Jesus Christ who is a son of God but there were those who were called the sons of God because they are the sons of God. There are some wonderful truths to be learned from the book of Job and one must remember that it is prophetic as well as historical and devotional.

This still doesn’t make the sons of God in Genesis, married angels. Angels are not married or given in marriage.

My advice is to believe the words in one Bible you accept to be true and consider the context. There is safety in that. There is no safety in having more that one Bible with words you are not sure are true.

I agree with you. I use one Bible. And it’s the same one you do.
I disagree with your interpretation when it comes to Genesis 6.

A false teacher with a high IQ and much learning can convince you of about anything if he can first convince you the words do not mean what they say.

It might be quicker for you to just say Galatians 4:1-7

But that still doesn’t make sons of God to be angels in Genesis.

I don’t actually know what we have disagreed with about the book of Job. I don’t see how the use in Job transfers to elsewhere. You have already denied that it should apply to the NT. I agree.

But you seem to deny that people are called the children of God in the OT. That is the same thing as saying the Sons of God.

Psalms 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.

Jesus said that the passage speaks of people therefore it is not speaking of angels.

John 10:34-35
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

[JD731]

Do you always go back to square one with a text. I agree that it is fine to read it for new perspective. But to say that you must approach it without knowing about it is to say that you have not familiarized yourself with Scripture. There are only so many years of your life that you should acceptably be allowed to be scripturally illiterate.


We know some.

Undoubtedly this is not all God thinks of Job.


You are spending a lot of time off topic.



I know people who think that Satan just showed up for church that day and this was actually a description of a church service. I disagree with them.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sons of God in the book of Job are angels.
That doesn’t tell me about Genesis.


This still doesn’t make the sons of God in Genesis, married angels. Angels are not married or given in marriage.


I agree with you. I use one Bible. And it’s the same one you do.
I disagree with your interpretation when it comes to Genesis 6.


It might be quicker for you to just say Galatians 4:1-7

But that still doesn’t make sons of God to be angels in Genesis.

I don’t actually know what we have disagreed with about the book of Job. I don’t see how the use in Job transfers to elsewhere. You have already denied that it should apply to the NT. I agree.

But you seem to deny that people are called the children of God in the OT. That is the same thing as saying the Sons of God.

Psalms 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.

Jesus said that the passage speaks of people therefore it is not speaking of angels.

John 10:34-35
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

I am sure I do not understand your reasoning in this post. It seems that you do not accept that the scriptures is one continuous revelation of God concerning his redemption story and the characters are identified and explained and many of them appear throughout history. We recognize them by their names and titles and we build our doctrines based upon the information that is given about them. The same names and/or titles are not given to multiple entities. That would be confusing. We cannot even agree that the same entities called the sons of God showed up both in the book of Genesis and the book of Job with proof they are not human entities and that giants in Genesis 6 are the huge offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men with the implication that this is the source of the corruption of the gene pool of humanity like Gen 6 implies.

Ge 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
7:1 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

I see our conversation devolving and getting somewhat silly. You do not seem to understand that my position is the creation of an entity with the possession of the Spirit is the common component of the sons of God, whether angels or men. Reason and logic demands this conclusion, not to mention a separate doomed class called giants that were produced by the fallen ones. Our Lord Jesus poured out his Spirit on the cross that we might be made the sons of God. We are new creatures in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor 5:17. We are something we weren't before, tripartite.

Ro 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I say again. There is much that I do not know and could be wrong about. I will accept correction if it is scriptural. Thanks for the exercise.

 

[Ben1445]

I am sure I do not understand your reasoning in this post. It seems that you do not accept that the scriptures is one continuous revelation of God concerning his redemption story and the characters are identified and explained and many of them appear throughout history. We recognize them by their names and titles and we build our doctrines based upon the information that is given about them. The same names and/or titles are not given to multiple entities. That would be confusing. We cannot even agree that the same entities called the sons of God showed up both in the book of Genesis and the book of Job with proof they are not human entities and that giants in Genesis 6 are the huge offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men with the implication that this is the source of the corruption of the gene pool of humanity like Gen 6 implies.

Ge 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
7:1 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

I see our conversation devolving and getting somewhat silly. You do not seem to understand that my position is the creation of an entity with the possession of the Spirit is the common component of the sons of God, whether angels or men. Reason and logic demands this conclusion, not to mention a separate doomed class called giants that were produced by the fallen ones. Our Lord Jesus poured out his Spirit on the cross that we might be made the sons of God. We are new creatures in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor 5:17. We are something we weren't before, tripartite.

Ro 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I say again. There is much that I do not know and could be wrong about. I will accept correction if it is scriptural. Thanks for the exercise.

I’m not being silly.

What I’m hearing sounds silly to me.
Angels are spirits that have the spirit of God so they are the sons of God?
So devils are spirits but are fallen, so they are no longer living spirits, they are spiritually dead spirits?
Wouldn’t a spirit without a spirit be nothing?

I don’t understand your “logic.”

 

[Ben1445]

I am sure I do not understand your reasoning in this post. It seems that you do not accept that the scriptures is one continuous revelation of God concerning his redemption story and the characters are identified and explained and many of them appear throughout history.

I don’t know what makes you think that. You are the one who insists on changing the meaning of the description, children of God.

h1121. בֵּן ḇên
The word for children in Psalm 82 is the same for sons in Genesis 6.

We recognize them by their names and titles and we build our doctrines based upon the information that is given about them.

Sons of God is neither name nor title.

The same names and/or titles are not given to multiple entities. That would be confusing.

It is not a proper name. It is not a title. It means child of God.

We cannot even agree that the same entities called the sons of God showed up both in the book of Genesis and the book of Job with proof they are not human entities and that giants in Genesis 6 are the huge offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men with the implication that this is the source of the corruption of the gene pool of humanity like Gen 6 implies.

Ge 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
7:1 1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Perfect in his generation doesn’t mean his genealogy. My generation is not perfect. Neither is anyone else’s. Some generations may lay claim to being more completely seekers of God.

Psalms 24:6
This is the generation of them that seek him,
that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.

This verse is not saying that they have an ancestry of seeking God. It means they live in a time of people who seek God.

In like manner, Noah was found to be righteous in a time of people who, evidenced by their destruction, were not righteous.
So God found Noah righteous in a generation, a period of time, (like the hippie generation is a period of time characterized by many hippies), that was unrighteous.

I see our conversation devolving and getting somewhat silly.

It appears to me that it is silly to you because you cannot answer it.

You do not seem to understand that my position is the creation of an entity with the possession of the Spirit is the common component of the sons of God, whether angels or men.

Your position is not necessarily right. Understanding your position has no bearing on the nature of the sons of God in Genesis 6. If you change your position, it will not change them.

Reason and logic demands this conclusion,

(When begun from your premise, maybe. I apparently, am unable to grasp your meaning. This is what you have told me. But I think you have a faulty premise. It doesn’t surprise me that I not only do not follow your logic, but I also disagree with your conclusions.)

not to mention a separate doomed class called giants that were produced by the fallen ones.

I’ll tell my abnormally tall relatives that they are doomed because their parents must have married demons.

Our Lord Jesus poured out his Spirit on the cross that we might be made the sons of God. We are new creatures in Christ Jesus. 2 Cor 5:17. We are something we weren't before, tripartite.

Ro 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

I say again. There is much that I do not know and could be wrong about. I will accept correction if it is scriptural. Thanks for the exercise.

You don’t seem to accept any Scripture that I provide. It looks like you just ignore it and tell me I’m ignorant and silly.
I think you flatter your logic and have already come to your conclusions. There seems to be no point in discussing anything with you except for my own benefit of discussion of an odd belief that angels make big babies. It is not being silly either. That is what you have proposed. I think it is a pretty serious claim, since Jesus said that angels are not married, in the proper sense, joined to any other.

Marriage is a joining.
Given in marriage is a ceremony.

Angels are not joined to any other, and no one in heaven pretends they are by having a ceremony for them.
All the bases were covered in the statement Jesus made.

 

[JD731]

I’m not being silly.

What I’m hearing sounds silly to me.
Angels are spirits that have the spirit of God so they are the sons of God?
So devils are spirits but are fallen, so they are no longer living spirits, they are spiritually dead spirits?
Wouldn’t a spirit without a spirit be nothing?

I don’t understand your “logic.”

Angels and born again men have Life. The Spirit of God is life. Angels and men are gods when they disobey God. Sin brings forth death, which is separation from Life. This is what we are told in the scriptures. This is my logic.

This is my last post on the subject to you.