You are making one big assumption here (i.e. that because they look like humans by their outer appearance, that they also have all human bodily parts under their clothing and inside of the bodily form they have assumed). The Bible never says such a thing. However, Jesus clearly tells us that angels are not conjoined in one flesh union as humans are by marriage. Thus, in the resurrection humans will be like the angels (not conjoined/one flesh union/married) and the woman who married seven brothers will not be wife to any of them (Matt. 22:23-33 and Gen. 2:24).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
sons of God?
- Thread starter ChurchBoy
- Start date
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Humans wont be like the angels, but rather humans will be like Jesus. For we shall see Him as He is.
Sorry Standing,
While I agree with you regarding our being like Jesus in the resurrection, I also have to disagree with you on this fine point. Jesus said, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection that neither marry not are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30, ESV) [emphasis mine].
standingfirminChrist
New Member
as far as neither marrying nor giving in marriage, they are like the angels, but not in image.
Ray Berrian
New Member
Why did Lot fear for the angels in the form of men if they were not fully functionally male persons who visited him at his house? He was will to give his own unmarried daughters so these homosexuals would not sin against God's servants.
Because Lot mistakenly thought of them just as the Sodomites did (and apparently as you do, that they were fully functioning males). However, the text in question does not say that they were so, and I highly doubt that Lot lifted their robes to check things out for himself.
Likewise, since the text does not spell out their complete physical make-up for us we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and go with the clear teaching of Jesus found in Matt. 22 regarding the sexless nature of angels.Bible-boy I think it is a far greater assumption to say that angels in human form look like Barbie or Ken underneath. They had the form of the human body. Well the human body has parts, so logically it only makes sense that those parts would be right where they are supposed to be.
It's stretching it to say that these angels can have human bodies but without the reproductive parts.
And while angels in and of themselves are sexless, when taking on a human form that human form is not sexless. We get nowhere in Scripture where it tells us that.
Scripture does have to interpret Scripture, but we can always compare incorrect Scriptures together and come up with just about any kind of doctrine we want to. That is evident everywhere in the world around us, else there wouldn't be an "other Christian denominations thread."
But as I said in another post if the Holy Spirit has not convinced you that these fallen angels could co-habitate with humans then that's between you and the Spirit. But I believe the Spirit has led me to this understanding and have not been convinced by the line of Seth viewpoint. In the bigger scheme of what's going on the line of Seth argument doesn't make a lot of sense, where as the angel-human argument makes the most sense in the big picture.
God's blessings to you in your study of His Word!!!
It's stretching it to say that these angels can have human bodies but without the reproductive parts.
And while angels in and of themselves are sexless, when taking on a human form that human form is not sexless. We get nowhere in Scripture where it tells us that.
Scripture does have to interpret Scripture, but we can always compare incorrect Scriptures together and come up with just about any kind of doctrine we want to. That is evident everywhere in the world around us, else there wouldn't be an "other Christian denominations thread."
But as I said in another post if the Holy Spirit has not convinced you that these fallen angels could co-habitate with humans then that's between you and the Spirit. But I believe the Spirit has led me to this understanding and have not been convinced by the line of Seth viewpoint. In the bigger scheme of what's going on the line of Seth argument doesn't make a lot of sense, where as the angel-human argument makes the most sense in the big picture.
God's blessings to you in your study of His Word!!!
Ray Berrian
New Member
J. Jump,
Notice those who vote for the 'Seth theory' totally ignore all the verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2 and others in Job that ALWAYS speak of 'the sons of God' being angels. They totally ignore those verses and leap thousands of years to the new and better covenant which speaks of a son of God or daughter of God being a human being.
It's hard to teach an 'old dog' new tricks.
Blessings to the 'Seth people' and to we who see the truth that angels are the 'sons of God' in Genesis and Job the earliest testimonies as to the Lord's hatred of their vile deeds along with sinful men and women.
Notice those who vote for the 'Seth theory' totally ignore all the verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2 and others in Job that ALWAYS speak of 'the sons of God' being angels. They totally ignore those verses and leap thousands of years to the new and better covenant which speaks of a son of God or daughter of God being a human being.
It's hard to teach an 'old dog' new tricks.
Blessings to the 'Seth people' and to we who see the truth that angels are the 'sons of God' in Genesis and Job the earliest testimonies as to the Lord's hatred of their vile deeds along with sinful men and women.
Quote by Ray
---------------------------------------------------
Notice those who vote for the 'Seth theory' totally ignore all the verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2 and others in Job that ALWAYS speak of 'the sons of God' being angels.
---------------------------------------------------
Where does it say the sons of God were angels?!!!
Job and I sure others came to present themselfs before the Lord with theor offerings and old Slooth foot showed up too. It don't say the sons of God seen the devil it says Satan showed up. If you will also notice what is Job doing right before your scripture about the sons of God? Job is preparing to offer burnt offerings for all his household. This was going on since Able and is in more detail in Exodus.
---------------------------------------------------
Notice those who vote for the 'Seth theory' totally ignore all the verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 & 2 and others in Job that ALWAYS speak of 'the sons of God' being angels.
---------------------------------------------------
Where does it say the sons of God were angels?!!!
Job and I sure others came to present themselfs before the Lord with theor offerings and old Slooth foot showed up too. It don't say the sons of God seen the devil it says Satan showed up. If you will also notice what is Job doing right before your scripture about the sons of God? Job is preparing to offer burnt offerings for all his household. This was going on since Able and is in more detail in Exodus.
BTW, "sons of God" being fallen angels is an oxymoron, as if they were fallen, they no longer would be "of God" but "of Satan". God also is the one who created and sanctified marriage...between humans. He wouldn't allow an angel to partake of "marriage" with humans.
Ray Berrian
New Member
webdog,
If you were so sure of your oxymoron, you would not have gone on to the word, 'if'.
But you are right, if they were good angels who had fallen into wicked sin, they would be on the side of the Evil One.
The term, 'sons of God' in Genesis and Job surely points to these angels who had fallen from grace by cohabating with beautiful women starting and producing a super race, which the Lord cut short by the world wide Deluge. The Flood took place also because of the wickedness and violence of men and women on this earth.
If you were so sure of your oxymoron, you would not have gone on to the word, 'if'.
But you are right, if they were good angels who had fallen into wicked sin, they would be on the side of the Evil One.
The term, 'sons of God' in Genesis and Job surely points to these angels who had fallen from grace by cohabating with beautiful women starting and producing a super race, which the Lord cut short by the world wide Deluge. The Flood took place also because of the wickedness and violence of men and women on this earth.
Fallen angels would never be considered "sons of God". Do you still call satan and demons "sons of God" today? If not, why not?
If they were good angels who had fallen, they would definately not be "sons of God".
It "surely" points to no such thing, and is not a biblical stance to take. It's more "fairy tale" than anything. Even when "sons of God" refer to angels, they are NEVER referred to fallen angels. God is the creator of marriage...between a human man and a human woman! God would NOT allow marriage between an angel and a human woman, as this would no longer be a true "marriage". The Bible clearly states that the "sons of God" MARRIED these women. Do you recognize marriage between two men? Does God?
Genesis 6 clearly deals with sons of God being men. The Hebrew for nephilim means "he fell / apostatized" (from true religion). The Septuagint translate the original word γιγαντες, which literally signifies "earth-born". But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. The end of Genesis 6:4 "...They were the powerful men of old, the famous men." clearly show these were humans. The Hebrew gibborim, which translates as "powerful, mighty men" actually means "heroes, conquerors"...hardly half breed man / angel.
Job 1, 2 (and 38) do call them angels. This is the ONLY place in Scripture that use the phrase sons of God in reference to angels.
Webdog what you have written is from the Clarke commentary or from something that is based on the Clarke commentary, because his commentary is almost word for word what you have written.
So as someone told me earlier in this thread I believe just because a commentator believes it or writes it does not make it so
And just because what I believe what I believe does not make it so either, but I just wanted to add some balance to what you had written for those that maybe have not made up their mind.
You are not entirely correct regarding the Hebrew word nephilim. The Hebrew word used there actually does mean giant. However the root word that it is taken from is a verb that does mean fallen or fall away. Which is exactly the position these angels were in. They were fallen and had fallen away from their original duty.
They were given original dominion over the earth and that was what they were supposed to be doing, not messing around with earlthy women.
They were fallen because they were the 1/3 of the angels that followed in satan's rebellion. They are still ruling over the earth from the heavenlies and will continue to rule until Christ and his bride take over in the coming Lord's day.
So as someone told me earlier in this thread I believe just because a commentator believes it or writes it does not make it so
You are not entirely correct regarding the Hebrew word nephilim. The Hebrew word used there actually does mean giant. However the root word that it is taken from is a verb that does mean fallen or fall away. Which is exactly the position these angels were in. They were fallen and had fallen away from their original duty.
They were given original dominion over the earth and that was what they were supposed to be doing, not messing around with earlthy women.
They were fallen because they were the 1/3 of the angels that followed in satan's rebellion. They are still ruling over the earth from the heavenlies and will continue to rule until Christ and his bride take over in the coming Lord's day.
You apply only one meaning of "fallen" as fact. Even if you were correct, "fallen angels" would NOT be considered "sons of God", nor would be allowed to partake in HUMAN marriage, which by definition is between a HUMAN male and HUMAN female. BTW, Clarke is not the authority on how Hebrew words are translated. Regardless of what he or anyone else says, the Hebrew does not change.
Then why did you quote from what he said if he is not an expert?
Fallen angels are considered sons of God whether we like it or not, because they were created as sons of God. So it's pretty hard to change what they were created as.
Can you show me in Scripture where it said they were married to these women?
Fallen angels are considered sons of God whether we like it or not, because they were created as sons of God. So it's pretty hard to change what they were created as.
Can you show me in Scripture where it said they were married to these women?
Ray Berrian
New Member
The term 'sons of God' refers to good angels who finally went astray in Genesis 6.
The words 'sons of God' in Job also refers to good angels, but in this writing Satan was allowed to approach God's Presence.
The words 'sons of God' in Job also refers to good angels, but in this writing Satan was allowed to approach God's Presence.
My point was not that Clarke is an expert or not on Hebrew, but the Hebrew definition does not change, regardless who's an expert.
Do you still consider satan and demons "sons of God"? What about unbelievers?
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose .
Do you believe God has power over demons? Do you believe that a Holy God, who created and sanctioned marriage between HUMANS would allow deomons to marry?