I think that fallen angelks though could possess humans and this produce offspring!
-
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!
The Nephilim
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Except that the scriptures indicate that those fallen angels did "something" so bad that God has reserved them up, chaining them up until judgement day!This is what I expected. There are some here who have taken the time and effort to understand each view even as they disagree. And then there are those like you who remain willfully ignorant and prefer to insult those who dare to believe the "traditional view".
I understand your position and agree it is s legitimate interpretation of the phrase "sons of God" but reject it as contrary to the teachings of Scripture. No one is arguing against angels leaving their proper place. We are arguing against the mythology of angels marrying human women and starting a family.
Oh....angelology is not a psychobabble term. It is the "theological dogma or speculation concerning angels"(from αγγελōς = messenger, Greek equivalent of the Hebrew). It's often considered one of 10 major categories of systematic theology.
Then why pursue something if your expectation is not favorable?
[/QUOTE]There are some here who have taken the time and effort to understand each view even as they disagree. And then there are those like you who remain willfully ignorant and prefer to insult those who dare to believe the "traditional view". [/QUOTE]
[Edited]
I stated what I believe.
You stated what you believe.
And that was the point, we disagreed.
I stated what I believe....and WHY.
You stated what you believe....and WHY.
At that point we still disagreed.
I DO NOT find your "WHY" to be parallel or applicable to the specific scripture being discussed, and said so. And further said, straying off point by introducing things that have nothing to do with point, and conveyed it was not my interest to stray off point.
And now you reply....that is what you expected? What, that I can not be swayed by you? What, that I elected to stay on point?
NO!.... According to YOU, what you "expected", was to NOT be handled with kid gloves, NOT tipped toed around, NOT my comments sugar coated. (so you would not get your "feelings" hurt).
[Edited, insults remove]
And while I say your behavior is juvenile....scripture reveals it immature, unwise, foolish, and behavior of a babe.
Thus, you amuse me!
Why would you believe it is a legitimate interpretation?
ONLY Gods interpretation is CORRECT.
If you do not know Gods interpretation, you are simply guessing and purporting what your mind has concluded....
WHICH IS IRRELEVANT....and a major point I stated.
No. It is not contrary to Scripture.
Okay, that is settled.
No, I have said nothing about mythology.
Correct.
I believe they did, and such unholy angels then, lost their "estate" ON earth and are IN Chains IN Hell, FOR their actions.
So, why don't you elaborate. Do YOU believe scripture....?
Jude 1
[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
And WHO would these angels be, according to you?
And WHERE are they, according to you?
And WHY are they, "there", according to you?
DO elaborate...
It is the "theological dogma or speculation concerning angels"(from αγγελōς = messenger, Greek equivalent of the Hebrew). It's often considered one of 10 major categories of systematic theology.
It is a man made term. It is not in scripture. I was specifically trying to AVOID speculation, and specifically trying to get you to stay ON POINT, according TO scripture.
So WHEN you introduced that term, you were STRAYING OFF POINT, and yep, tying to introduce things that had nothing to do with the point.
Angelology....theology....psychology.......anything ending in LOGY.....spelled O-logy relates to the knowledge in the field of the science of that field. The nameing of the field, as you mentioned "angelology, theology".... and the speculations surrounding that particular field....
Already told you, I was not interested in your introductions of terms outside of scripture....thus I referenced your repeated attempts as ....
psychobabble
- jargon used in popular psychology.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some here who have taken the time and effort to understand each view even as they disagree. And then there are those like you who remain willfully ignorant and prefer to insult those who dare to believe the "traditional view". [/QUOTE]
LOL Jon ~ you amuse me. Our conversation was NOT about your FEELINGS.
I stated what I believe.
You stated what you believe.
And that was the point, we disagreed.
I stated what I believe....and WHY.
You stated what you believe....and WHY.
At that point we still disagreed.
I DO NOT find your "WHY" to be parallel or applicable to the specific scripture being discussed, and said so. And further said, straying off point by introducing things that have nothing to do with point, and conveyed it was not my interest to stray off point.
And now you reply....that is what you expected? What, that I can not be swayed by you? What, that I elected to stay on point?
NO!.... According to YOU, what you "expected", was to NOT be handled with kid gloves, NOT tipped toed around, NOT my comments sugar coated. (so you would not get your "feelings" hurt).
I though I was speaking to an adult. My expectation in speaking with an adult, is to be frank in expressing my view and my disagreement with your view, and WHY.
It is a person with a juvenile mentality, that diverts and whines, "you are rude, you hurt my feelings, your are insulting", blah, blah.
It is a person with a juvenile mentality, that can not discuss facts, and has to introduce mans ideas, when it is scripture and the understanding thereof , according to God.
It is a person with a juvenile mentality, that WHILE they are whining, boo hoo, you insulted me......DO exactly what they complain about....
Your words reveal, that you believe I insulted you....while you upchuck calling me ignorant. LOL
And while I say your behavior is juvenile....scripture reveals it immature, unwise, foolish, and behavior of a babe.
Thus, you amuse me!
Why would you believe it is a legitimate interpretation?
ONLY Gods interpretation is CORRECT.
If you do not know Gods interpretation, you are simply guessing and purporting what your mind has concluded....
WHICH IS IRRELEVANT....and a major point I stated.
No. It is not contrary to Scripture.
Okay, that is settled.
No, I have said nothing about mythology.
Correct.
I believe they did, and such unholy angels then, lost their "estate" ON earth and are IN Chains IN Hell, FOR their actions.
So, why don't you elaborate. Do YOU believe scripture....?
Jude 1
[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
And WHO would these angels be, according to you?
And WHERE are they, according to you?
And WHY are they, "there", according to you?
DO elaborate...
It is a man made term. It is not in scripture. I was specifically trying to AVOID speculation, and specifically trying to get you to stay ON POINT, according TO scripture.
So WHEN you introduced that term, you were STRAYING OFF POINT, and yep, tying to introduce things that had nothing to do with the point.
Angelology....theology....psychology.......anything ending in LOGY.....spelled O-logy relates to the knowledge in the field of the science of that field. The nameing of the field, as you mentioned "angelology, theology".... and the speculations surrounding that particular field....
Already told you, I was not interested in your introductions of terms outside of scripture....thus I referenced your repeated attempts as ....
psychobabble
- jargon used in popular psychology.
Was Jesus a man or an Angel while on the Earthj?
Didn't say it wasn't. There are many "other positions." Some of them may be invalid. I can entertain the three major interpretations as all being possible.
Yes, that would be a good way to view this!
Jesus came to earth, AS He is, unseen, Holy, Spirit, came upon Mary and we learn entered Mary's Womb ie overshadowed Mary.
Luke.1
- [35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
So, can we call Jesus a man? Yes.
Was he a human man? Nothing says he was.
Does anything say Jesus was an Angel? No.
Does anything reveal Jesus ever appeared or appears AS an Angel? Another conversation, but I say Yes.
Does anything reveal Jesus' TRUE self, regardless of appearing as, or being called a man or angel? Yes
The point is; Jesus IS the Lord. His estate is another world, called Heaven.
It does not matter what He is called, ....a man, an angel, a brother, a son......because it matters not WHAT form or cover is upon Him, for men to SEE, He IS the Lord, and unchanging of WHO he is.
Heb.13
- [8] Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Jesus was a jewish man, born to Mary, under the law, for if mot Human, not Messiah!
Don't be foolish. Using the term "angelology" or "theology" or "anthropology" is not psychobabble. If anything, you are inventing insults and ideas as a smokescreen so that you can pretend your interpretation is the only one allowed by the text. You are reading into scripture your "mythology".
I once had a CoC friend who also considered theology psychobabble. Like you he used systematic theology to defend his position. And like you he failed to realize a rose by any other name is still a rose. You guys crack me up.
Didn't notice this one in my Bible anywhere either.
Just want to iterate. WE, as humans with a BRAIN can use our limited knowledge (because we do not know all things) and come to "possible" conclusions. Why THREE? Because we do not know all things. How can THREE things be possible?
Because there is no definitive ONE thing known, so it's guessing (because we do not know all things).
SO the dilemma ~ HOW TO ARRIVE at the ONE TRUE answer of the UNDERSTANDING of the KNOWLEDGE?
Logic? no
Guessing ? no
Philosopher said? no
Pastor said? no
Brain transplant? no
THEE ONLY way to arrive at the ONE TRUE understanding, is for man to RECEIVE from God, "HIS Understanding".
How do we do that? WE ASK GOD, and that is where PRAYER comes in being the means of HOW we communicate with God.
AND? "WHO is "we" ? Everybody? No. Faithfully committed believers, (ie saved and born again) yes.
EVERY saved and born again believer? No.
Why not?
Because first ONLY Gods give His understanding to individuals.
Secondly, NOT everyone is prepared or mature to receive His understanding on a particular subject.
What is prepared? A faithful submitted believer....Reading the scripture, studying it, showing diligence, ie your genuine interest.
What is mature? Being of an age, you can not only ask for His understanding, but also be responsible for His understanding.
So, once you are prepared, and mature.....HOW do you get God understanding? ASK.
And WHO is it that gives it to you? God. How do you KNOW that? Scripture teaches you that.
Matt.7
- [7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
- [8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
- [9] Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
- [10] Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
- [11] If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (has revealed to Simon Barjona, Gods understanding)
I don't know what you or anyone else has done. However I do know what I have done, in reading, studying, the topic at hand, and WHO I have asked for understanding , and whom I trust His teaching and revealing and thus serve God according to how He has revealed for me to do.
We have gone this route before. You speak in carnal understanding, and something that I am way beyond.
I never said the expectation was not favorable, but it has proven to be neither favorable or unfavorable. It is simply what I expected. I had hoped that we could explore each other’s views without resulting to insults but you have proven me wrong….and this is what I expected based on a few of your other posts. There are others who disagree with me but have the capability to discuss other views in legitimate discourse. You are simply not one of these people.
Again, this is juvenile. Please try to stick to the topic (the doctrines at hand) and refrain from childish insults. You don’t know me. I don’t know you. It is impossible for you to hurt my feelings, and I suspect that works both ways. [Edited]
Of course I believe in Scripture. That you would venture the question highlights what I was speaking of when I said that you are not the type of person capable of legitimately discussing these things. You have your belief and that’s that. All you can do is spout insults and blow smoke. This is what I am referring to when I say your posts are ignorant. They reflect a severe lack of understanding – not because of your view but because of the way you hold your view and interact with others.
Some people believe angels fathered children because they have investigated the issue and believe this is the best interpretation of Scripture. Others hold the same interpretation but out of ignorance (they hold the view as people hold to a myth). I believe, based on your interaction here, that you are the latter type of person and that this is evidenced by your interactions with those who hold one of the other positions.
You failed, although I don’t think you see the speculation in your own position.
The word “Theology” is not jargon used in popular psychology. If you truly believe this then your understanding of language is severely impaired and you may serve as an example of the biblical illiteracy that plagues our churches today.
To help you out –
“Theology” (proper) is the study of God. Why do you reject the study of God as psychobabble?
“Christology” is the study of Christ. Why do you reject the study of Christ as psychobabble?
You use “systematic theology” to form your view of angels (you took some passages from Genesis, others from Peter, and yet others from Jude and made a dogma which you cling to on this thread). Are you engaging in psychobabble?
You need to understand that words have meaning. Just because you don’t understand the words…or you feel they should not be used…. does not mean they don’t apply.
Did you NOT comprehend, my psychobabble comment was SPECIFICALLY to YOUR repeated attempts to introduce outside of the point.
Get it. I was not speaking of any "ology" terms.....I was calling your ATTEMPTS to deflect psychobabble....and again, you still carry on deflecting.
[/QUOTE] I once had a CoC friend who also considered theology psychobabble.[/QUOTE]
ALSO? Doesn't apply. For the THIRD time.....it was your repeated deflection I called psychobabble!!
First of all, you comparing me to your friend is comical.
Secondly, I could care less how you carry on about your friends "systematic theology" or defense of his position.
Thirdly, I don't USE "systematic theology" NOR do I require the use of ANY defense to state my position or disagree with yours.
And like you he failed to realize a rose by any other name is still a rose. You guys crack me up.
[Edited] you don't even comprehend when I am expressing disinterest in your straying off point, with flowery words, AS IF, all your -ology words were required for you to stay on point, and use scripture for your verification, instead of -ology this and that.
[Edited]
However should I want to ever to hear you discuss -ology's [Edited]....perhaps I will address you and listen to you carry on about such things. But don't count on it to happen any time soon.
Yes....occasionally I have used "flowery words" such as "theology" and "angelology". You are right there. But you misunderstood the reasoning. I took it that most people know "angelology" is the study of angels, and applied to the conversation what you missed was what I am conveying.
I will try to communicate without using words you may find offensive, "flowery", or just too darn psychobabbly for your palate.
I am saying that there are three major interpretations of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. All three can be viewed as legitimate based on the phrase "sons of God." I contend that there are a couple that can be justified by "what we know of angels through the study of Scripture". And I believe that your interpretation that angels married human women and had children with them incorporates your "conclusions based on your study of angels in Scripture" as an addition to Scripture itself.
I do not think this is what happened, but I do think it is a legitimate interpretation.
Because I said to you....."you who remain willfully ignorant"
Oh, whoops, that was your comment to me. Guess that is your way of NOT being insulting! LOL
Precisely what I just said to you.....but with sprinkles and a cherry on top to NOT offend your sensitive feelings....
I don't know you. And by what you do say, doesn't seem believing scripture always seems to be the case with you.
LAME. Asking you a question means a person is not capable of legitimately discussing these things?
Laughable. But a unique way to duck....
That is correct!.
Yawn. ... you have to once again talk about your feelings and convince me you lack understanding.....
I get it, you're touchy and you are not capable of understanding what I say.....
Good grief, you are still guessing, debating, wondering. Everyone goes through that, until they learn HOW to get passed that. So, ya I understand where you are coming from and frankly I am past that and have no desire to talk in circles and deflect off on tangents that have nothing to do with the point.
So? Why do you presume I sought or am interested in your analysis of me?
I know who my teacher is, and it is not you!
Are you quite finish yet, feeling better, getting all your "NON-insulting" (lol) digs before we stop talking ? LOL
And? Were we discussing the POINT of studying God or Jesus?
The topic of this thread IS
The Nephilim
The discussion ON point was about the Nephilim...
So, as I said, you deflected, to this -ology and that -ology.....THAT YOU started talking about....which was not the topic or point.
So again, congrats....you get to whine about your feelings, talk about what you want that is off point, and get a few digs in...
are you finished yet, because you are boring me.
Last edited:
I will try to communicate without using words you may find offensive, "flowery", or just too darn psychobabbly for your palate.
Offensive...no. Unnecessary and deflective....yes.
uh huh, you have stated your view, THREE different things can be viewed as legitimate....
Well, I believe, carnal minds can conclude that.
And I do not believe, Gods understanding is reduced to mans understanding of trying to figure out picking out of the best three "acceptable " (to man)....choices.
And YOUR assessment (of Gods understanding that He teaches me, and my trust to believe it, and speak it.....) is IRRELEVANT!
And YOUR assessment ("conclusions based on your study of angels in Scripture" )...couldn't be farther from the truth, of anything I said.
Perhaps BLUNT simple words will suffice you.
Trust, Believe, Submit, Study, SEEK God for His understanding....then you won't have to teach, 3 choices to a specific topic, and pick one, because you have decided that is acceptable!
Do you even listen to what nonsense you suggest?
To be blunt, your claim that God has endowed you with divine understanding....His own understanding....because you prayed for it and therefore can determine what is not actually present in Scripture nor revealed by God (the point of the passage was not angels bearing children but God's judgment on mankind) would be laughable if it were not a sad example of the biblical illiteracy that has inflicted our churches.
And here is all Scripture provides about the Nephilim:
Genesis 6:3-4 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." 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.
Numbers 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."
The remainder of your dogma, all that stuff you've added about angels bearing children and God having to cleans mankind from these men (who may not be human or angel...but are men) is nothing but systematic theology....angelology.... done poorly. It is eisegesis at it's lowest.
What is amazing is that you seem to believe that God has given you, via divine special revelation, His own understanding about the topic.
This pales in comparison to whether or not the "sons of God" were angels (we could have a legitimate conversation over that, although we wouldn't agree) but the fact that your plea is not to Scripture but to some personal revelation.
- Status