Jude verse

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
None of them even mention homosexuality and certainly don't condemn loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships.

Hi PaladinValar =)
I just got home from work so I haven't really had much time to read your whole reply to my posts.

On two things:

1) Good point about the transfiguration

2) "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." (Gen 2:19)

Angels are neither creatures formed out of the ground as beasts of the field nor are they birds of the air. Angels were not named by men either.

All the christian and non-christian sources I quoted for the definition of inappropriate behavior with animals cannot be wrong or else they would be liars.

Do I have to show you what the definition of inappropriate behavior with animals is?

On-line Medical Dictionary
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
WordNet
American Heritage Dictionary
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inappropriate behavior with animals
1.brutish or beastly character or behavior; beastliness. 2.indulgence in beastlike appetites, instincts, impulses, etc. 3.an instance of bestial character or behavior. 4.sexual relations between a person and an animal; sodomy.http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7117&dict=CALD
sex between a person and an animal

http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl
bes•ti•al•ity /
stress.gif
besti
stress.gif
l
phon_shwa.gif
ti; NAmE
stress.gif
best
phon_caps.gif
i/ noun
1 (technical) sexual activity between a human and an animal
2 (formal) cruel or disgusting behaviour: the sheer inappropriate behavior with animals of these crimes


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/inappropriate behavior with animals?view=uk
2 sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0211600.html
1. The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
2. Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
3. Sexual relations between a human and an animal.






Sources such as Oxford, along with other christian and non-christian sources cannot be wrong. Not one defines inappropriate behavior with animals as sexual intercourse between two species, but between two animals.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Since God did not create Angels as an earthly thing, but something of the heavens, these definitions cannot apply to Angels. Birds, fish, reptiles and other creatures of the earth have their dominion under men, but Angels dominion is directly in heaven, under God, which is above men.

ani•mal
psym.gif
noun
1a creature that is not a bird, a fish, a reptile, an insect or a human: the animals and birds of South America a small furry animal
xsym.gif
Fish oils are less saturated than animal fats.
xsym.gif
domestic animals such as dogs and cats
2 any living thing that is not a plant or a human: the animal kingdom This product has not been tested on animals.—pictures and vocabulary notes on pages R20, R21
3 any living creature, including humans: Humans are the only animals to have developed speech.—compare vegetable
4 a person who behaves in a cruel or unpleasant way, or who is very dirty: The person who did this is an animal, a brute.
5 a particular type of person, thing, organization, etc.: She’s not a political animal. The government which followed the election was a very different animal.—see also dumb animal, higher animals


Although Angels are often referred to as heavenly creatures, this is referring to them being Spirits from heaven.

Noun1.angel - spiritual being attendant upon Godhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/angel

Angels can take on the form of men
Angels can eat, sleep, have their feet washed, be touched. In Hebrews, we are told that we may have entertained Angels without even knowing it.
Angels are spiritual soldiers, some for the devil, and some for God.

Angels are not creatures of the earth, nor are they part of planet earth. They belong to heaven. Angels are not animals nor beasts but spiritual entities.

A spiritual entity is not an animal.

The two points I am making here:

1) The men of Sodom had homosexual intentions.
2) Sex between Angels and Men is not inappropriate behavior with animals.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Amphibians are animals. Animals include reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, and mammals.
I may have been originally wrong in my definition of what an animal was for earthly creatures, but I am not wrong in saying that inappropriate behavior with animals applies to only creatures of the earth.

an·i·mal play_w("A0309400") (
abreve.gif
n
prime.gif
schwa.gif
-m
schwa.gif
l)n.1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
3. A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
4. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.

or·gan·ism n.1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

spe·cies play_w("S0615000")
n. pl. species 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See Table at taxonomy.
b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. Logic A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.
3. a. A kind, variety, or type: "No species of performing artist is as self-critical as a dancer" Susan Sontag.
b. The human race; humankind.

4. Roman Catholic Church a. The outward appearance or form of the Eucharistic elements that is retained after their consecration.
b. Either of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist.

5. Obsolete a. An outward form or appearance.
b. Specie.




The biological definition of species does not apply to Angels either.


PaladinValer, do you believe that Spirits are organisms?
I am curious because that is probably where we differ on opinions. I don't view them as organisms, although I believe they can take on the form of an organism, such as men.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Angels are never mentioned in Gen 6!

1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. -NRSV

sons of God=angels.

Although you obviously do not know the first thing about Biblical Hebrew and you ignore all my Jewish sources because you are not Jewish, but you presume to interpret the Hebrew O.T., and tell us what Hebrew words mean

Straw Man. I said that I reject Jewish interpretations. I never said anything about the Hebrew language.

I provided the ONLY reliable historical context for the topic of homosexuality in the O.T.. From the time of Moses Hebrew scholars have consistently interpreted the incident with the angels in Sodom and the punishment God meted out as being related to homosexual acts. I provided the references you blew them off. Do we have anything else to talk about?

You did nothing of the sort.

And not all "Hebrew scholars" agree with you:

Isaiah 1
Jeremiah 23
Ezekiel 16:49-50
St. Matthew 10:14-15 (Jesus speaking)
St. Luke 10:7-16 (Jesus speaking)
2 St. Peter 6-8

In addition, since angels do not have gender and are not humans, it couldn't have been homosexual.

Your unsupported “disagreement” without any explanation is meaningless.

My disagreement, as you read, was illustrated in debating each of your ECF quotes. Please read my post in context.

Of course, you are not interested in how Jewish scholars have interpreted scripture since the time of Moses. You would rather read into all relevant O.T. scripture, your assumptions and presuppositions and the usual cut/paste from homosexuals-я-us.com®

For your information, I did not cut-and-paste at all. Unless you can prove your accusation that I did, retract please.

Were you to actually read my post you would not have to ask that question. It is highlighted in blue, also read this from a gay website.

You..you...you...Sir, the word "you" appears quite often. "were you..." "if you..." etc. Debate the issue, not the person. Otherwise, its an ad hominem.

Read them in-context, not bits and pieces out-of-context.

I did and I came to a different conclusion. Perhaps if you could show how they associate to homosexuality and only homosexuality?

Read the rest of the quote, in-context!

I did. There was nothing there to suggest anything else other than a love of boys. By the same logic, I could say that heterosexual rape means that heterosexuality is a sin.

Irrelevant, when read in context.

I did. It is Begging the Question. You didn't even care to show why you believe it is irrelevent.

Christianity did not fall out of the sky one day, all the original disciples were Jews. Their Theology was that of the O.T. According to the sources I have posted, the sin of Sodom was homosexual acts, i.e. “sodomy”.

Do angels have gender? Did then the people go after angels? And were women not also among the group?

No homosexuality.

See my Jewish sources!

I'm not a Jew. I'm a Christian. I did comment on the Christian sources, I might point out.

Read the rest of the quote in context. By quoting a word here and there, bits and pieces, anyone can make almost anything say whatever they want it to.

Perhaps if you could show me how you arrived at your interpretation here (and elsewhere) this debate would be more fruitful to the both of us?

Is this some kind semantical copout, because they did not use the English word "homosexual?" None of which "mention homosexuality?" If you are talking about the ECF, reread Clement.

I'm unconvinced about Clement, least of all that I never found that particular passage (and I did kindly ask to where it was...thank you for telling me :)) but mostly because the words used could mean just about anything; it was very vague.

If you actually read my posts. READ! Not skim thru pulling out bits and pieces you will find that some ECF actually referred to your so-called "loving, cooperative, monogomous [sic] relationships." You might also note that the ancient Jews also knew about and condemned those same so-called relationships.

"You..you...you"

I did not "skim through" anything. Debate what I brought up instead of focusing on me. I'm not the one up for debate; the issue is.

Dear PaldinValer,
The Bible shows us that same-sex sex is wrong so if the Bible did mention homosexuality and loving, cooperative, monogomous relationships. Then it would be condemning it.

No proof is given.

Hi PaladinValar =)
I just got home from work so I haven't really had much time to read your whole reply to my posts.

Welcome back. :)

On two things:

1) Good point about the transfiguration

Always a good one to remember. Easier perhaps for some like me, as it helps to be born on its Feast Day, August 6th ;)

2) "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." (Gen 2:19)

Angels are neither creatures formed out of the ground as beasts of the field nor are they birds of the air. Angels were not named by men either.

All the christian and non-christian sources I quoted for the definition of inappropriate behavior with animals cannot be wrong or else they would be liars.

As you had probably read, I agreed that my use of inappropriate behavior with animals was incorrect, and I officially retract. However, with that said, Genesis 6 still condemns human-angelic relationships, so that argument is still in play.

In addition, even if my use of inappropriate behavior with animals were correct, it wouldn't make your sources necessarily "liars." Perhaps they were innocently ignorant? To automatically jump to "liars" is a big step like that, again if the situation were different, would not seem logical. You'd need to prove proof that they lied: they would have had to know the truth and choose not to tell it.

However, your post is unfortunately a Straw Man. inappropriate behavior with animals was and is not my primary argument. The very fact that I said something to the tune of "even if it wasn't inappropriate behavior with animals, Genesis 6 still condemned human-angel relationships" proves that the argument goes far deeper than the definition of one word. I would be pleased to continue this (much more friendly than others concurrently going on) debate with you. :)
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I may have been originally wrong in my definition of what an animal was for earthly creatures, but I am not wrong in saying that inappropriate behavior with animals applies to only creatures of the earth.

This entire post is unfortunately another Straw Man.

Since God did not create Angels as an earthly thing, but something of the heavens, these definitions cannot apply to Angels. Birds, fish, reptiles and other creatures of the earth have their dominion under men, but Angels dominion is directly in heaven, under God, which is above men.

Unfortunately, another Straw Man.

Please debate upon my strongest argument.

The two points I am making here:

1) The men of Sodom had homosexual intentions.

Is the woman guilty of 3rd degree theft or 5th degree theft?
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The NIV is rejected. Give me a formal equivalence. If you don't have one, there are plenty of online Bibles of all the popular and even unpopular versions and translations that you can freely use. Any of those considered formal equivalences will do.
That is your opinion.

A species is any race of living beings that is unique I would argue. Angels are a race of living beings that are unique. They are, therefore, a species.
They are not a biological species that is of the earth. They are spiritual beings and can take on a form. Logically you can call them a species, but not one biologically.

English has a lot of definitions in it's language. If you read the bible, you will get a sense of what is biblically defined as an animal. From what I believe, Leviticus 18:23 and Genesis 2:19 give us this sense.

Angels do not apply to Genesis 2:19.





Look Paladin, I wish you would show me more love in your posts rather than slander my bible and insult me in various ways.


So what? They weren't men but angels. What they thought they saw didn't exist, so even if they succeeded, they wouldn't have done what you suggested.

A person is caught after committing a crime. The woman stole what she thought was a priceless, $4,000 antique. In reality, it turned out to be really worth $50 bucks. Now in this fiction, the law demands that any theft in which the stolen goods totally between $2,000 and $5,000, they are charged with 3rd degree theft where as those who steal at most $50 are charged with 5th degree theft. You are the prosecuter.

Now by what you argue, you've charged the person with
3rd degree theft. After all, it is what the criminal thought is what counts. However, of course, the jury finds the woman innocent, since she in reality didn't commit the crime of that severity. Worst of all, you cannot in this fictional country charge her again, since it would be double jeopardy!

Do you see now why your argument is invalid?
My friend...
Have you forgotten that God looks to the heart. Does God need witnesses to know if you've been stealing, murdering, slandering, angry, and so forth?

My argument isn't whether the Law says they are wrong or not but whether their hearts are unclean.

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at
the heart." - Samuel (1 Samuel 16:7, NIV)


It is like what Jesus said about committing adultery:

[SIZE=+1]"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart."

Although the men didn't commit any acts, they lusted within their hearts, which is still a sin. For example, although you don't commit adultery with a married women, if you lust for her in your heart, you just have committed adultery from within your heart. For all evil desires originate within the heart and that is what makes a person unclean.

God doesn't need people to be caught in a crime to know if they are wrong. He knows the hearts of people.

The men of Sodom had it in their hearts this way and so they sinned within their hearts.

If I am angry with my brother, but I do nothing wrong to him, are I not sinning?
If I want to murder you, are I not sinning from within my heart?
If I have only riches on my mind, am I not being greedy from within my heart?

You see, so it is within the heart that I am arguing about, not whether they committed homosexuality or not.


[/SIZE]
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. -NRSV

sons of God=angels.

Just a note, but I always viewed this as just referring to people, but this is my belief
- Rob =)
:p

As you had probably read, I agreed that my use of inappropriate behavior with animals was incorrect, and I officially retract. However, with that said, Genesis 6 still condemns human-angelic relationships, so that argument is still in play.
Interesting concept :p
I always believed the passage was referring to men when he said "sons of God" because it says "My Spirit will not contend with man forever"
:p
However, your post is unfortunately a Straw Man.

inappropriate behavior with animals was and is not my primary argument. The very fact that I said something to the tune of "even if it wasn't inappropriate behavior with animals, Genesis 6 still condemned human-angel relationships" proves that the argument goes far deeper than the definition of one word. I would be pleased to continue this (much more friendly than others concurrently going on) debate with you. :)


Hello my friend,

I always believed in a different interpretation of the passage Genesis 6.
I always believed that "sons of God" referred to men because men were viewed as originating from God. And I viewed the bible's interpretation of women back then as having almost no rights, but rather to be property.

:p

- Rob
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Dear PaladinValer,
Thanks for your reply.

No proof is given.

Ok I’ll give some proof chapters that same-sex sex is wrong if you give some proof that its countenanced. Then we can discuss their merits.
Genesis 2, Mathew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, tells us God made woman for man it was for this reason that God made woman for man so that a man shall be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So a relationship between a man and a man is a reason contrary to the union of God’s purpose. Genesis 19, Judges 19, 2 Peter 2, and Jude 1 condemn acts in which the same-sex act specifically features. Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, and Romans 1 specifically condemns the same-sex act. So a relationships with such acts or based around them is obviously error.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That is your opinion.

It is a well-recognized fact that the NIV is not a formal equivalency: everyone from conservatives to liberals acknowledges this.

Please offer me a formal equivalence translation. I do not accept dynamic equivalencies and I would not dare accept a paraphrase when it comes to quoting and studying the Holy Canon. As I said, there are many online translations that you don't need to pay a dime to read or quote from. bible.crosswalk.com is a fine resource, if it is that you are simply having a difficult time finding one.

They are not a biological species that is of the earth. They are spiritual beings and can take on a form. Logically you can call them a species, but not one biologically.

Beating a dead horse doesn't help your argument.

Look Paladin, I wish you would show me more love in your posts rather than slander my bible and insult me in various ways.

Excuse me, I did not "slander" your Bible. I said it is unacceptable for quoting in this case since it is a dynamic equivalence. That isn't the same as slander. And I do not recall assalting you at all...please quote me where and I will be happy to apologize and to edit.

My friend...
Have you forgotten that God looks to the heart. Does God need witnesses to know if you've been stealing, murdering, slandering, angry, and so forth?

Fallacy of Prejudicial Language and a dodge. Answer the question please: is the woman guilty of 3rd degree theft or 5th degree theft?

My argument isn't whether the Law says they are wrong or not but whether their hearts are unclean.

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at
the heart." - Samuel (1 Samuel 16:7, NIV)

Theft is theft, however, there is a matter of severity that must be considered. Therefore, is she guilty of 3rd or 5th degree?

Does God punish a person who inadvertently stole something more than a person who willingly stole? After all, it is stilling. And both persons knew that they wanted the item. Which is worse? Willing sins or unwilling sins?

Jesus Himself recognizes that God will reckon people justly by their offenses: lighter offenses will be dealt differently than greater ones:

47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded. -St. Luke 12:47-48. Context begins at vs 41. (NRSV)

Severity matters to God. Therefore, please answer the question.

It is like what Jesus said about committing adultery:

[SIZE=+1]"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart."[/SIZE]

That doesn't change the fact that the strangers were angels, not mortal men. What they desired was for angels, and they knew they were angels; do we humans have supernatural powers? I wish we did, but sadly, our powers are much more limited.

[SIZE=+1]
Although the men didn't commit any acts, they lusted within their hearts, which is still a sin. For example, although you don't commit adultery with a married women, if you lust for her in your heart, you just have committed adultery from within your heart. For all evil desires originate within the heart and that is what makes a person unclean.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]I don't doubt that adultery is a strong probability, but it wasn't for men.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1]God doesn't need people to be caught in a crime to know if they are wrong. He knows the hearts of people.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]The men of Sodom had it in their hearts this way and so they sinned within their hearts. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]If I am angry with my brother, but I do nothing wrong to him, are I not sinning? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]If I want to murder you, are I not sinning from within my heart? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]If I have only riches on my mind, am I not being greedy from within my heart? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]You see, so it is within the heart that I am arguing about, not whether they committed homosexuality or not. [/SIZE]


[/SIZE]

That's all well and fine, but, again: are they men or are they angels? It seems like they knew they were angels.

Not to mention you must consider also the fact that it would have been the third example of hospitality in an entire storyline about hospitality. Also what must be considered is that in the previous chapter God had already condemned those two cities before the angels even arrived. No crime was specifically specified, and the evidence for the crime being homosexuality is very weak.

Just a note, but I always viewed this as just referring to people, but this is my belief

Yet in Hebrew, sons of God is a metaphore for angels.

Interesting concept
I always believed the passage was referring to men when he said "sons of God" because it says "My Spirit will not contend with man forever"

That Begs the Question however of who the sons of God are. In Hebrew idiom, they would have been angels. Humans would be son of man (Adam being the first man, of course), because we are of a material plane and existence. Angels would be sons of God, for they, like God, are of an ethereal plane and existence.

Dear PaladinValer,
Thanks for your reply.


Ok I’ll give some proof chapters that same-sex sex is wrong if you give some proof that its countenanced. Then we can discuss their merits.
Genesis 2, Mathew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, tells us God made woman for man it was for this reason that God made woman for man so that a man shall be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

From what context?

Genesis 1 is about propagation. Multiply and fill the Earth. A man and a woman, two different genders, is required for several species. Genesis 2 continues this. However, it should be noted that many species propagate asexually and many are either hermaphrodites or agendered. Are they "sinful"? God created them as good, so it would appear to me that they aren't.

And with hermaphrodites, you have homosexual relations. Some species are literally both sexes at once. Therefore, what they do is literally homosexual as well as heterosexual. Worms, for example. God created them as good, so if anything, Genesis 1 doesn't condemn, but in fact is actually perhaps the only place in the Bible where it is shown to be...ordained!

St. Matthew 19 is more about theosis than anything else.

St. Mark 10 is the same as the above.

Ephesians 5 is, once again, the same.


So a relationship between a man and a man is a reason contrary to the union of God’s purpose. Genesis 19, Judges 19, 2 Peter 2, and Jude 1 condemn acts in which the same-sex act specifically features. Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, and Romans 1 specifically condemns the same-sex act. So a relationships with such acts or based around them is obviously error.

Falacy of Appealing to Ignorance. What of hermaphrodites and the agendered? They aren't mentioned, yet even in the human species, they exist. That is enough to severely question that interpretation.

Genesis 19 I've shown has nothing to do with homosexuality but, rather, inhospitality and/or rape and sex with non-humans.

Judges 19 is a paralell of Genesis 19. It too then isn't proof.

2 St. Peter 2 is a reference to Genesis 19. Since Genesis isn't a condemnation of homosexuality, then nor is 2 St. Peter 2

Jude 1 uses the word heteras. That means different. Different flesh. Humans are of the same, or homos flesh. Different flesh would mean a different being, like angels.
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I was just informing you about Genesis 6 from what I had believed beforehand, and what I still believe now.
I don't have Hebrew sources on hand to look at so I trust in the sources I have now.
I was given a NIV student bible by my pastor. I believe it is reliable, Have you ever read its "About the NIV section?" It also used the latest hebrew and greek sources for translation and was reviewed by a collection of people worldwide.

Friend, forgive me of accusing you of things, which is something I should not have been doing, but nonetheless, you shouldn't just say my book is unreliable.

Anyway, Angels appeared in the form of men, nonetheless, and the men of Sodom thought they were men and had it in their minds to have sex with men. That is what I am pointing out here, not if they lusted after Angels or not.

If I see a person and I believe it is a man, but I have homosexual desires and lusts for that person, then I find out that person wasn't a man but a women, I'd be embarrassed, but nonetheless, that was what my desire and passion on my mind and within my heart was.

That is why I used the lusting passage and the passage about the heart as an example. If I plan murder in my heart even if I don't fulfill the plan, I still had the intent of murder in my heart.

Or, put it this way. You are on a gameshow, and the host arrives to the show. The host is in the appearance of a women, but is still a man. Everyone knows that the host is a women, but you don't, because you believe him to be a women. No one tells you that the host is a man. So when you try to hit on he host, you have hetrosexual desires and intent within your heart, regardless if the host is a man or a women.
Now, externally, the man would have not been able to commit homosexuality, but within his heart and mind, his passion and desire was for a man. He would have been deceived into thinking that the women was a man, but this would have only acts to expose what was within the deceived man's heart.

Likewise, I believe that the men of Sodom, whether deceived or not, believed the Angels to be men and had intent to commit acts of homosexuality against them.

Friend, I can understand your argument, that sex between Angels and mankind is a sinful thing, and I support this belief, because Angels and humans shouldn't be having sex. I didn't say anything against what you said about Genesis 6, but if Angels appeared as man and had sex with women, that further proves my point about the men of Sodom having homosexual intent within their hearts, or minds. But I believe that it is not inappropriate behavior with animals.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
"Considering hermaphrodites, take this into consideration:

After the Flood, human life spans grew progressively shorter, indicating a change in the environment which resulted in damage to the human genetic structure. This also explains why incest was necessary for the population of the earth in Genesis, but was forbidden later in the laws of Leviticus (verses 18:6-18). Now, thousands of years later as sin continues to permeate the world, the human race has been bombarded with every kind of sickness, disease, disorder and birth defect we can imagine.

“'Teacher,' his disciples asked him, 'why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?' 'It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins,' Jesus answered. 'He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him'” (John 9:2-3).

If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for them to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I believe that Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage / same sex marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle."

http://www.gotquestions.org/hermaphrodites.html
http://www.probe.org/content/view/1195/47/
http://www.carm.org/questions/hermaphrodite.htm
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I was just informing you about Genesis 6 from what I had believed beforehand, and what I still believe now.

Why is it universally accepted among Jews, Evangelical Protestants, and Apostolic Christians that it is a Hebrew idiom for angels? Unlike words that supposedly mean homosexual (ie:malachi, etc), et. al, this one's truly universal without dissent.

Look at Job 1:6...sons of God...angels. Also see 2:1 and 38:4.

Look at Psalm 29:1...sons of God adoring God in His Court. His Court is in heaven, so these must be angels. 89:5 too.

Look at Deuteronomy 32:8...sons of God are different from sons of man. Sons of man are we humans...sons of God are angels.

I don't have Hebrew sources on hand to look at so I trust in the sources I have now.

What sources, if I might ask?

I was given a NIV student bible by my pastor. I believe it is reliable, Have you ever read its "About the NIV section?" It also used the latest hebrew and greek sources for translation and was reviewed by a collection of people worldwide.

It is still a dynamic equivalence, not a formal equivalence. If you want to study the Bible, you should read it as literally as possible.

Anyway, Angels appeared in the form of men, nonetheless, and the men of Sodom thought they were men and had it in their minds to have sex with men. That is what I am pointing out here, not if they lusted after Angels or not.

They thought they were men? Are you sure?

If I see a person and I believe it is a man, but I have homosexual desires and lusts for that person, then I find out that person wasn't a man but a women, I'd be embarrassed, but nonetheless, that was what my desire and passion on my mind and within my heart was.

Then it wasn't homosexual but it was simply...lust.

Lust is lust is lust is lust. Or is heterosexuality a sin too? Same logic applied here.

That is why I used the lusting passage and the passage about the heart as an example. If I plan murder in my heart even if I don't fulfill the plan, I still had the intent of murder in my heart.

Murder is murder is murder is murder. Does it matter who you murder? Does it matter how you murder?

Or, put it this way. You are on a gameshow, and the host arrives to the show. The host is in the appearance of a women, but is still a man. Everyone knows that the host is a women, but you don't, because you believe him to be a women. No one tells you that the host is a man. So when you try to hit on he host, you have hetrosexual desires and intent within your heart, regardless if the host is a man or a women.
Now, externally, the man would have not been able to commit homosexuality, but within his heart and mind, his passion and desire was for a man. He would have been deceived into thinking that the women was a man, but this would have only acts to expose what was within the deceived man's heart.

Here's another example...you walk into the building. You see a hot chick. You want her, and you know its a woman.

Is heterosexuality now a sin? Or is it lust? Same logic.

Likewise, I believe that the men of Sodom, whether deceived or not, believed the Angels to be men and had intent to commit acts of homosexuality against them.

You have not proven this.

Friend, I can understand your argument, that sex between Angels and mankind is a sinful thing, and I support this belief, because Angels and humans shouldn't be having sex. I didn't say anything against what you said about Genesis 6, but if Angels appeared as man and had sex with women, that further proves my point about the men of Sodom having homosexual intent within their hearts, or minds. But I believe that it is not inappropriate behavior with animals.

It completely disproves your argument, because otherwise, you must also conclude that heterosexuality is a sin too.

And with all due respect, are you going to beat the dead horse anymore about inappropriate behavior with animals? What are you proving by doing that? That I'm stupid? That I cannot be trusted? Please, tell me your reason; I'm honestly curious as to the reason for your continued reminding me. Did I not already retract? Do you need it again? Is an apology required?

"Considering hermaphrodites, take this into consideration:

After the Flood, human life spans grew progressively shorter, indicating a change in the environment which resulted in damage to the human genetic structure.

Human life expectancy was always low. Furthermore, no universal Deluge, but that's another story.

This also explains why incest was necessary for the population of the earth in Genesis, but was forbidden later in the laws of Leviticus (verses 18:6-18).

Incest was not required. That's condemned in both OT and NT.

Now, thousands of years later as sin continues to permeate the world, the human race has been bombarded with every kind of sickness, disease, disorder and birth defect we can imagine.

That's not the result of sin. That's the result of being alive. God created the bacterium too, after all. He created the virus. He created everything. Its all a part of life, not a part of sin.

“'Teacher,' his disciples asked him, 'why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?' 'It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins,' Jesus answered. 'He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him'” (John 9:2-3).

God however does not cause blindness. In this passage, what Jesus means is that the man's blindness was utilized by God to show the world the power of faith, love, kindness, salvation, forgiveness, and compassion.

In addition, please answer the question: is she guilty of 3rd degree theft or 5th degree.

Also, are worms sinful because they are all homosexual?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[size=-1]1 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. -NRSV
sons of God=angels.
[/size]

Not compelling! See the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, and Onkelos, translated during the Babylonian captivity ca. 700 BC, and exegesis in K&D, below. Pay particular attention to, “For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Mat_22:30; Mar_12:25; cf. Luk_20:34.).”
TgPJ VI. And it was when the sons of men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and fair daughters were born to them; and the sons of the great saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and painted, and curled, walking with revelation of the flesh, and with imaginations of wickedness; that they took them wives of all who pleased them. And the Lord said by His Word, All the generations of the wicked which are to arise shall not be purged after the order of the judgments of the generation of the deluge, which shall be destroyed and exterminated from the midst of the world. Have I not imparted My Holy Spirit to them, (or, placed My Holy Spirit in them,) that they may work good works? And, behold, their works are wicked. Behold, I will give them a prolongment of a hundred and twenty years, that they may work repentance, and not perish.

TgOnk VI. And Noach was a son of five hundred years, and Noach begat Shem, Cham, and Japheth. And it was when the sons of men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the mighty[32] saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and took to them wives of all whom they pleased.[33] And the Lord said, This evil generation shall not stand before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil. A term (or length) will I give them, an hundred and twenty years, if they may be converted. Giants were in the earth in those days; and also when, after that the sons of the mighty had gone in unto the daughters of men, there were born from them giants who from of old were men of name.






Keil-Delitsch Hebrew commentary Gen_6:1-2 relates to the increase of men generally (האדם, without any restriction), i.e., of the whole human race; and whilst the moral corruption is represented as universal, the whole human race, with the exception of Noah, who found grace before God (Gen_6:8), is described as ripe for destruction (Gen_6:3 and Gen_6:5-8). To understand this section, and appreciate the causes of this complete degeneracy of the race, we must first obtain a correct interpretation of the expressions “sons of God” (האלהים בני) and “daughters of men” (האדם בנות). Three different views have been entertained from the very earliest times: the “sons of God” being regarded as (a) the sons of princes, (b) angels, (c) the Sethites or godly men; and the “daughters of men,” as the daughters (a) of people of the lower orders, (b) of mankind generally, (c) of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly or the children of God. Of these three views, the first, although it has become the traditional one in orthodox rabbinical Judaism, may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural. The second, on the contrary, may be defended on two plausible grounds: first, the fact that the “sons of God,” in Job_1:6; Job_2:1, and Job_38:7, and in Dan_3:25, are unquestionably angels (also אלים בּני in Psa_29:1 and Psa_89:7); and secondly, the antithesis, “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” Apart from the context and tenor of the passage, these two points would lead us most naturally to regard the “sons of God” as angels, in distinction from men and the daughters of men. But this explanation, though the first to suggest itself, can only lay claim to be received as the correct one, provided the language itself admits of no other. Now that is not the case. For it is not to angels only that the term “sons of Elohim,” or “sons of Elim,” is applied; but in Psa_73:15, in an address to Elohim, the godly are called “the generation of Thy sons,” i.e., sons of Elohim; in Deu_32:5 the Israelites are called His (God's) sons, and in Hos_1:10, “sons of the living God;” and in Psa_80:17, Israel is spoken of as the son, whom Elohim has made strong. These passages show that the expression “sons of God” cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. Moreover, even when it is applied to the angels, it is questionable whether it is to be understood in a physical or ethical sense. The notion that “it is employed in a physical sense as nomen naturae, instead of angels as nomen officii, and presupposes generation of a physical kind,” we must reject as an unscriptural and gnostic error. According to the scriptural view, the heavenly spirits are creatures of God, and not begotten from the divine essence. Moreover, all the other terms applied to the angels are ethical in their character. But if the title “sons of God” cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life, - to men therefore as well as angels, since God has caused man to “want but little of Elohim,” or to stand but a little behind Elohim (Psa_8:5), so that even magistrates are designated “Elohim, and sons of the Most High” (Psa_82:6). When Delitzsch objects to the application of the expression “sons of Elohim” to pious men, because, “although the idea of a child of God may indeed have pointed, even in the O.T., beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Exo_4:22; Deu_14:1) towards a wider ethical signification (Psa_73:15; Pro_14:26), yet this extension and expansion were not so completed, that in historical prose the terms 'sons of God' (for which 'sons of Jehovah' should have been used to prevent mistake), and 'sons (or daughters) of men,' could be used to distinguish the children of God and the children of the world,” - this argument rests upon the erroneous supposition, that the expression “sons of God” was introduced by Jehovah for the first time when He selected Israel to be the covenant nation. So much is true, indeed, that before the adoption of Israel as the first-born son of Jehovah (Exo_4:22), it would have been out of place to speak of sons of Jehovah; but the notion is false, or at least incapable of proof, that there were not children of God in the olden time, long before Abraham's call, and that, if there were, they could not have been called “sons of Elohim.” The idea was not first introduced in connection with the theocracy, and extended thence to a more universal signification. It had its roots in the divine image, and therefore was general in its application from the very first; and it was not till God in the character of Jehovah chose Abraham and his seed to be the vehicles of salvation, and left the heathen nations to go their own way, that the expression received the specifically theocratic signification of “son of Jehovah,” to be again liberated and expanded into the more comprehensive idea of νἱοθεσία τοῦ Θεοῦ (i.e., Elohim, not τοῦ κυρίου = Jehovah), at the coming of Christ, the Saviour of all nations. If in the olden time there were pious men who, like Enoch and Noah, walked with Elohim, or who, even if they did not stand in this close priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality through their piety and fear of God, then there were sons (children) of God, for whom the only correct appellation was “sons of Elohim,” since sonship to Jehovah was introduced with the call of Israel, so that it could only have been proleptically that the children of God in the old world could be called “sons of Jehovah.” But if it be still argued, that in mere prose the term “sons of God” could not have been applied to children of God, or pious men, this would be equally applicable to “sons of Jehovah.” On the other hand, there is this objection to our applying it to angels, that the pious, who walked with God and called upon the name of the Lord, had been mentioned just before, whereas no allusion had been made to angels, not even to their creation.

Again, the antithesis “sons of God” and “daughters of men” does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in Gen_6:1 האדם denotes man as a genus, i.e., the whole human race, it must do the same in Gen_6:2, where the expression “daughters of men” is determined by the antithesis “sons of God.” And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus האדם, mentioned in Gen_6:1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of האדם, through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. “From the expression 'daughters of men,” as Dettinger observes, “it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jer_32:20, where it is said that God had done miracles 'in Israel, and among men,' or from Isa_43:4, where God says He will give men for the Israelites, or from Jdg_16:7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, for from Psa_73:5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages אדם (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named.” Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense. We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. In Jdg_19:30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e., of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (Jdg_20:1-2) it is related that “all the children of Israel,” “all the tribes of Israel,” assembled together (to make war, as we learn from Jdg_20:3., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, Judges 20 and 21, the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression “tribes of Israel” really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.

The question whether the “sons of Elohim” were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. “It cannot be denied,” says Delitzsch, “that the connection of Gen_6:1-8 with Gen 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Mat_24:38; Luk_17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Exo_34:16; cf. Gen_27:46; Gen_28:1.) also favours the same idea.” But this “assumption” is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In Gen_6:2 it is stated that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” i.e., of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (Gen_6:4). Now אשּׁה לקח (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to πορνεία, or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Mat_22:30; Mar_12:25; cf. Luk_20:34.). And when Kurtz endeavours to weaken the force of these words of Christ, by arguing that they do not prove that it is impossible for angels so to fall from their original holiness as to sink into an unnatural state; this phrase has no meaning, unless by conclusive analogies, or the clear testimony of Scripture,. . .​
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,582
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
They weren't "married" so much as they took a mate. I don't read "took wives" quite as literally, as it sounds clearly like a euphamism for "had sex," especially when it talks about their children later.

And since those children were oft-considered "giants," well, not really going to happen if they are just mortal men! Look at Hellenic Paganism. Heracles is a prime example.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[size=-1]Straw Man. I said that I reject Jewish interpretations. I never said anything about the Hebrew language.[/size]

Then please tell me how you determine the meaning of the Hebrew O.T. if you reject the interpretation of those to whom those scriptures were directly given by God, and who spoke and read the language?

[size=-1] You did nothing of the sort. .[/size]

Other than the list of out-of-context scriptures references below, explain to me what you consider credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

[size=-1]And not all "Hebrew scholars" agree with you:
Isaiah 1
Jeremiah 23
Ezekiel 16:49-50
St. Matthew 10:14-15 (Jesus speaking)
St. Luke 10:7-16 (Jesus speaking)
2 St. Peter 6-8
[/size]

Who are all the “Hebrew scholars” you claim do not agree with me? I have not been posting what I believe, but what the Hebrew scholars have taught since Moses delivered the laws.

A meaningless list of scripture references, I am not interested in how you distort scripture to make it conform to your assumptions and presuppositions.

Please note your use of the personal pronoun, “you.” Don’t get in my face about alleged ad hom simply because I make reference to you, then do the same thing yourself.

[size=-1]In addition, since angels do not have gender and are not humans, it couldn't have been homosexual. [/size]

Irrelevant! I have never stated that God’s punishment of Sodom related to angels. In fact I said just the opposite.

[size=-1]For your information, I did not cut-and-paste at all. Unless you can prove your accusation that I did, retract please.[/size]

Well, ex-cuuuuuse me. Your arguments are the same old, lame old found on virtually every gay websites around.

[size=-1]You..you...you...Sir, the word "you" appears quite often. "were you..." "if you..." etc. Debate the issue, not the person. Otherwise, its an ad hominem. [/size]

I already addressed this hypocritical accusation.

[size=-1]I did and I came to a different conclusion. Perhaps if you could show how they associate to homosexuality and only homosexuality? [/size]

I did NOT say “only.” Your different “conclusion” is the same old, lame old assumptions and presuppositions.

[size=-1]I did. There was nothing there to suggest anything else other than a love of boys. By the same logic, I could say that heterosexual rape means that heterosexuality is a sin. [/size]

What logic? Let’s read your 3-4 word misquote from Clement, shall we. I suggest you go back and actually read everything I posted “in context.” You failed to noticed there were 4 separate quotes from Clement. Now tell me again the only thing clement said was “love of boys?” Then you might want to see which other ECF I quoted who was a follower of Clement and read both in context.
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: [Lesbian marriage] no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body opening is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves


Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

And were you to actually read my previous post you would note that the citations are in chronological order, some are the followers of other ECF, and there are more than one quote from some scholars.

[size=-1]I did. It is Begging the Question. You didn't even care to show why you believe it is irrelevent.[/size]

Actually you are the one begging the question by deliberately ignoring the context of the citations. I have just shown how your reference was irrelevant. Clement did NOT say “love of boys” in isolation.

[size=-1]Do angels have gender? Did then the people go after angels? And were women not also among the group?

No homosexuality..
[/size]

Yes of course the Jewish scholars have been wrong for 3000 years because homosexual websites misquote and pervert scripture and say they are. Got it.

[size=-1]I'm not a Jew. I'm a Christian. I did comment on the Christian sources, I might point out. [/size]

OK since you reject all Hebrew scholarship, and evidently presume yourself to be more knowledgeable than any scholar, interpret this according to homosexuals-я-us.com®
[size=+1]ואת־זכר לא תשׁכב משׁכבי אשׁה תועבה הוא׃[/size]
[size=-1]Perhaps if you could show me how you arrived at your interpretation here (and elsewhere) this debate would be more fruitful to the both of us? [/size]

All the citations, in context, NOT as you have done a few words and phrases out-of-context, while ignoring the rest of the articles.

[size=-1]I'm unconvinced about Clement, least of all that I never found that particular passage (and I did kindly ask to where it was...thank you for telling me :)) but mostly because the words used could mean just about anything; it was very vague. [/size]

“That particular passage” is included above highlighted in blue. You are unconvinced about Clement. Figures. You also reject the opinions of at least two gay websites, that Clement condemns homosexuality.

[size=-1]"You..you...you"[/size]

Pot-kettle.

[size=-1]I did not "skim through" anything. Debate what I brought up instead of focusing on me. I'm not the one up for debate; the issue is.[/size]

Sure you did, ignored the overall context, and pulled out isolated words and phrases as I have shown with Clement above.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,555
6,061
EST
✟990,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]They weren't "married" so much as they took a mate. I don't read "took wives" quite as literally, as it sounds clearly like a euphamism for "had sex," especially when it talks about their children later.

And since those children were oft-considered "giants," well, not really going to happen if they are just mortal men! Look at Hellenic Paganism. Heracles is a prime example.[/SIZE]

And you studied Hebrew and ancient Jewish history where? OTOH read the Hebrew exegesis by Keil-Delitszch. They are noted Hebrew scholars

Please explain us how later Greek mythology has anything at all to do with Biblical history? OBTW did any Hebrew scholars ever consider this to refer to "giants"? The word translated giants is nephilim, literally "tyrants, bullies."
JPS Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.​
 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Look at Job 1:6...sons of God...angels. Also see 2:1 and 38:4.

Look at Psalm 29:1...sons of God adoring God in His Court. His Court is in heaven, so these must be angels. 89:5 too.

Look at Deuteronomy 32:8...sons of God are different from sons of man. Sons of man are we humans...sons of God are angels.

That's not the result of sin. That's the result of being alive. God created the bacterium too, after all. He created the virus. He created everything. Its all a part of life, not a part of sin.

My friend,
You seem to have an answer for everything. Your more clever at speaking than I am and make good points, praise God for your intelligence, but your missing my points.

You may not support the NIV as my source, but please respect my usage of it.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, or anything about you. If I have, please forgive me.

Now...

I read all your passages referring to sons of God.
In NIV:
Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:4, it translates as Angels
Psalm 29:1 translates as "mighty ones." This could either translate as the people of Israel or Angels.

In this passage, it could be referring to the people of Israel since God is calling on his sons to give him glory , splendor and ascribe to his glory and strength.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ascribe
Verb1.ascribe - attribute or credit to; "We attributed this quotation to Shakespeare"; "People impute great cleverness to cats"God is asking his sons to give credit to him for something. Throughout most of the Old Testament, God asks his people to give him credit for bringing them out of Egypt with a mighty, outstretched arm. This credit is "God brought Israel out of Egypt and made them into a mighty nation"

God deserves great honor and praise (glory), his power and holyness (splendor) and credit for doing something worth credit related to his glory and strength (ascribe)

The psalm continues on about what God can do and that in his temple "we all cry 'Glory!'" (psalm 29:9).
Furthermore, the psalm says that The Lord gives strength to his people and blesses his people with peace. (Psalm 29:11)
So, I would like to suggest in this psalm David is referring to the sons of God as the people of Israel.

Again,

Deuteronomy 32:8 sons of God means "sons of Israel" (NIV). In the NIV footnote for "sons of Israel" it mentions it translates as sons of God. We all do know that sons of God can refer to descendants of Adam, a man who came from God.

Again,

Jesus is referred to as the Son of David, Son of Mary, Son of Zacharia, Son of God. He is all of these. In the same way, the people of Israel are both sons of God and sons of Israel.
They are sons of God because they descent from Adam, and sons of Israel because they came from the person Israel, who's nation related to this man, or the country itself.

Although Psalm 89:5 refers to Holy Ones in heaven, Psalm 82:1 also refers to sons of God (sons of the Most High).

"Human beings like to think of themselves as godlike--able to do whatever they like. Many commentators believe this psalm's snort of disdain is aimed at human judges and "powers that be" who set themselves up as little gods. What will become of their arrogance if they defy God? They will "die like mere men" (verse 7). The grave is a perfect answer to their pretensions.
When Jesus was accused of blasphemy for his claiming to be God's Son, he referred his critics to this psalm (John 10:34-36). If Scripture could apply such lofty terminology to sinful human beings, was it not possible that a perfect man could be God's own Son?" (NIV footnote: In the Midst of the Rulers)




My friend PaladinValer, I would like to make this discussion most meaningful and loving as possible =)
I thank God for everything you have said to me because you have provided me further insight about the Scriptures. God bless you.

Last night, I was mediating on what you had discussed with me about scriptural usage of "sons of God" and about Genesis 6 and 19. I was taking what you told me about the Angels into great consideration....

but then I had realized I overlooked this passage:

"Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)

In my footnotes:

1) "Contend with" translates as "my spirit will not remain in."
2) "Mortal" translates as corrupt.

I find this exceptionally interesting because God said "My Spirit will not dwell within man forever, for he is corrupt."

This same Spirit also hovered over the waters (Gen 1:2) in the beginning. This same Spirit is what we would call the Holy Spirit.
It is possible to sin and have the Holy Spirit dwell within our bodies as christians, but forgiveness comes as a result of Jesus blood. A life of sin and having the Holy Spirit within you would result in God's judgement, which we shall see during Jesus second coming (End of revelation) and from what had seen in the story of Noah's flood.

If sons of God/children of God refers to only Angels, why is it that in
Galatians 3:26 christians are sons of God through Jesus Christ?

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (KJV)
For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. (ASV)
You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Again,

Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Galatians 4:14 and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.

Now, we all know Paul isn't an Angel. He is a messanger of the gospel, a preacher of the good news.
Similarly, we will find that in the book of Revelation, the Angels of the seven churches are not referring to Angels, but messangers. Paul and the "Angels" of the seven churches are messangers of God.

Again,

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for it is they who will be recognized as sons of God. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Matthew 5:45 that so you may become true sons of your Father in Heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the wicked as well as the good, and sends rain upon those who do right and those who do wrong. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 8:12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. (ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV)

In the new international version, sons also refers to subjects of the Kingdom and not necessary Angels.
[/FONT]
Matthew 13:38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast. (ASV DBY YLT)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Matthew 13:38 the field is the world; the good seed--these are the sons of the Kingdom; the darnel, the sons of the Evil one. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Matthew 21:28 But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said,'Son, go work today in my vineyard.' (WEB KJV WEY ASV BBE WBS NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 6:35 Nevertheless love your enemies, be beneficent; and lend without hoping for any repayment. Then your recompense shall be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 16:8 "And the master praised the dishonest steward for his shrewdness; for, in relation to their own contemporaries, the men of this age are shrewder than the sons of Light. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 20:36 For indeed they cannot die again; they are like angels, and are sons of God through being sons of the Resurrection. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (KJV WBS YLT)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John 8:44 The father whose sons you are is the Devil; and you desire to do what gives him pleasure. *He* was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand firm in the truth--for there is no truth in him. Whenever he utters his lie, he utters it out of his own store; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. (WEY)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John 12:36 In the degree that you have light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light." Jesus said this, and went away and hid Himself from them. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)




Do I need to say more?

God said in the last days he would pour out his Spirit upon the flesh:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Acts 2:17 'It will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men will dream dreams. (WEB KJV WEY ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)

Once again, sons of God doesn't always refer to Angels:

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; (KJV WBS)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Thessalonians 5:5 for all of you are sons of Light and sons of the day. We belong neither to the night nor to darkness. (WEY ASV BBE DBY YLT NAS RSV NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. (KJV WEY ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)


[/FONT]








 
Upvote 0

RMDY

1 John 1:9
Apr 8, 2007
1,531
136
39
Richmond
Visit site
✟10,946.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Now, going back to Genesis 6:

There is a note on that chapter within my NIV bible:

"This mysterious description may refer to the "sons of Seth," the line of God's people from Adam to Noah, or it may refer to angels, often called "sons of God" in the Old Testament. However you interpret it, the point is that evil behavior increased in the world, a fact that led to punishment by a flood." (NIV: The Sons of God on 6:2)

In verse 1 and 2, we find that it says in the same sentence "men" and "sons of God" are used together. This term, sons of God, would most likely refer to decendants of Seth, who came from Adam. As I have pointed out before, sons of God does not always refer to Angels, even in the Old and New Testaments, but can also mean the people of Israel, followers of God, and those who are subject to the Kingdom of God, and those who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. Take note on "men,""when," and "began." It talks about men increasing on the earth, then goes on to refer to sons who take beautiful women as their wives. It is most likely referring to mortal men who are are children of God through Adam.

Again,

If the sons of God are referring to Angels, why does Gen 6:3 specifically refer to man and not men. "My Spirit will not dwell within man forever because he is corrupt." This cannot be referring to Angels, because Angels live eternally, unless spiritually destroyed, which happens in the book of Revelation.
So, I am going to suggest that Gen6:1-3 refers to men who increased in number, took beautiful women as their wives and God say that they were so corrupt, and grieved so much over their wicked and sinful hearts that he decided to take away the Holy Spirit from them, limit their days, and plan to deluge them with a flood.

Again, why does the passage Gen 6:4 refer to the men who took the beautiful daughters as "men" who were "heros of old, men of renown." Angels are not mortal and do not die, unless cast away by God. Angels also do not marry:

Again,
we are told Angels can't marry:

KJV: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Please note that God once again refers to these sons of God as man and was grieved that he made them. (Gen 6:6-7).

Angels cannot be creatures of the ground and birds of the air, which we saw created in Genesis 7-day creation because in this judgement God decides to "wipe...men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them" (Gen 6:7)

So you see, there is strong evidence that sons of God, in Genesis Chapter 6, is referring to mankind who descended from the line of Adam, being sons of God through this one man.

- Rob

(I also asked several people I know at my work about Genesis 6, one of them knows Hebrew I think, so I am awaiting their answers)


[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

livingword26

Veteran
Mar 16, 2006
1,700
399
62
✟17,819.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Who are sons of God:

Heb 1:5
(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?

Its not the angels.

Joh 1:12
(12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

It is those who receive Him, who love Him, who fear Him.

Gen 6:4
(4) There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

No where in this verse does it say that the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were giants. And here is what the hebrew word that is used for "giants" means:

H5303
נפל נפיל
nephîyl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: - giant.

Much is made of this verse that just isn't in there. The sons of God are just that. People that were Gods own. The daughters of men were just that, People that knew not God, or rejected God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums