Before I continue, let me ask you something.
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
If you answer yes, would you please explain to me how you have come to believe that means?
Second question: Are you familiar with the Nicene Creed? and if so, do you confess what it says as being true?
If you neither believe in the Trinity nor the tenets of the Creed, then we can let this rest, as I don't want to this to turn into a debate over the Trinity; however if you do believe these things, then you should know that the language you have used here is tremendously at odds with what Christianity has consistently taught over the centuries--that is, it's heterodox.
-CryptoLutheran
I am not a topic Nazi, but first this goes from extremely minor points about the conception which I was not even making, now to this.
But, you did raise a good point. The person I was thinking about whom I first heard the concept "Nephilim" were not angels was Hank Hannagraff, aka "the Bible Answer Man". I used to listen to his radio show and was a big fan of his institution's book against "pseudo-Christian cults".
Then, one day he came out of the closet and admitted a lot of really outrageous stuff like preterism and at the very least a very minimal belief in the miracles in the Bible.
The Nephilim concept he proposed was that the "sons of God" were ordinary Christians who fell into immoral sin. But that does not make sense in the context of the verse whatsoever.
As for being concerned about tradition, or concerned about what "the majority" or "large, popular crowds" think -- I do not think it is Christ like to consider such things, excepting considering there is wisdom with the salt of the earth which is often overlooked.
This said, I really watched as my beliefs in the "trinity" and "Nicene Creed" evolved over the years. I remember one time, a Christian on here a few years back (I pop in and out over the years) pointed out to me it would be OK to call Jesus "Lord" and worship him... and it is OK to call God "Jesus".
He was not a "oneness Pentecostal", nor anything like that.
Technically, I never had a problem with Jesus being called "begotten" because
of the way it was written so that He is not created.
But, I realize now, that this is rhetorical goobledegook, utter nonsense. They had no idea of what they are talking about. They included that so they could denigrate Jesus -- as if they saw the heretics of the age, saw they were uplifting Patriarchs and the religious rulership... distanced themselves from that... and created a far more subtle version of it, Arianism, and the like ... where Jesus is taught to be a demi-God, inferior to God. And God the Father is divorced from Jesus as if He were of someone else and someone else's nature.
Otherwise, there is no reason to include the word "begotten" like that, at all. In Scripture, it is not meant like that. They basically have a shadow Arianism. They have demoted Jesus as their "great enemies" the Arians did. Only with more deceptive and ambiguous terms.
How can I be so daring against millenia of tradition? Dark Ages anyone? I mean from the time of the Nicene Council to the Reformation was a truly, truly dark period in human history, specifically in the Roman West.
And truly, it has not been so much better since.
The very concept of a Pope is absolutely deplorable to the teachings of Jesus. In effect, the "Holy" Roman Empire beheaded Christians by removing the Head, Christ, and replacing that with a religious Caeser.
Technically, for many years, I considered the Nicene Creed as relatively harmless, and the trinity doctrine. My attitude was it was OK for a really basic concept and series of concepts as long as no one substituted some piece of paper and a bunch of words for the Spirit working inwardly as their Teacher.
But, you have pointed out to me just how dangerous this is just now, where people LITERALLY separate God the Father and God the Son so that they are uncomfortable equating the two, effectively, at all.
Jesus does not LITERALLY come back at the Right Hand of the Father. He "comes in the Glory and Power of the Father". While Jesus said He returns with the "angels of His Father", He and other verses also state those are HIS angels.
No one has any problem with Revelations that states Michael and HIS angels fight against Satan and HIS angels. So why should anyone have a problem with these angels Jesus returning with him being HIS angels?
When Jesus was on earth, yes, He was in the flesh as God incarnate, and at the very same time in the Utmost Heavens. Indeed, while Jesus was "fully man and fully God", Jesus came into creation in the first person, while Jesus as the Father, God, ruled in the Utmost Heavens and "filled all the universe".
That is one person, two roles, two places. There is no division, but that.
This really only becomes a problem when people literally think Jesus rose to Heaven to literally sit at "the right hand side of God". Those are metaphoric terms. Otherwise, we would surely not accept Revelation which states, "I sat down on my Father's throne" or "I will be your God and you will be my children".
Jesus in Heaven is literally God the Father. Jesus on earth is God the Son.
Once Jesus ascended to Heaven, we see at least in Revelation He ascended to the Throne of His Father. When Jesus returns to earth He will be "The Great King", while the rest of Him will continue to "fill the entire universe" and reign in Heaven as God.
Really, otherwise, people get into this kind of thing, which is ludicrous:
That is Joseph Smith seeing "God the Father and God the Son" at one and the same time.
Actually, a more ludicrous picture would be where Jesus is young and the Father is older and looks different. But it remains ludicrous.
Only way Jesus will be in the same room with Jesus is by God coming through Saints or Angels. And God is neither a saint nor an angel, though God is Jesus, and Jesus is God.
Does this mean that, therefore, I disagree with other separations of Jesus and God made through Scripture? Of course not. But, I take these as metaphoric or role based separations.
I truly do think what people end up when they try and take matters in Scripture too literally is with a sort of Asperger's Syndrome. Everything becomes black & white, and must have some peer or traditional approval -- even if they have to go back and consider the Dark Ages as "tradition".
Otherwise, what to say? The Trinity can be an useful concept, but if it is ending up making people think Jesus is a demi-God to God even while mouthing words claiming otherwise -- it is a bad concept.
Jesus, when Jesus returns, while it will be in "the glory and power of the Father", there will still be God "filling the entire universe" and a place ruling in the utmost Heavens.
Is there then two Jesus' who might get together, perhaps to have some tea? No, not but through angels or saints.
And all are united by the very same Spirit -- which is something else these doctrines cloudy up. In fact, I very often would point out to people how Scripture states in various places: the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Jesus. Same Spirit.
Fact is, to literally separate the Holy Spirit from Jesus and the Father is absurd. My only guess here is that people were just that carnal thinking and do not realize our own spirits are more then what meets the eye.
It is good to realize where God truly resides is in "light too terrible for men or angels", but to think that the Spirit which works through men and angels is not from that Light is absurd. Or to think that means Jesus is not in that Light. Jesus is.
When the Prophets saw God, they saw Jesus. Yet, there is more to Jesus then what meets the eye. That "more" is in that terrible Light. To separate Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit unnaturally does create a number of serious errors.
I might add here: angels can and do speak and act as Jesus in the first person. But they are still angels, and they know that.
As for denigrating Jesus because he is man, that lowliness gives him great honor.
What I find shocking is I learned about the trinity largely from an apologetic viewpoint, but I have also studied Christian history. It somehow was not clear to me that because the Nicene Creed and its' supporters faced off against heretics who denigrated Jesus and separated Jesus artificially from God that they were doing the very same thing -- just in a much more subtle, clever way.
But, what can be expected when people were not comfortable with having God as their King, and turned to have some other head - the Pope - put in his place? This very same mistake is the mistake Israel made.
The bottom line is that today a lot of people are worshiping some other God, having replaced Jesus as their God. Which explains why they have such bizarrely literal prophetic interpretations mixed with obscenely created concepts that have no basis in Scripture whatsoever.
But the truth is the Lamb and "the One Who Sits On the Throne" are really one and the same person, though they work from two different roles. A human being through the Spirit can literally be "in Heaven" and "on earth" at the same time. They can be connected to God, in whom all of Creation exists, and in their own body.
As for angels falling and becoming flesh, like Jesus, they are not just people who have human minds and human strength, but they can be doing many things while still in the body. This is visible to anyone in the Spirit who believes many things and knows what they believe is true -- and sees it come true.
Jesus and angels of God in good standing play such things low key, but when it comes to combating evil. But for fallen ones, they push the mettle with their "faith".
Still, however they fell, maybe not even by sex, though I find that unlikely, Jesus did provide for them a separate ministry, according to Peter.