Christian theologians defined what is acceptable to believe about Christ, but what is acceptable to believe about Satan? Many of the common ideas about Satan, the devil, and demons come from apocryphal books.
The book of Job gives some insight into satan's character.Christian theologians defined what is acceptable to believe about Christ, but what is acceptable to believe about Satan? Many of the common ideas about Satan, the devil, and demons come from apocryphal books.
According to Job, "the satan" is one of the "sons of God".The book of Job gives some insight into satan's character.
Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.According to Job, "the satan" is one of the "sons of God".
According to Zechariah, "the satan" is a prosecutor against the nation of Judah.
The New Testament speaks more often of "the devil". Revelation has "the dragon".
Rabbinic Judaism sometimes considers "the satan" to be a part of God to maintain a strict monotheism.
It seems there is room for many different beliefs.
Something that put satan into perspective for me was I randomly read about a serial killer in the US. I can't remember his name but his crimes were disgusting. He was evil and had no compassion or remorse. Then I thought, how much more evil must satan be?Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
This doesn't mean Satan was one of the sons of God.
In Genesis "sons of God" are heavenly beings which mate with human women and anger God.Satan is not one of the sons of God. My belief as a Baptist was that the sons of God were humans in heaven. Not angels.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
This doesn't mean Satan was one of the sons of God.
This is not what I was taught. I have heard of this belief but I never considered it a valid belief.In Genesis "sons of God" are heavenly beings which mate with human women and anger God.
My theory is that Satan is more like justice and righteousness divorced from mercy. This matches well with his role as the prosecutor in Job and Zechariah.Something that put satan into perspective for me was I randomly read about a serial killer in the US. I can't remember his name but his crimes were disgusting. He was evil and had no compassion or remorse. Then I thought, how much more evil must satan be?
So who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 in your church's teachings?This is not what I was taught. I have heard of this belief but I never considered it a valid belief.
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org1) they were fallen angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain
No church I’ve ever been to has a teaching on this subject.So who were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 in your church's teachings?
Here is a link to an article that presents three different views:
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org
It seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.No church I’ve ever been to has a teaching on this subject.
If the goal is more to convey avoiding Satan, then the details would probably be fundamentally irrelevant versus just telling people how and what to believe, cynical as that might soundIt seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.
Churches have positions on major theological and moral issues. My tradition is confessional, so we have official confessions of faith. But we don’t have an official explanation of every odd statement in the Bible. As far as I know other churches don’t either.It seems strange that churches would teach nothing on it.
Well I don't say impossible or ridiculous for a few "reasons".Almost?
I'd say it's entirely ridiculous.
Sorry if this is overly crude but do angels have sperm? That's where my problem with the idea comes in.Here's what the Logos commentary says (abbreviating). They say there are currently three possibilities: supernatural beings ("angels"), leaders, and godly men, "the descendants of Seth as opposed to the godless descendants of Cain."
"The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17–19). The NT (2 Pet 2:4, Jude 6, 7) and the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.
"Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1–4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense."
Probably not. But I doubt that the authors and ancient interpreters would have had this question. One of the problems with a lot of exegesis is that it demands that we understand ancient texts using our own views rather than those of the authors.Sorry if this is overly crude but do angels have sperm? That's where my problem with the idea comes in.