The Sethite View is Incorrect

Marcus Constantine · Aug 3, 2010

I'm not an adherent to either of the views you mentioned. The other main view is that these were just powerful tyrants. This seems to fit the word Nephilim best given the context.

The Bible, as you mentioned, states clearly that angels in heaven don't have sex. You say this doesn't apply to fallen angels, but I think you miss the overall point. Angels don't have sex because they are spirit beings and don't reproduce like physical creature here on earth. Remember God set it up in the beginning that creatures produce "after their kind." If a dog, which is physical being, cannot have children with a cat, which is also a physical being, how can any angel, which is a spirit being, have children with a person? That makes no sense and you really would have to twist or ignore Scripture to adhere to that view, in my opinion at least.

MichaelKelley · Aug 3, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
I'm not an adherent to either of the views you mentioned. The other main view is that these were just powerful tyrants. This seems to fit the word Nephilim best given the context.

The Bible, as you mentioned, states clearly that angels in heaven don't have sex. You say this doesn't apply to fallen angels, but I think you miss the overall point. Angels don't have sex because they are spirit beings and don't reproduce like physical creature here on earth. Remember God set it up in the beginning that creatures produce "after their kind." If a dog, which is physical being, cannot have children with a cat, which is also a physical being, how can any angel, which is a spirit being, have children with a person? That makes no sense and you really would have to twist or ignore Scripture to adhere to that view, in my opinion at least.

No, the tyrants view is incorrect. I have already shown that the "sons of God," or "Bene HaElohim" could not have been human. see my previous comments.

As for what you said about creatures reproducing within, their kinds, that holds no merit. God created the creatures of earth and and man to reproduce with their kinds (the fallen angels are out of this equation entirely). I would not restrict the technology available to an angel who falls. Satan is constantly doing everything he can to thwart God's plan. Satan's attempts are futile, of course, but he's too prideful to accept that.

As for Jesus's statement in Matthew 22, I already explained this too.

See my previous comments.

Marcus Constantine · Aug 4, 2010

I saw your previous comments; I just don't think they are convincing arguments. Just because you state that the Hebrew title given to these people couldn't have made them human doesn't mean it's so. I'm not extremely proficient in Hebrew, but I work with Hebrew scholars and none believe that it is speaking of fallen angels in Genesis 6. I'm going to defer to their insight into the language on this issue.

Fireinfolding · Aug 4, 2010

Does anyone regard the picture of Abel and Seth at all after the patern found in Christ?

For example, it was after Abel's blood was shed that men began to call on the name of the Lord and no other name is given by which men are saved except the name of Jesus Christ. Seth being a figure of one appointed (as it pertains to His name) by God (for the woman) who is also a type for "the church"

Cain being a figure of what come firstborn (born after the flesh) and not counted for seed (after a spiritual truth) thus Seth is counted for seed in the stead of Abel (which types the blood of Christ) who cries better words then that of Abel in the figure yet fulfilling the words of Abel (which were never recorded but can be shown as recorded in Christ) who steps into the role of the new covenant which is by his blood.

For example,

Gen 4:26... **then** began men **to call upon** the name of the LORD.

This AFTER Abel (a figure also of Christ) even as Adam is a figure of Christ

Given Cain (firstborn pertaining to the flesh) is not counted for seed as the flesh is not counted (in the figure) Seth is appointed in Abels stead

Even as there is called a "second child" (as Christ is called "the Holy child" in 4:27)

Ecc 4:13 I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the **second child** that **shall stand up** in **his stead**.

Which cordinates beatifully with the apointment of the Apostles

2Cr 5:20 Now then **we** are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you **by us**: **we** pray you **in Christ's stead** be ye reconciled to God.

These things finding more substance even on the cross itself where Jesus says WOMAN ""behold THY SON and to one of His disciples BEHOLD THY MOTHER, the figures line up even as the same can be seen in Seth being appointed to Eve (figure of the Church) even as God hath SET in the Church (the Woman) apostles, prophets, teachers etc.

Also the cross of Christ itself and the words spoken there can be shown after the figure of Cain and Abel as well in accordance with Jesus words and hints from the apostles.

For example, a brief snip here...

God asks Cain

Gen 4:10 What hast THOU DONE ? The ~VOICE OF~ your brothers blood ~CRIETH~ UNTO ME """" from the ground. """"

I hear....

Mat 27:46 JESUS CRIED with A ~LOUD VOICE~, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, ~My GOD~ MY GOD~ Why hast thou forsaken ME?

Jesus fulfilling the voice of the words of Abel and yet at the same time (twofold) speaking better words then Abel

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus **the mediator of** the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that **speaketh** better things than that of Abel.

Jesus does appear "to answer" God's question "put forth" to Cain. I sorta regard this as stepping into that role as the mediator of "the new covenant" (between God and man) by His blood (as seen in a figure)

Again... When God says to CAIN

Gen 4:10 WHAT hast **THOU** DONE?

Luke 23:24 Then said Jesus, Father, **FORGIVE** THEM; for THEY **KNOW NOT WHAT** THEY DO

The blood sprinkling that speaketh BETTER THINGS then that of Abel (as the voice of Abels words can be shown as recorded/ fulfilled in Jesus Christ). And this is just a snapshot but not too far fetched as He says here...

Psalms 140:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

So Abels blood if first spilled, Cain is hid from the face of God, Jesus said, you will not see my face again till you say "blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord" God appoints Seth (another seed) in the stead of Abel (who figures Christ) even as the apostles are appointed in Christ's stead, and theres the picture of the "second child" (which even Seth can be counted as) just as Christ is counted the Holy child) and stands up in the others stead for the preaching of the word, even forgiveness of sins by his blood, then following the same patern we see men (after these things) begin (there and then) to call upon the name of the Lord, its Christ that fills in the blanks of what that must be speaking of. Then follow it through to Genesis 5 where in the day they were created (as we are created in Christ) they two are no more man and woman but God called THEIR NAME Adam (there) and first and last Adam can be seen between the pictures in accordance with what God has foreordained.

There are figures everywhere in there, for instance Moses days are numbered before the flood (which contains a figure of baptism as even Peter speaks of it) God numbers Mans days in years to 120 years (himself) and Moses dies 120 years old and God himself burries Moses BEFORE the Jordan (which again pertains to the figure of baptism) IN (the which) John the baptist baptizes IN of whom it says until whom the very law and the prophets prophesied TILL. The years, and the figures agree together its catching them wherever they are in comparing them aright. Because no prophecy of scripture is its own interpretation but the Holy ghost teaches us by way of "comparing" spiritual things with spiritual bring up to us the wonderful works of God even before He brought them to pass in Jesus Christ.

Im off topic on the last, but what if these things speak after a patern? These containing shadows of the true but we find ourselves just examining the shadows (in the shadows) type thing, know what I mean?

Marcus Constantine · Aug 4, 2010

Does anyone regard the picture of Abel and Seth at all after the patern found in Christ?

No.

There may be similarities here and there, but there is nothing even close in the Cain and Abel narrative that compares to what Christ did. We should be careful in placing comparisons where none is made in Scripture. Paul and other N.T. writers make comparisons between O.T. narratives and what they were experiencing in their own times, but anything more than that just leads to placing emphasis where it doesn't belong. The purpose of Genesis is to tell us about our beginnings as a people, not to vaguely elude to events that no one would understand for thousands of years later. In the Bible foretelling of events is done by a prophet that states clearly that "this is a prophesy." Genesis is told in a narrative form and was never meant to be read as prophetic literature. We have to watchful of ourselves that we do not add hidden meanings and ignore the plain teaching of a passage.

Fireinfolding · Aug 4, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
No.

There may be similarities here and there, but there is nothing even close in the Cain and Abel narrative that compares to what Christ did. We should be careful in placing comparisons where none is made in Scripture. Paul and other N.T. writers make comparisons between O.T. narratives and what they were experiencing in their own times, but anything more than that just leads to placing emphasis where it doesn't belong. The purpose of Genesis is to tell us about our beginnings as a people, not to vaguely elude to events that no one would understand for thousands of years later. In the Bible foretelling of events is done by a prophet that states clearly that "this is a prophesy." Genesis is told in a narrative form and was never meant to be read as prophetic literature. We have to watchful of ourselves that we do not add hidden meanings and ignore the plain teaching of a passage.

Concerning Adam and Eve Paul writes its a mystery speaking of Christ and the Church, Him being a "steward of the mysteries of God"

Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Afterall...

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And again, who does the book testify of?

Psalms 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Figures

21: And the Lord God caused **a deep sleep** to fall upon Adam, and he slept;

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was **dead already**

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear **pierced his side**, and forthwith came there out **blood and water**.

...and he took one of his ribs (or **part from his side**) and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen And the rib (or **part of his side**) which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,

Ephes 5:32 This is **a great mystery**: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Ephes 5:23 Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

And God did this...

Gen..22... and God **brought her** unto the man.

And Jesus says this...

John 6:44 No man can come **to me**, except the Father which hath sent me **draw him**

Gen 2:3 Adam said, This is **now** bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

As we are "created IN Christ" and again you can see this in Christ

Ephes 5:30 For WE are members of HIS body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Of Gen 2:3 is what Paul confirms as he is a steward of the Mysteries

Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

If you prove Pauls words out they only confirm Jesus Christ (Whom he preached).

If you feel its an error to err on seeing the Son of God in a figure whom the scriptures (which testify of Him) I dont know what to tell you.

The works of God in Jesus Christ are everywhere in Genesis, seeing Him is seeing the higher truth given He is the truth. Whats more incredible that as God laid out the patern he brings forth the picture of Jesus Christ like staring at a 3 dimensional picture where Christ emerges more clearly after looking at it and searching Him out in the patern. Like something hid before our eyes.

His words rock

MichaelKelley · Aug 4, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
I saw your previous comments; I just don't think they are convincing arguments. Just because you state that the Hebrew title given to these people couldn't have made them human doesn't mean it's so. I'm not extremely proficient in Hebrew, but I work with Hebrew scholars and none believe that it is speaking of fallen angels in Genesis 6. I'm going to defer to their insight into the language on this issue.

And, I am going to defer to the belief held by both the ancient rabbis and Early Church fathers until the 5th Century A.D. (500 years after Christ's Ascension). They believed that these beings were fallen angels.

Marcus Constantine · Aug 4, 2010

MichaelKelley said:
And, I am going to defer to the belief held by both the ancient rabbis and Early Church fathers until the 5th Century A.D. (500 years after Christ's Ascension). They believed that these beings were fallen angels.

Don't lump all of them together. They didn't agree on this subject any more than theologians today. Many of the ones that did agree with the fallen angel view did so because of Greek mythology. Eusebius and others thought that the stories told by the Greek were in fact stories that derived from this coupling of spirit and physical beings they saw in Genesis 6. Augustine said that he found a "giant's tooth" at Uttica and eventually concluded that it came from the intermarriage of angels and people found in Genesis 6. That's not really a good argument from my perspective.

Some early notables that didn't agree with the fallen angel view are Philo in Biblical Antiquities, Julius Africanus in his Chronology, John Chrysostom (one of my favorites) in one of his homilies on Genesis, Ephrem the Syrian in his commentary on Genesis, both Symmachus and Rabbia Akiba in both of their Greek Old Testment translations, and Rabbia Simean in the Talmud. They were all Sethites. There was never consensus on this issue. More did tend to believe in the fallen angel view, but many did because of their idea that Greek mythology somehow validated their interpretation.

MichaelKelley · Aug 4, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
Don't lump all of them together. They didn't agree on this subject any more than theologians today. Many of the ones that did agree with the fallen angel view did so because of Greek mythology. Eusebius and others thought that the stories told by the Greek were in fact stories that derived from this coupling of spirit and physical beings they saw in Genesis 6. Augustine said that he found a "giant's tooth" at Uttica and eventually concluded that it came from the intermarriage of angels and people found in Genesis 6. That's not really a good argument from my perspective.

Some early notables that didn't agree with the fallen angel view are Philo in Biblical Antiquities, Julius Africanus in his Chronology, John Chrysostom (one of my favorites) in one of his homilies on Genesis, Ephrem the Syrian in his commentary on Genesis, both Symmachus and Rabbia Akiba in both of their Greek Old Testment translations, and Rabbia Simean in the Talmud. They were all Sethites. There was never consensus on this issue. More did tend to believe in the fallen angel view, but many did because of their idea that Greek mythology somehow validated their interpretation.

I'm not lumping them together. The people you mentioned all came AFTER the 5th Century A.D. They were not the Early Church fathers. The Sethite view was contrived by Julius Africanus in the 5th Century A.D. because Celsus and Julian the Apostate began using the commonly held belief to attack Christianity, and rather than defending what had been taught and understood for centuries, they resorted to the Sethite view as more comfortable ground. Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.

Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are, however, many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend the Fundamental view of Genesis 6.

View some articles here.

Marcus Constantine · Aug 4, 2010

I'm not lumping them together. The people you mentioned all came AFTER the 5th Century A.D.

No, they didn't. They are all notables in the Roman period of the church.

Philo - 1st Century
Julius Africanus - late 2nd/early 3rd century
John Chrysostom - 4th century
Symmachus - late 2nd century
Rabbia Akiba - late 1st/early 2nd century
Rabbi Simean - 1st century

I think my point stands: there wasn't consensus on this at any point since the 1st century. Prior to the 1st century we don't have enough records to make such a determination. However, since so much has survived from the 1st century onward, we can say with certainty that no one view was the view of all of the church fathers or rabbis.

I take it from your link that ultimately you believe these Nephilim to be the same as extra-terrestrials in our popular culture?

MichaelKelley · Aug 4, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
No, they didn't. They are all notables in the Roman period of the church.

Philo - 1st Century
Julius Africanus - late 2nd/early 3rd century
John Chrysostom - 4th century
Symmachus - late 2nd century
Rabbia Akiba - late 1st/early 2nd century
Rabbi Simean - 1st century

I think my point stands: there wasn't consensus on this at any point since the 1st century. Prior to the 1st century we don't have enough records to make such a determination. However, since so much has survived from the 1st century onward, we can say with certainty that no one view was the view of all of the church fathers or rabbis.

I take it from your link that ultimately you believe these Nephilim to be the same as extra-terrestrials in our popular culture?

I don't know where you're getting your information. I don't know about the others, but I know for a fact that Julius Africanus was 5th Century because he is the one who introduced the Sethite view. Prior to the 5th Century, there was no Sethite view read this article, here, on the Sethite view. And my Radio Program here in which I discuss the Sethite view.

Remember these words:

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is condemnation before investigation." ~~Edmund Spencer

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it , it is a folly and shame unto him." ~~Proverbs 18:13 (KJV)

Marcus Constantine · Aug 4, 2010

MichaelKelley said:
I don't know where you're getting your information. I don't know about the others, but I know for a fact that Julius Africanus was 5th Century because he is the one who introduced the Sethite view.

I'm getting my information from primary sources and history books. Since I'm not going scan these and send them to you, I'll ask you to visit Wikipedia and look for Sextus Julius Africanus. You'll find he was well before the 5th century. I don't find much merit in the sources that you've produced. Many are from your own pen or others are pretty far out there (I'll just leave it at that). Just read some of the sources I mentioned (many can be found online) and realize that others believed in something different than what you are espousing. That doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm right, but just realize this wasn't any one person's invention.

JCchangedmylife · Aug 4, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
No, they didn't. They are all notables in the Roman period of the church.

I take it from your link that ultimately you believe these Nephilim to be the same as extra-terrestrials in our popular culture?

This is the reason I lean to the angel view Is I believe fallen angels appear to men as aliens. this view does not change depending on what gen 6:4 means

MichaelKelley · Aug 5, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
I'm getting my information from primary sources and history books. Since I'm not going scan these and send them to you, I'll ask you to visit Wikipedia and look for Sextus Julius Africanus. You'll find he was well before the 5th century. I don't find much merit in the sources that you've produced. Many are from your own pen or others are pretty far out there (I'll just leave it at that). Just read some of the sources I mentioned (many can be found online) and realize that others believed in something different than what you are espousing. That doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm right, but just realize this wasn't any one person's invention.

Wikipedia? Any high school teacher/College professor will say that it is about the worst source for information you can give. And, no, my sources are not by "my own hand." I have my sources well-documented. Did you not see the Long List of NOTES at the end of the "Mischievous Angels or Sethites" article??

Look, the fact of the matter is, this view has lead many people to Christ that were caught up in the New Age movement. One notable figure was Douglas James Mahr, the author of the book "Voyage to the New World." He was one of the founders of the New Age movement because of the publication of that book. But, he saw these beings for what they really were (demonic fallen angels), and came to know the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't think the Holy Spirit would use a lie to bring people to the Lord. Actually, Douglas James Mahr even wrote the Preface to the book "Alien Encounters" by Dr. Chuck Missler and Dr. Mark Eastman after he read it and came to Jesus.

Speaking of "the lie," listen to this Radio Program by me in which I discuss 2 Thessalonians and explain why this topic is important.

Marcus Constantine · Aug 6, 2010

My point was not that Wikipedia is some great source, but it's accurate enough to tell you when this guy was born. If you don't believe it, then do what I do and step away from your computer and look at a book by credible authors and historians. You're mistaken and you seem not to be willing to accept that. I have no doubt that we would agree on many areas of theology, but you're obsession with Bible codes, aliens, and conspiracies make it impossible to carry on a true dialogue with you in the subject that we were discussing.

The fact of the matter is you stated that the early church and rabbis in the late Roman period all believed in your view. I've proven that this is an inaccurate statement. You have diverted the subject and refused to address your mistake. You don't seem like you really want to discuss the issue. I've wasted enough time here on this thread. Perhaps I'll see you elsewhere.

MichaelKelley · Aug 6, 2010

Marcus Constantine said:
My point was not that Wikipedia is some great source, but it's accurate enough to tell you when this guy was born. If you don't believe it, then do what I do and step away from your computer and look at a book by credible authors and historians. You're mistaken and you seem not to be willing to accept that. I have no doubt that we would agree on many areas of theology, but you're obsession with Bible codes, aliens, and conspiracies make it impossible to carry on a true dialogue with you in the subject that we were discussing.

The fact of the matter is you stated that the early church and rabbis in the late Roman period all believed in your view. I've proven that this is an inaccurate statement. You have diverted the subject and refused to address your mistake. You don't seem like you really want to discuss the issue. I've wasted enough time here on this thread. Perhaps I'll see you elsewhere.

How about you step away from your computer and read a book? I've read many books, and have a fairly large collection all documented. I don't have an "obsession" with it any of it, but I just recognize that there to much substantiated evidence to just ignore.

You seem to dodge away from my point that this view has brought many people who were entangled in the New Age movement to Christ. The Holy Spirit does not use deception or false teaching to save people. This is a critical point that you have consistently dodged. One notable person I mentioned was Douglas James Mahr (see other posts).

And, I'm not talking about "the late Roman period" (or even the Roman period at all for that matter). I am talking about the belief of the ancient Rabbis and the early Church fathers. Yes, the early Church was during the Roman period, but the ancient Rabbis and the earliest beliefs on this subject all agree that these beings were fallen angels. This was well BEFORE the Roman period. BEFORE Christ came. The Sethite view did not come about until 500 years after Christ came (with Julius Africanus in the late Roman period).

Even John MacArthur, although I slightly disagree with his view on the Post-flood Nephilim, states this. I believe, for various reasons, that Satan began trying to corrupt the Messianic line once again after the flood, based on Genesis chapters 3, 12, and 15, and also Daniel chapter 2. But that's not important. The point is, the earliest sources say that the "sons of God" were angels.

John MacArthur on Genesis 6

The Sethite View is Incorrect

Early Church Historian

Sinner Saved By Grace

Early Church Historian

Well-Known Member

Early Church Historian

Well-Known Member

Sinner Saved By Grace

Early Church Historian

Sinner Saved By Grace

Early Church Historian

Sinner Saved By Grace

Early Church Historian

Newbie

Sinner Saved By Grace

Early Church Historian

Sinner Saved By Grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency