theological problem with the "sons of god" being human

[Calminian]

No. Absolutely no. OUTRAGEOUSLY no.

The Bible is NOT always "consistent" in its terminology---for many reasons. Including the fact that the OT is Hebrew/Aramaic and the NT is Greek! And there's so many other reasons that I am tempted to ask if you are kidding.

Nope, not kidding. One of the reasons I believe the Bible is inspired is for this very reason. Even though it was written by over 40 authors (more if you count the individual Genesis authors), spanning 3 continents, and spanning 4000 years (again, if you count the individual Genesis authors), it's remarkably consistent in its concepts and terminology.

Your "theory" reminds me of a Christian businessman fellow with major foundation money back in the 1980's who was intent on publishing a theological lexicon of the Bible where he was DETERMINED to show that every word/term/phrase in the Bible had one CONSISTENT, primary meaning.

I can tell you've misunderstood. Terms can have several meanings depending on context and usage. And when we look at terms in context, they are remarkably consistent throughout the bible. I think you got excited (understatement) and jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Your analogy here fell short very quickly. My suggestion is to engage a little first before getting into a frenzied reply. You just wasted all that time typing an illustration that didn't apply.

No. For example, semitic terminology is very different from Hellenistic terminology.

It's a different language, but as one of my bible professors said, while the NT authors wrote in Greek, they thought in Hebrew.

And you'll find this to be the precise case. These authors were very familiar with the old testament and knew what its terms meant. It would only make sense they would use corresponding terms to the best of their ability.

Have you noticed that your "rule" of hermeneutics is not found in any seminary textbook? Ever wonder why?

Well I think you're referring to your dreadful example above, and yes, I would imagine that straw man is not found in any serious texts.

What a huge (and, frankly, deceptive) logical leap of your own! It is only slightly less audacious than "If you don't agree with me, you are rejecting the Bible." [which is a constant refrain of far too many young earth creationists on the Creation-Evolution forum.]

Well the problem is, you didn't understand it. You see, there are a lot of formally educated individuals that honestly can't think themselves out of a box. If you did spend money on seminary, I'd consider looking into a refund.

I'm curious: How much grad level training in exegesis do you have? Have you any experience with Bible translation work? The "rule" is so outrageously naive that I seriously doubt that you've ever "tested it" on anyone with a solid background in Biblical studies.

Well you're still stuck on that straw man rule you attributed to me, and unfortunately have wasted a lot of time.

Now, I didn't got to seminary, and frankly I'm proud of that. I have been to quite a few bible classes, and have studied under some amazing mentors for the last 20 years. Now there are some good men out there that have utilized the seminary path, and some good men that haven't. And there are some absolute morons with seminary degrees that just aren't cut out for theology at all. Looking at your reasonings skills.......

Do I really need to list the DOZENS of Biblical examples that absolutely blow your "consistency theory" out of the water? The claim is so absurd that I'll get by with just one: "Son of man." Now, while keeping a straight face, demonstrate to us that throughout the Bible that it only has ONE CONSISTENT MEANING. (After all, you said that if it does NOT have just one consistent meaning, the Bible is hopelessly illogical---according to you.)

Oh absolutely. Glad you asked. Boy you seem uptight, btw. I'll start a new thread on this shortly. But yes terminology is consistent in both testaments and I will use this term, "son of man" to demonstrate this.

If you think about it though, why would the jewish authors of the new testament deviate from the basic understanding of this term? Certainly the understood the term in the O.T. Do you really believe they're going to just pull it out of thin air and change the meaning?

[Yes, I will freely admit that my rebuttal---to the rebuke you wrote against my remarks--- is harsh. ...

Well not just that, it was oozing with pride. You see, unfortunately that's often what a seminar education and result it. Not always. But I see it a lot. "How dare you argue with me! Don't you know I went to seminary!!?" Most of your seminary professors would cringe if they knew you were wielding your degree this way.

Frankly it's childish. The Bereans weren't seminarians, yet were nobel for checking Paul's words (a very educated man) against the old testament. And you'll notice Luke wasn't beside himself over their audacity.

I don't have the formal education you have, but I've been at this this for a long time and am utilizing the best tools out there, and am already noticing I could teach you a thing or two. Sorry if that sounds overconfident, but I say it with conviction.

 

[ST1TCH]

This is a simple question for those that think the sons of god of genesis 6 were human. How did they obtain divine sonship apart from Jesus Christ??

i dont suppose i can contribute anything to an argument, as i think that the sons of god were angels. they passed some angelic material into the human race, and i think that these hybrids cannot be saved, because they are not human. Jesus came to save humans, not fallen angels and their offspring.

I think this comment is fairly close to my beliefs on the subject.

So here's the theory I've heard and tend to believe:

The first thing to note is why they would do this in the first place? In the garden, God told Satan (the serpent) that he would be crushed by the child of a woman. This was foretelling that the Savior/Messiah would be born of a woman and would defeat Satan. So this event in Genesis of sons of God taking daughters of man is an attempt by Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the entire race of mankind and try to make all the children of women evil. If they could accomplish that, then there would be no child of a woman who could defeat him.

Now whether these were fallen angels themselves who somehow impregnated women (not sure how a spirit could do that, other than God creating Jesus in Mary) or these fallen angels posessed human men to do the deed, not sure. Something about how they did it though was able to create beings that were more powerful, strong, etc than the standard children of men were.

We know that God saw this as such a detestable act that the fallen angels who had done it earned a lifetime sentence in the pit while the rest of the fallen angels are still allowed to roam the earth.

I would also argue that this act and the children that resulted from it were one of several factors that led God to destroy the earth by flood and only save Noah and his family.

It's certainly a very interesting tidbit that's only a few verses in Genesis that aren't expounded on very much. Moses just kind of swept right past it like it was no big deal.

 

[Calminian]

I think this comment is fairly close to my beliefs on the subject.

So here's the theory I've heard and tend to believe:

The first thing to note is why they would do this in the first place? In the garden, God told Satan (the serpent) that he would be crushed by the child of a woman. This was foretelling that the Savior/Messiah would be born of a woman and would defeat Satan. So this event in Genesis of sons of God taking daughters of man is an attempt by Satan and his fallen angels to corrupt the entire race of mankind and try to make all the children of women evil. If they could accomplish that, then there would be no child of a woman who could defeat him.

Now whether these were fallen angels themselves who somehow impregnated women (not sure how a spirit could do that, other than God creating Jesus in Mary) or these fallen angels posessed human men to do the deed, not sure. Something about how they did it though was able to create beings that were more powerful, strong, etc than the standard children of men were.

We know that God saw this as such a detestable act that the fallen angels who had done it earned a lifetime sentence in the pit while the rest of the fallen angels are still allowed to roam the earth.

I would also argue that this act and the children that resulted from it were one of several factors that led God to destroy the earth by flood and only save Noah and his family.

It's certainly a very interesting tidbit that's only a few verses in Genesis that aren't expounded on very much. Moses just kind of swept right past it like it was no big deal.

The spirit nature of angels has never been a struggle for me in this passage. I know there are some that specifically because of that believe that perhaps these sons of god possessed men's bodies and thus had offspring that way. I've never liked that alternative, nor have seen a necessity for it.

Angels were eating with Abraham and Lot, and no problem is recorded there. Did they have to possess men to do this? That would seem very bizarre in this case.

The way I look at it, we have to change our understanding of the spirit nature of angels. It doesn't seem to exclude them from also having physical attributes, even human attributes. Did those that dined with Abraham and lot have stomaches and intestines? I don't know frankly, but maybe they did. They are certainly different from us, but maybe they're more like us than we realize. Rather than conforming this passage to fit with other biblical understanding of angels, I'd rather let this passage complement those other passages, and come up with concept that fits all of them. The concept of spirit may not really mean immaterial as some thing.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I think this comment is fairly close to my beliefs on the subject.

So here's the theory I've heard and tend to believe:

The first thing to note is why they would do this in the first place? In the garden, God told Satan (the serpent) that he would be crushed by the child of a woman. This was foretelling that the Savior/Messiah would be born of a woman and would defeat Satan.

Moses did not sweep past it, he had the written books like they all did, who studied, and there is no need to re-write what is already written in length.

The "Seed of the Woman" would crush the "head" of the serpent....who is the head?
The Woman is spiritual Zion of the heavenly realm, not a woman below; for the Holy Seed was seen in heaven as the Son of Man hidden in God, who was God, and who was to come, by Enoch.

So the head "crushed" is the authority Satan got over the creation at the fall. He has the free reign to do his thing until Jesus takes His ransomed kingdom to Himself, and reigns.
He got that authority by legal right, when God cursed the creation's "dust", which the "serpent eats", in the sense of corruption/destruction/death feeding upon the fallen creation to torment and afflict, in death and destruction until the curse is removed from the earth.

The belly he goes upon is his reign over Sheol below, "the belly of the earth".

 

[ST1TCH]

The spirit nature of angels has never been a struggle for me in this passage. I know there are some that specifically because of that believe that perhaps these sons of god possessed men's bodies and thus had offspring that way. I've never liked that alternative, nor have seen a necessity for it.

Angels were eating with Abraham and Lot, and no problem is recorded there. Did they have to possess men to do this? That would seem very bizarre in this case.

The way I look at it, we have to change our understanding of the spirit nature of angels. It doesn't seem to exclude them from also having physical attributes, even human attributes. Did those that dined with Abraham and lot have stomaches and intestines? I don't know frankly, but maybe they did. They are certainly different from us, but maybe they're more like us than we realize. Rather than conforming this passage to fit with other biblical understanding of angels, I'd rather let this passage complement those other passages, and come up with concept that fits all of them. The concept of spirit may not really mean immaterial as some thing.

Fair enough. I can certainly see that as a possibility. Like you said, that's not a traditional view of angels but they have taken bodily form in the scriptures so it's not that much of a stretch to think they could do human things. Would certainly show how their offspring had different qualities than most of mankind.

God determined the punishment for the angels that did this so that in effect was a deterrent for any to try it again in the future.

 

[ST1TCH]

Moses did not sweep past it, he had the written books like they all did, who studied, and there is no need to re-write what is already written in length.

Wasn't aware it was a known fact that Moses had a set of written books that he wrote Genesis from. That's an assumption. It's likely he had some written history that was passed down through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Joseph. But there are events in Genesis that were likely revealed to Moses by God like the account of creation (no one was there to witness it) and possibly any of the history before the flood - although that could have been partly oral history passed down from Noah.

The "Seed of the Woman" would crush the "head" of the serpent....who is the head?
The Woman is spiritual Zion of the heavenly realm, not a woman below; for the Holy Seed was seen in heaven as the Son of Man hidden in God, who was God, and who was to come, by Enoch.

So the head "crushed" is the authority Satan got over the creation at the fall. He has the free reign to do his thing until Jesus takes His ransomed kingdom to Himself, and reigns.
He got that authority by legal right, when God cursed the creation's "dust", which the "serpent eats", in the sense of corruption/destruction/death feeding upon the fallen creation to torment and afflict, in death and destruction until the curse is removed from the earth.

The belly he goes upon is his reign over Sheol below, "the belly of the earth".

Say what? You completely lost me. That's a very interesting view of that verse.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Not reading so much into it, those last 2 lines are clearly foreshadowing of Christ dying on the cross (you will strike his heel) and being resurrected to conquer death and Satan (he will crush your head).

So the head "crushed" is the authority Satan got over the creation at the fall.

That makes absolutely no sense. The woman's offspring crushes the head of the serpent and that equals Satan's authority on earth?

 

[Aman777]

Calminian:>>The way I look at it, we have to change our understanding of the spirit nature of angels. It doesn't seem to exclude them from also having physical attributes, even human attributes.

Dear Cal, It doesn't matter if the fallen angels have physical attributes or not, since they are bound in chains under the darkness.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The sons of God are NOT angels.

In Love,
Aman

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Wasn't aware it was a known fact that Moses had a set of written books that he wrote Genesis from. That's an assumption. It's likely he had some written history that was passed down through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Joseph. But there are events in Genesis that were likely revealed to Moses by God like the account of creation (no one was there to witness it) and possibly any of the history before the flood - although that could have been partly oral history passed down from Noah.

God wrote the Scripture of Truth in heaven. Enoch read those tablets in heaven.
The angels read His Scripture of Truth in heaven.
In Daniel 10:21, the one who came to answer Daniel's prayer who had to fight with the heavenly prince of Persia for 21 days, first, and had to have Michael help him, told Daniel the things that were written in the Scripture of Truth in heaven, concerning Daniel's people for the last days.
That one said that Michael, the one prince, "binds with me in these things [the things written in the Scripture of Truth that will come, and that the angels keep watch over the wicked rulers to make sure they do not go astray concerning the times and season of their fulfillment].
Daniel 10:21 literal "I will show you that which is written/inscribed/noted in the Scripture of Truth: one binds with me in these things; Michael, your prince".
So Daniel 11 and 12 were already written in the Scripture of Truth written by God the Word in heaven for the angels to read.

Adam dwelt in earth's stretched out heaven, in Mount Eden, in Paradise/the third heaven, before he was cast down and lost his position of being a son of God of the human being kind.

Adam came down to the earth from Paradise with the knowledge of where he was coming from, how he had come to be, and where he was going. He read!

Moses only redacted from that history which father Adam had brought with him when he fell.

And writing is as old as creation in that God the Word wrote His Scripture of Truth in heaven, and Adam and all his descendants had the ability to read, and write, because Adam would teach his sons, and they would teach...until they stopped teaching....

Say what? You completely lost me. That's a very interesting view of that verse.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Not reading so much into it, those last 2 lines are clearly foreshadowing of Christ dying on the cross (you will strike his heel) and being resurrected to conquer death and Satan (he will crush your head).

That makes absolutely no sense. The woman's offspring crushes the head of the serpent and that equals Satan's authority on earth?

All authority has a "head", a source.
Every river has a "head".
Every family has a "head".

In the Word, we read this:

Isa 9:15 The ancient and honourable, he [is] the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he [is] the tail.
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

So the serpent in the Garden had a "head" =Authority/power.

 

[Calminian]

Wasn't aware it was a known fact that Moses had a set of written books that he wrote Genesis from. That's an assumption. It's likely he had some written history that was passed down through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Joseph. But there are events in Genesis that were likely revealed to Moses by God like the account of creation (no one was there to witness it) and possibly any of the history before the flood - although that could have been partly oral history passed down from Noah.

Exactly. There's no question in my mind, Moses compiled and translated and edited preexisting accounts passed down to him. in fact, we have solid archeological evidence that writing on clay tablets existed prior to Moses and even prior to Abraham (in fact it was abundant in that region). A good number of these ancient clay tablets found in the early 1900s contained information and legends about the flood. No doubt in my mind writing existed before the flood and that Noah carried sacred writings on the ark, perhaps clay tablets as they are very durable.

These ancient clay tablets also contain subscript signatures at the end, which seem to explain the toledoth statements found throughout Genesis, which also are clearly subscript signatures (instead of titles). These would then indicate Adam, Noah & his sons the original antediluvian authors. As their names appear in 3 of the antediluvian accounts.

Gen. 5:1 This is the written account of Adam’s line. (covers the creation of the garden of Eden to Seth's birth)

Gen. 6:9 This is the account of Noah. (covers the genealogy from Adam to Noah, to the story of the sons of God and the announcement of the flood)

Gen. 10:1 This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (covers the building of the ark to the exit from the ark and the events that followed all the way up to the table of nations)​

These all would have been contemporaries of the events they recorded.

On the original account about the creation of the heavens and earth, there is a toledoth, but it bears no signature. This is probably because God would have had to dictate this account to someone, and therefore they didn't want to sign it.

Gen. 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.​

I'm thinking that maybe this account was given to Enoch considering his closeness to God.

Either way, Moses would hve been the perfect candidate to compile translate and edit these accounts in the book of Genesis.

 

[Calminian]

Calminian:>>The way I look at it, we have to change our understanding of the spirit nature of angels. It doesn't seem to exclude them from also having physical attributes, even human attributes.

Dear Cal, It doesn't matter if the fallen angels have physical attributes or not, since they are bound in chains under the darkness.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The sons of God are NOT angels.

In Love,
Aman

Well then somehow they saved apart from Jesus Christ, which the NT says is impossible. There is no other name.

The problem suggested in the OP still remains.

 

[ST1TCH]

Actually, I understand Jude 1:6 to be speaking specifically about the angels involved in the account of Genesis 6:4

Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation --- didn't stay in the angelic realm like they're supposed to but took on human form to have children with daughters of men.

Aman's interpretation seems to suggest that Satan and all of the fallen angels who left heaven with him are currently locked in chains until judgement day. Who are these powers that Ephesians speaks of then

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places..

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Exactly. There's no question in my mind, Moses compiled and translated and edited preexisting accounts passed down to him. in fact, we have solid archeological evidence that writing on clay tablets existed prior to Moses and even prior to Abraham (in fact it was abundant in that region). A good number of these ancient clay tablets found in the early 1900s contained information and legends about the flood. No doubt in my mind writing existed before the flood and that Noah carried sacred writings on the ark, perhaps clay tablets as they are very durable.

Ancient writing on papyrus dates to as early as the date of the flood of Noah!


Moses had his own family records through his ancestors and he had all the learning of Egypt and their libraries at his disposal.

Papyrology
Papyrology is a field of classical studies that publishes and interprets source material written on papyri or similar materials such as ostraca, parchment and wooden tablets. Other related fields are, for example, codicology and epigraphy.
The majority of the preserved papyri come from Egypt, where the dry climate has preserved papyri datable to as early as ca. 3000 BC. Most of the papyri have been excavated from the dumps of the ancient settlements. Scrolls and painted mummy covers and coffins manufactured from recycled papyrus (cartonnage) have been found in burial grounds. Very few papyrus discoveries have been made elsewhere than in Egypt, because the organic papyrus tends to decompose in a humid climate.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>The sons of God are NOT angels.

Calminian:>>Well then somehow they saved apart from Jesus Christ, which the NT says is impossible. There is no other name.

Dear Cal, It is impossible for men to become the sons of God apart from Jesus Christ, but ALL other living creatures are saved because they are innocent of violating the Law. Humans are counted as innocent because of their faith in the LORD. Here is what Scripture says about Abram:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.



Jesus is LORD. He was called LORD God in the Old Testament. Jesus IS God and God is ONE.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Stitch:>>Actually, I understand Jude 1:6 to be speaking specifically about the angels involved in the account of Genesis 6:4

Jude 1:6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
​

Kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation --- didn't stay in the angelic realm like they're supposed to but took on human form to have children with daughters of men.

Dear Stitch, I cannot agree since Angels are not given in marriage.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

God's definition of marriage is when two become one. Angels don't marry.

Stitch:>>Aman's interpretation seems to suggest that Satan and all of the fallen angels who left heaven with him are currently locked in chains until judgement day. Who are these powers that Ephesians speaks of then

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places..

Darkness was present BEFORE the first Day. Genesis 1:2 Satan is the personification of the darkness, but darkness is an evil Spirit and anti-God. It can be identified all over the world and does not necessarily depend on satan to exist.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Aman:>>The sons of God are NOT angels.

Calminian:>>Well then somehow they saved apart from Jesus Christ, which the NT says is impossible. There is no other name.

Dear Cal, It is impossible for men to become the sons of God apart from Jesus Christ, but ALL other living creatures are saved because they are innocent of violating the Law. Humans are counted as innocent because of their faith in the LORD. Here is what Scripture says about Abram:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.



Jesus is LORD. He was called LORD God in the Old Testament. Jesus IS God and God is ONE.

In Love,
Aman

But this was before the atonement on the cross. This was before Jesus Christ the man.

Rom. 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

Gal. 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,​

Speaking of Christ:​

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—​

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Here is what Scripture says about Abram:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

Calminian:>>But this was before the atonement on the cross. This was before Jesus Christ the man.

Dear Cal, I agree....BUT...it was not before Jesus spoke of Himself in the Old Testament:

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside Me there is no Saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God.

Jesus IS God and Jesus is the only Savior of the world. Jesus was called Lord God by the King James translators. His name in the Old Testament was YHWH, a singular name. The name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a PLURAL name.

YHWH/Jesus "formed" man of the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7 God (Elohim-The Trinity) "created" man in His Image. It takes the agreement of (Elohim) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a New creature in Christ.

Jesus is God bodily, physically, and Jesus and YHWH, or Lord God in the Old Testament, are ONE.

Cal:>>Rom. 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

The sons of God will be revealed at the Rapture when the dead in Christ rise and meet those who are living, in the air, with Jesus.

Cal:>>Gal. 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,


I believe this includes Abel, Adam, Moses, David and other Holy men who believed in YHWH/Jesus in the Old Testament. I also believe the host of heaven includes innocent creatures which do not know the Law, nor good and evil. Humans are counted as innocent only if they have been born Spiritually because they have free choice to believe God or not.

Cal:>>Speaking of Christ:
​

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
​

This verse is speaking of the Jewish people. Those who received Him were saved. Their faith was counted as righteousness. It's the same with Gentiles. They become children of God by Faith in Jesus. Jesus is LORD.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

Aman:>>Here is what Scripture says about Abram:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

Calminian:>>But this was before the atonement on the cross. This was before Jesus Christ the man.

Dear Cal, I agree....BUT...it was not before Jesus spoke of Himself in the Old Testament:...

Yes but in his pre-existance he was not human, nor had he atoned for the sins of mankind yet. Jesus was not Jesus in his pre-existance. He was the Word of the LORD, the Davar of Yahweh.

Davar, interestingly can also mean matter. The matter of the LORD, the substance of the LORD?? The materialization of the LORD? Just a stray thought.

But the atonement required humanity and blood, and only Jesus who was born of a woman was 100% human. The Word of God took on a dual nature for us. This is the kenosis doctrine, which is essential to orthodox christianity (Phil. 2:7).

So while Christ pre-existed, he did not pre-exist in human form, and did not sacrifice Himself before the cross. No one was in Christ prior to the cross.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Aman:>>Here is what Scripture says about Abram:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

Calminian:>>But this was before the atonement on the cross. This was before Jesus Christ the man.

Dear Cal, I agree....BUT...it was not before Jesus spoke of Himself in the Old Testament:...
​

Cal:>>Yes but in his pre-existance he was not human, nor had he atoned for the sins of mankind yet. Jesus was not Jesus in his pre-existance. He was the Word of the LORD, the Davar of Yahweh.

Dear Cal, Jesus was the same Lamb who was crucified before the foundation of the world, in God's eyes. God's view is NOT limited to the view of mankind. He sees the end result from the beginning. Revelation 13 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Cal:>>Davar, interestingly can also mean matter. The matter of the LORD, the substance of the LORD?? The materialization of the LORD? Just a stray thought.

Good one. Thanks for sharing. I like it. It describes Jesus and shows that He is the physical incarnation of the invisible Spirit of God.

Cal:>>But the atonement required humanity and blood, and only Jesus who was born of a woman was 100% human. The Word of God took on a dual nature for us. This is the kenosis doctrine, which is essential to orthodox christianity (Phil. 2:7).

Philippians 2:6 Phl 2:6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name:

Jesus gave up His Image as God and came to Earth in the likness of sinful flesh in order to defeat the power of darkness:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Jesus died for Abel, Adam, and Abram just as He died for all of us. It was necessary to defeat the power of death which satan had. If there was any other way to have a perfect heaven, He would not have had to die, but someone had to pay the price for mankind's sin. Thanks to Jesus, He paid the price for all of us. He loved us while we were yet in our sins.

Cal:>>So while Christ pre-existed, he did not pre-exist in human form, and did not sacrifice Himself before the cross. No one was in Christ prior to the cross.

The Old Testament Saints were in YHWH/Jesus after they were counted as righteous by God. We are counted as righteous AFTER we have been born of His Spirit. The Holy Spirit was IN the Holy men of old as this verse shows:

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit moves us from within. Just as He was in those "created in God's Image" or in Christ, in the Old Testament. Those who do not have the Spirit of Christ within them are none of His.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.


In Love,
Aman

 

[ChetSinger]

Calminian;62631600]Fair enough. Now did you weigh in on wether the sons of god were human? If they were human, how did the achieve the title sons of god apart from Christ?

Dear Cal, The sons of God were NOT human, since they did NOT descend from Adam, the first human. Adam was made with a superior intelligence to any creature made from the water. God calls them the sons of God because they were innocent and like all natural creatures, did NOT know good or evil.

When Cain killed Abel, he went to the land of Nod on the east of Eden. There he met his wife who descended from the sons of God (Prehistoric mankind) who were created from the water on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21 The LORD who created both of them made it possible that they could produce children. The children of Cain, had high technology such as farming, tent building, smelting and making musical instruments because they had inherited the human intelligence of Adam through Cain.

Genesis 6:4 shows that the combination of the sons of God and the descendants of Adam produces "giants" intellectually. Notice that the verse tells us this happened on the world of Adam, and then prophecies that it will happen "and also after that."

It happened again on our Planet AFTER the Flood when the grandsons of Noah had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced children with the people who were on our Earth when Noah arrived. These people also came forth from the water on the 5th Day when God commanded "every living creature that moveth" to come forth from the water.

The sons of God (Prehistoric people) changed or adapted from innocent creatures to guilty mankind when the offspring appeared. It is HOW we became Humans. ALL of us are the result of this happening which began at Babel. We become the "sons of God" AFTER we are born again for God counts us as righteous thanks to Jesus. God's Holy Word is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

Hello Aman777. Actually, it's pretty certain who the "sons of God" in the Pentateuch were, and they weren't prehistoric people, but high-ranking spirits in God's kingdom. In Deut 32:7-9 they're given authority over the post-Flood nations, which were seventy in number. Archeology has revealed that Israel's next-door ANE neighbors, the Ugarits, also believed that El had seventy divine sons to whom he gave authority over the nations. That parallelism is certainly no coincidence: both nations shared those same beliefs.

That conclusion (that the "sons of God" were spirits) not only agrees with archeology, but also with writings by both early Christian apologists and Second Temple Jews. It's compatible with every scriptural reference that mentions the "sons of God", and with Christian orthodoxy. In that light I have to ask, why are you resisting it?

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>The sons of God (Prehistoric people) changed or adapted from innocent creatures to guilty mankind when the offspring appeared. It is HOW we became Humans. ALL of us are the result of this happening which began at Babel. We become the "sons of God" AFTER we are born again for God counts us as righteous thanks to Jesus. God's Holy Word is the Truth in EVERY way.

Chetsinger:>>Hello Aman777. Actually, it's pretty certain who the "sons of God" in the Pentateuch were, and they weren't prehistoric people, but high-ranking spirits in God's kingdom. In Deut 32:7-9 they're given authority over the post-Flood nations, which were seventy in number. Archeology has revealed that Israel's next-door ANE neighbors, the Ugarits, also believed that El had seventy divine sons to whom he gave authority over the nations. That parallelism is certainly no coincidence: both nations shared those same beliefs.

Dear Chet, The people of Ugarits served Baal, a false god. I have no interest in knowing what they thought.

From Wiki: Ugaritic religion
The important textual finds from the Ras Shamra (Ugarit) site shed a great deal of light upon the cultic life of the city.[10]
The foundations of Ras Shamra, the Bronze Age city, were divided into "quarters." In the north-east quarter of the walled enclosure the remains of three significant buildings were unearthed; the temples of Baal and Dagon and the library (sometimes referred to as the high priest's house).

Chet:>>That conclusion (that the "sons of God" were spirits) not only agrees with archeology, but also with writings by both early Christian apologists and Second Temple Jews. It's compatible with every scriptural reference that mentions the "sons of God", and with Christian orthodoxy. In that light I have to ask, why are you resisting it?

The first reason is that I don't study the teachings of Baal, since this is what Scripture says of them:1Ki 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

The second reason is that Scripture does NOT say what you did. Here is what the Scripture says:

7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

The sons of Adam are mankind, and NOT any mysterious "spirits" as you posted.

In Love,
Aman