Where in Revelation is a Rapture Mentioned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that everyone understands that angels have appeared to men. But that is a long way from reproducing with humans.

I said that angels, either fallen or not, spiritual being can not have sexual relations with human beings.
Are you saying that angels have no substance at all, that they are immaterial without the need to eat something for their subsistence ?
Luke 24:39........
" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
Jesus is not making a reference to Angels ...but about disembodied spirits..


You then stated............
You have no basis for stating Noah would have carried the blood of fallen angels. See Riberra’ post #911 on this he covered it well. I pointed out Noah was perfect in his “generations” we just disagree on what that means. I believe I am on sound scriptural footing on that.

NOPE!.....I said that "IF" what you suggest is the case then Noah would have the DNA of demons in his blood.


Riberra did not cover anything at all. He gave an opinion which I corrected for him.

Say rather that you have totally ignored the reference i have provided in post ~911.

The Bible say that Noah was perfect in his generation Genesis 6:9 which mean that his DNA have not been corrupted.
Genesis 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

God saved Noah [direct descendant of Seth lineage Genesis 5]and His family from being corrupted by the fallen angels, that is why God send the Flood.

NOAH "PERFECT".
(GENESIS 6:9).
This Is Appendix 26 From The Companion Bible.
APPENDIX 26. NOAH PERFECT GENESIS 6:9

The Hebrew word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Exodus 12:5; 29:1. Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Numbers 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezekiel 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without spot. Numbers 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26.
Undefiled. Psalms 119:1.
This shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection,
but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you saying that angels have no substance at all, that they are immaterial without the need to eat something for their subsistence ?


Say rather that you have totally ignored the reference i have provided in post ~911.

The Bible say that Noah was perfect in his generation Genesis 6:9 which mean that his DNA have not been corrupted.
Genesis 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

God saved Noah [direct descendant of Seth lineage Genesis 5]and His family from being corrupted by the fallen angels that is why God send the Flood.

NOAH "PERFECT".
(GENESIS 6:9).
APPENDIX 26. NOAH PERFECT
This Is Appendix 26 From The Companion Bible.
APPENDIX 26. NOAH PERFECT GENESIS 6:9

The Hebrew word tamim means without blemish, and is the technical word for bodily and physical perfection, and not moral. Hence it is used of animals of sacrificial purity. It is rendered without blemish in Exodus 12:5; 29:1. Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2, 3; 14:10; 22:19; 23:12, 18. Numbers 6:14; 28:19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 32, 36. Ezekiel 43:22, 23, 25; 45:18, 23; 46:4, 6, 13. Without spot. Numbers 19:2; 28:3, 9, 11; 29:17, 26.
Undefiled. Psalms 119:1.
This shows that Genesis 6:9 does not speak of Noah's moral perfection,
but tells us that he and his family alone had preserved their pedigree and kept it pure, in spite of the prevailing corruption brought about by the fallen angels.

You asked............
"Are you saying that angels have no substance at all, that they are immaterial without the need to eat something for their subsistence ?"

I do not believe that angels HAVE to eat to survive.

It is clear however that they eat if they choose to do so.

In Genesis when the Lord came with two angels to talk with Abraham we see in verse 8......
"And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat."

Now no where is it recorded that they HAVE to eat.

"The Companion Bible" ? What is a Companion Bible????? Do you take it along with you when you go places???

I am going to stick with my post in #909. I saw no reason to respond to your #911 post as you could plainly see that we disagree so what would be the point. But you seem eager for me to respond so...............

Post # 909 was.............
The crux of the matter, for your thinking to be correct is the word perfect.
In the Hebrew text, in Genesis 6:9 is tamiym (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire."

It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamiym better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.

That is still my opinion now as it was then with your "Companion Bible" not with standing.

Now, if YOU are saying that angels eat and it seems clear that you are, so then are you suggesting that humans in heaven will also have to eat in their glorified bodies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You asked............
"Are you saying that angels have no substance at all, that they are immaterial without the need to eat something for their subsistence ?"

I do not believe that angels HAVE to eat to survive.

It is clear however that they eat if they choose to do so.

In Genesis when the Lord came with two angels to talk with Abraham we see in verse 8......
"And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat."

Now no where is it recorded that they HAVE to eat.
Psalms 78:25 Manna is Angel's food men did eat angels foods.

"The Companion Bible" ? What is a Companion Bible????? Do you take it along with you when you go places???
This is the KJV Bible Commentary written by Dr. E.W. Bullinger,.....
GENERAL INDEX TO THE APPENDIXES IN THE COMPANION BIBLE

I know that you prefer the Scoffield Bible
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Psalms 78:25 Manna is Angel's food men did eat angels foods.


This is the KJV Bible Commentary writen by Burlinger.....I know that you prefer Scofield Bible.
My dear brother. You are not posting correct exegesis here. It seems to me that you are suggesting that because the words are ....."Manna is angels food men did eat angels food";
that angels eat it all the time in heaven.

It is called angel's food, not because the angels do daily feed upon it, but because it was both made and ministered by the ministry of angels, and that phrase sets forth the excellency of it.
(Christopher Ness (1621-1705), in "The Sacred History and Mystery of the Old Testament.")

You know I prefer Scofield Bible?????

How in the world do you come to that conclusion my brother?.
 
Upvote 0

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My dear brother. You are not posting correct exegesis here. It seems to me that you are suggesting that because the words are ....."Manna is angels food men did eat angels food";
that angels eat it all the time in heaven.

It is called angel's food, not because the angels do daily feed upon it, but because it was both made and ministered by the ministry of angels, and that phrase sets forth the excellency of it.
(Christopher Ness (1621-1705), in "The Sacred History and Mystery of the Old Testament.")
God say that Manna is angel's food, why suddenly you don't believe God's Word ?

You know I prefer Scofield Bible?????

How in the world do you come to that conclusion my brother????
The Scofield Bible is the reference from where come the 2 Peoples of God 2 destiny doctrine.The Church in Heaven before the tribulation /Israel in the tribulation doctrine.


Burlinger teach Annihilationism
No he simply quote Ecclesiastes 9:5 KJV:, which declares that 'The dead know not anything.'

Can you tell us what happen to the SOUL of a believer when a believer die ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Y
Enoch 40:9-10.......
" seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. That my friend is what is called blasphemy!

Re 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What does Phanuel mean in Hebrew? "Face/presence of El". It is a valid title of Yeshua just as Emanuel is. How is that blasphemy? It means the same thing as Emanuel, ie 'El with us'. We are told Yeshua gets a new name. What was his name in Heaven before his birth? We are not told in scripture but many consider 'mine angel' in the OT to be the pre-birth form of Yeshua. We are not told under what name He was known as in Heaven. Names changed over time to be descriptive titles. Getting a new name is always significant. Abram becomes Abraham. Jacob becomes Israel. Nimrod is called by many names like Orion, Tammuz, Baal and Amraphel. Amraphel is what he was called after the fall of the tower and means 'fall of the sayer', basically meaning 'the cast down false prophet'.

Also, It may not even be a name of Yeshua but an angel in charge of the redeemed in the heavenly realm, not the individual that redeemed them but just a reference to his role of authority in heaven as a representative of Yah to pass messages to the redeemed. Again, how is that blasphemy?

The bible is a collection of writings taken as inspired truth BUT it does not contain ALL truth. It leaves a lot of stuff out as unnecessary for salvation. Other things are obscure and called mysteries and have to be uncovered by serious study. Just because scripture does not call the pre-birth form of Yeshua as Phanuel does not make the statement blasphemy. And I certainly don't judge an entire book off one passage. We don't know what was added by later scribes when the book was copied over and over during the passage of thousands of years. Even with scripture copied letter by letter, there are differences between different codexes.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Was the Son of Man named? When was Jesus named in Heaven? This is an attack on the deity of Jesus. Jesus Himself claimed in Revelation 1:8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Do you even understand the reference of 'Alpha and Omega'? In Hebrew that would be 'aleph and tav' and that WORD is used twice in Gen 1:1, ie the WORD 'in the beginning', ie Genesis. Aleph-tav was the means through which the heavens and the earth were brought into creation. Aleph-tav in Hebrew is used as a pointer the the action of a verb and has no direct translation into English.

Gen 1:1
B'rashit (in front/beginning) Bara (verb create) Elohyim ('mighty ones') Et (aleph-tav) HaShammayim (The Heavens) VEt ('and' Aleph-tav) HaEratz (The Earth).

So John 1 is referencing how Yeshua is the WORD, the aleph-tav of Gen 1:1 and Revelation also identifies Him as the Greek translation as 'Alpha and Omega'.

Aleph-tav in the paleo-Hebrew word picture is the combination of the pictures of the 'bull's head' and a cross that means 'strength' and 'covenant' or 'strength of the covenant', or 'sacrificial animal on the cross'. Again it is a picture of Yeshua in the very 1st verse of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Regardless of Goliath’s precise height, we know from God’s Word that he was a formidable opponent. He was not only tall—at least a foot taller than David, and possibly several feet taller—he was also strong. His bronze armor alone weighed 125 pounds (1 Samuel 17:5), and he carried a giant-sized spear (verse 7). There was a reason that Goliath was the “champion” of the Philistines (verse 4). In the end, however, a young man named David, armed with only a simple sling, a few rocks, and faith, defeated this enemy of Israel. David proved stronger than Goliath because he had the almighty God on his side.

So in your option where did the post-flood giants, mighty men, Anakins, Emims, Zamzummims and all the families of giants come from?

Scripture is clear that ALL life on land was killed by the flood. All the giants were killed. Some think that some of their bloodline was among the wives of Noah's sons. Other Jewish traditions think one giant survived which contradicts scripture.

My understanding equates the source of the post-flood nephilim with the four angels locked up at the Euphrates for the same error as the Watchers but from a 2nd occurrence of angels that sinned by having children. That position is confirmed by the ancient writings and religious texts of other ancient peoples. Scripture does NOT directly state that BUT does offer clues in things like the meanings of place names. Even one of the cities founded by Nimrod means 'fortress/prison of Anu' for example.
 
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,634
1,336
South
✟108,450.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You stated..............
"I assume this is also your opinion?"

That comment was based on the exegesis of the Old Test. Scriptures.


You stated...........
"I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible."

I do not think that is the case.

Hosea 1:10 ......
"Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."

Matthew 5:9 ..........
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "

You said........
"IMHO you have determined the definition you cited for Genesis 6 because it fits the narrative you have chosen. "

We all have opinions. I believe my thinking is well founded in Scriptures. Do you believe that it was HUMANS who came before God in heaven in Job 1????

Now if that makes sense to you and fits your agenda then you are welcome to your opinion. I personally do not agree and I find that that thinking is not only not logical but totally unbiblical.
No where in Scripture is there a description of human beings standing in the presence of a holy God. But if it works for you, then go with it.

You said.............
"Angels can appear on earth as well so the location argument is weak at best, but you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to challenge it."


Now I did not say that did I my brother. I did not say that angels can not appear on earth and to say that would be to totally reject the Word of God wouldn't it??
I think that everyone understands that angels have appeared to men. But that is a long way from reproducing with humans.

I said that angels, either fallen or not, spiritual being can not have sexual relations with human beings.


You said..........
"I am not interpreting either. I merely point out what scripture does or doesn’t say in this case and it says “angels of God in heaven” do not marry to say more than that is commentary."

Luke 24:39........
" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

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

To ME, the words of Jesus say that angels are ASEXUAL. I do however understand your need to make those words say something that fits your thinking.

However, angels are created and do not reproduce. They evidently do not die. Also, since there is NO, NONE, ZERO females mentioned in the Bible, if they could reproduce, how would they do it since there are no female angels?????

You did not respond to 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 ...

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

You then stated............
You have no basis for stating Noah would have carried the blood of fallen angels. See Riberra’ post #911 on this he covered it well. I pointed out Noah was perfect in his “generations” we just disagree on what that means. I believe I am on sound scriptural footing on that.

NOPE!.....I said that "IF" what you suggest is the case then Noah would have the DNA of demons in his blood.


Riberra did not cover anything at all. He gave an opinion which I corrected for him.

Noah was not "PERFECT" in the way most people understand that word to mean.
As I stated from Stongs lexicon that words means right standing, moral, complete.
It does not mean that he was "SINLESS PERFECTION" as that can only be fitted to the Lord Jesus Christ.



You then said.............
"Thanks for your willingness to debate this issue it is very controversial. Good people on both sides have strong views and back and forth such as this may resolve this for someone who is unsure."

No problem at all. Thank you for being civil and Christian in your comments.
You are absolutely correct in that good people can differ on this subject. This is something I have spoken on more times than I can remember.

When we get right down to the bottom line, we have no biblical support of fallen angels ever appearing as men or of having physical DNA. Without the physical DNA there can not be any reproduction possible.

Again......."IF" your theology is right and again many, many people agree with you, Noah who was born before the flood and survived the flood would have had demonic DNA in his blood.
Yes.....the flood would have killed the Nephilin, IF THERE was such a thing but Noah survived.
Since all genealogy ends with Noah, that would mean that demonic DNA would have been in the physical line of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you are comfortable with that then may God bless you my friend. I for one can never ever accept such a theology.

Now, there is just no way possible to explain that fact away. You can try, you can consult with all the web sites that promote this agenda but you can not explain this simple fact away.

Now, I have lived a long time and I have seen what men and women can do. One of the things that ALL people do is exaggerate.

Do I believe that there were giants in those days. YES. There are giants today. Many men have grown to be 8 feet tall or more. Some are as much as 600 pounds. Some men have had 6 fingers.

But the point I am making or trying to is that men thousands of years ago would have said anything to stay in power. Please do yourself the favor and dig deeper into this historically.

Where do you think that "MYTHS" came from???? What was their purpose???
Thus, divine kingship did not evolve. It was fabricated— deliberately formulated— usually by a group of priest-nobles who supported one man in power.

Having said that, does it not follow that the purpose of myths, epics and literature on clay tablets, papyrii, parchments, and monuments, have the fundamental purpose of establishing and maintaining the right-to-rule a certain area and people.

Clever men (priest-nobles) manipulated the populace’s religious instincts to cause them to follow and obey the local god’s “son.” He owned the people and land, in theory at least. And he acted either as god (in Egypt), or as his representative (in Mesopotamia and other cultures). When all the literature and monuments were used to glorify and exalt this man as the son, or representative, of god, religion became the opiate (binder and blinder) of the people!

Manipulation of religion for political purposes began in Sumer, was picked up in Akkad (Old Babylon), revised with the same themes in Assyria and Neo-Babylonia, was enjoyed by Persian monarchs, captivated Alexander and his successors (Antiochus “Epiphanus” means “the revelation of god”), and was copied by Rome. (It is even found in Africa, the Far East, and the Americas.)

Do not believe what I am telling you. YOU do the work. Dig in with an open mind my brother.

You stated...........(postview)

"I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible."

Major1 said:

I do not think that is the case.

You are correct, I miss spoke and should have said “only scripturally verifiable definition in the Old Testament”. That is the main area of our discussion, but the mistake was mine.

Hosea 1:10 ......

"Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."

I would suggest to you this passage is prophetic and contextually has no bearing on this topic.

Matthew 5:9 ..........

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "

Not relevant to the discussion of Old Testament usage of the phrase.



Major1 said:

We all have opinions. I believe my thinking is well founded in Scriptures. Do you believe that it was HUMANS who came before God in heaven in Job 1????

I do not. Why would you think that. I thought I ‘ve been clear Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 are created beings.

Major1 said:

Now I did not say that did I my brother. I did not say that angels can not appear on earth and to say that would be to totally reject the Word of God wouldn't it??

I think that everyone understands that angels have appeared to men. But that is a long way from reproducing with humans.

I said that angels, either fallen or not, spiritual being can not have sexual relations with human beings.

I did not mean to imply you did. I was merely pointing the location factor you used as the basis of your argument was no factor at all.

Major1 said post #909

I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.

In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.

My point was just in response to the above statement.Simply because the scene was on earth that is no proof the reference is to humans.

Major1 said:

To ME, the words of Jesus say that angels are ASEXUAL. I do however understand your need to make those words say something that fits your thinking.

I have no need on this topic, scripture says what it says, you may believe as you will but Matthew 22:30 does not say “that angels are ASEXUAL” that is your commentary.

Major1 said:

However, angels are created and do not reproduce. They evidently do not die. Also, since there is NO, NONE, ZERO females mentioned in the Bible, if they could reproduce, how would they do it since there are no female angels?????

May not be entirely true. I won’t press hard on this point but look at Zechariah 5:9, interesting anyway.

Major 1 said:

You did not respond to 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 ...

You left quite a bit unresponded to in my post on fallen angels and evil spirits. In fact I used this passage in that post. I don’t see how that backs your position. If angels can appear to us so we are not able to tell the difference how you are dogmatic about what abilities they may or may not have when they do that. I would say scripture does not tell all on that point.

Major1 said :

NOPE!.....I said that "IF" what you suggest is the case then Noah would have the DNA of demons in his blood.

Please make the link for me. My whole point is that Noah was untouched by corrupted blood. That is why he and his family were saved. That is my position.

Major1 said:

Noah was not "PERFECT" in the way most people understand that word to mean.

As I stated from Stongs lexicon that words means right standing, moral, complete.

It does not mean that he was "SINLESS PERFECTION" as that can only be fitted to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The complete phrase is “perfect in his generations”. I have explained my position on that. Evidenced by:

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I believe the context is clear “these are the generations” refers to his offspring , verse 10. If not Noah’s sons then what are the these “ generations” referring to?

Major1 Said:

Since all genealogy ends with Noah,

Please explain what you mean here and how that means Noah would have been corrupted?

Major1 said:

Thank you for being civil and Christian in your comments.

I try to stay civil and stick to what scripture says, but in some heated exchanges I have had to repent for allowing the flesh to rule. I am working on it.
 
Upvote 0

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So in your option where did the post-flood giants, mighty men, Anakins, Emims, Zamzummims and all the families of giants come from?

Scripture is clear that ALL life on land was killed by the flood. All the giants were killed. Some think that some of their bloodline was among the wives of Noah's sons. Other Jewish traditions think one giant survived which contradicts scripture.

My understanding equates the source of the post-flood nephilim with the four angels locked up at the Euphrates for the same error as the Watchers but from a 2nd occurrence of angels that sinned by having children. That position is confirmed by the ancient writings and religious texts of other ancient peoples. Scripture does NOT directly state that BUT does offer clues in things like the meanings of place names. Even one of the cities founded by Nimrod means 'fortress/prison of Anu' for example.
I perfectly agree that there have been a second occurrence made by the fallen angels after the flood ....on a smaller scale.

That is well documented in the Bible contrary to Major 1 claims.

Full details here:
APPENDIX 25. THE NEPHILIM OR GIANTS OF GENESIS 6


But we read of the Nephilim again in Numbers 13:33: "there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim". How, it may be asked, could this be, if they were all destroyed in the Flood? The answer is contained in Genesis 6:4, where we read: "There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); and also AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown" (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).
So that "after that", that is to say, after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels, evidently smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were in fact known as "the nations of Canaan". It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before.


As to the date of this second irruption, it was evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham; for, when he came out from Haran (Genesis 12:6) and entered Canaan, the significant fact is stated: "The Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land." And in Genesis 14:5 they were already known as "Rephaim" and "Emim", and had established themselves at Ashteroth Karnaim and Shaveh Kiriathaim.
In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: "Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites" (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8, 17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).
These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19, 20, 28, 29, 30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7); and we know not how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology.
As to their other names, they were called Anakim, from one Anak which came of the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33¹), and Rephaim, from Rapha, another notable one among them.
From Deuteronomy 2:10, they were known by some as Emim, and Horim, and Zamzummim (verses 12, 20¹) and Avim (verse 23¹), etc.
As Rephaim they were well known, and are often mentioned: but, unfortunately, instead of this,

their proper name, being preserved, it is variously translated as "dead", "deceased", or "giants". These Rephaim are to have no resurrection. This fact is stated in Isaiah 26:14 (where the proper name is rendered "deceased", and verse 19, where it is rendered "the dead").
It is rendered "dead" seven times (Job 26:5. Psalm 88:10. Proverbs 2:18; 9:18; 21:16. Isaiah 14:8; 26:19).
It is rendered "deceased" in Isaiah 26:14.
It is retained as a proper name "Rephaim" ten times (two being in the margin). Genesis 14:5; 15:20. Joshua 12:15 (margin). 2Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13. 1Chronicles 11:15; 14:9; 20:4 (margin). Isaiah 17:5.
In all other places it is rendered "giants", Genesis 6:4, Numbers 23:33, where it is Nephilim; and Job 16:14, where it is gibbor (Appendix 14. iv).
By reading all these passages the Bible student may know all that can be known about these beings.
It is certain that the second irruption took place before Genesis 14, for there the Rephaim were mixed up with the five nations or peoples, which included Sodom and Gomorrha, and were defeated by the four kings under Chedorlaomer. Their principal locality was evidently "Ashtaroth Karnaim"; while the Emim were in the plain of Kiriathaim (Genesis 14:5).
Anak was a noted descendant of the Nephilim; and Rapha was another, giving their names respectively to different clans. Anak's father was Arba, the original builder of Hebron (Genesis 35:27. Joshua 15:13; 21:11); and this Palestine branch of the Anakim was not called Arbahim after him, but Anakim after Anak. They were great, mighty, and tall (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11, 21, 22, 23; 9:2), evidently inspiring the ten spies with great fear (Numbers 13:33). Og king of Bashan is described in Deuteronomy 3:11).
Their strength is seen in "the giant cities of Bashan" to-day; and we know not how far they may have been utilized by Egypt in the construction of buildings, which is still an unsolved problem.
Arba was rebuilt by the Khabiri or confederates seven years before Zoan was built by the Egyptian Pharoahs of the nineteenth dynasty. See note on Numbers 13:22.
If these Nephilim, and their branch of Rephaim, were associated with Egypt, we have an explanation of the problem which has for ages perplexed all engineers, as to how those huge stones and monuments were brought together. Why not in Egypt as well as in "the giant cities of Bashan" which exist, as such, to this day?
Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Genesis 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.
Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorded in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away.
 
Last edited:
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

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You stated...........(postview)

"I believe that is the only scripturally verifiable definition in the Bible."

Major1 said:

I do not think that is the case.

You are correct, I miss spoke and should have said “only scripturally verifiable definition in the Old Testament”. That is the main area of our discussion, but the mistake was mine.

Hosea 1:10 ......

"Yet the number of the sons of Israel Will be like the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered; And in the place Where it is said to them, "You are not My people," It will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."

I would suggest to you this passage is prophetic and contextually has no bearing on this topic.

Matthew 5:9 ..........

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "

Not relevant to the discussion of Old Testament usage of the phrase.



Major1 said:

We all have opinions. I believe my thinking is well founded in Scriptures. Do you believe that it was HUMANS who came before God in heaven in Job 1????

I do not. Why would you think that. I thought I ‘ve been clear Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 are created beings.

Major1 said:

Now I did not say that did I my brother. I did not say that angels can not appear on earth and to say that would be to totally reject the Word of God wouldn't it??

I think that everyone understands that angels have appeared to men. But that is a long way from reproducing with humans.

I said that angels, either fallen or not, spiritual being can not have sexual relations with human beings.

I did not mean to imply you did. I was merely pointing the location factor you used as the basis of your argument was no factor at all.

Major1 said post #909

I would encourage you to consider CONTEXT and LOCATION!

In Gen. 6 the scene described is the EARTH hence the fact the reference in to HUMANS.

In Job the scene described is HEAVEN hence the "sons of God" would obviously be angels.

My point was just in response to the above statement.Simply because the scene was on earth that is no proof the reference is to humans.

Major1 said:

To ME, the words of Jesus say that angels are ASEXUAL. I do however understand your need to make those words say something that fits your thinking.

I have no need on this topic, scripture says what it says, you may believe as you will but Matthew 22:30 does not say “that angels are ASEXUAL” that is your commentary.

Major1 said:

However, angels are created and do not reproduce. They evidently do not die. Also, since there is NO, NONE, ZERO females mentioned in the Bible, if they could reproduce, how would they do it since there are no female angels?????

May not be entirely true. I won’t press hard on this point but look at Zechariah 5:9, interesting anyway.

Major 1 said:

You did not respond to 1st Corinthians 15:39,40 ...

You left quite a bit unresponded to in my post on fallen angels and evil spirits. In fact I used this passage in that post. I don’t see how that backs your position. If angels can appear to us so we are not able to tell the difference how you are dogmatic about what abilities they may or may not have when they do that. I would say scripture does not tell all on that point.

Major1 said :

NOPE!.....I said that "IF" what you suggest is the case then Noah would have the DNA of demons in his blood.

Please make the link for me. My whole point is that Noah was untouched by corrupted blood. That is why he and his family were saved. That is my position.

Major1 said:

Noah was not "PERFECT" in the way most people understand that word to mean.

As I stated from Stongs lexicon that words means right standing, moral, complete.

It does not mean that he was "SINLESS PERFECTION" as that can only be fitted to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The complete phrase is “perfect in his generations”. I have explained my position on that. Evidenced by:

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

I believe the context is clear “these are the generations” refers to his offspring , verse 10. If not Noah’s sons then what are the these “ generations” referring to?

Major1 Said:

Since all genealogy ends with Noah,

Please explain what you mean here and how that means Noah would have been corrupted?

Major1 said:

Thank you for being civil and Christian in your comments.

I try to stay civil and stick to what scripture says, but in some heated exchanges I have had to repent for allowing the flesh to rule. I am working on it.

YOU may be able to communicate in this fashion but alas I can not. I tend to get the wrong thing applied to the questions because they run together and there is just too many things to respond to.

I am more than honored to speak with you and I appreciate your attitude and civiliness but can we just speak to ONE thing at a time. Debate it, agree or disagree and move to another ONE instead of all this convoluted back and forth.

It is not you but me who has this problem.

So then.........you stated:
"You are correct, I miss spoke and should have said “only scripturally verifiable definition in the Old Testament”. That is the main area of our discussion, but the mistake was mine."

That is not a problem. Thanks for clarification but I thought that that was the case. Now you are not going to change years of work and study I have done on this and I am pretty sure I am not going to do that to you. However, we may be able to show each other why we think as we do.

Now, there are several references of "sons of God" in the Old Test. The one I posted from Hosea is one example.

Another example is Genesis 33:19. There we see that the "sons of Hamor" must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant.

In Scripture, followers of a religious system were called “sons.”

I understand your position of "Sons of God" being fallen angels. That is not a new theology but actually very old.

Now, understanding that in Scripture followers of a system were called "SONS", it is then possible to understand that cities with their patron gods, then, developed a system that helps us understand the meaning of Genesis 6:2. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant.

The “sons of the gods” include all city-kings. Or, it may be describing just one city’s typical religio-politico system, the king with the religious leaders.

That IMHO makes more sense than fallen angels mating with human women. It answers the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 22:30 and it also removes the DNA question and allows all the pieces to fit together very nicely.

Your thoughts on this one aspect of our conversation?
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Do you even understand the reference of 'Alpha and Omega'? In Hebrew that would be 'aleph and tav' and that WORD is used twice in Gen 1:1, ie the WORD 'in the beginning', ie Genesis. Aleph-tav was the means through which the heavens and the earth were brought into creation. Aleph-tav in Hebrew is used as a pointer the the action of a verb and has no direct translation into English.

Gen 1:1
B'rashit (in front/beginning) Bara (verb create) Elohyim ('mighty ones') Et (aleph-tav) HaShammayim (The Heavens) VEt ('and' Aleph-tav) HaEratz (The Earth).

So John 1 is referencing how Yeshua is the WORD, the aleph-tav of Gen 1:1 and Revelation also identifies Him as the Greek translation as 'Alpha and Omega'.

Aleph-tav in the paleo-Hebrew word picture is the combination of the pictures of the 'bull's head' and a cross that means 'strength' and 'covenant' or 'strength of the covenant', or 'sacrificial animal on the cross'. Again it is a picture of Yeshua in the very 1st verse of scripture.

That is good info but it seems that all you are doing is to take away the errors of the Book of Enoch and its heresy.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Re 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What does Phanuel mean in Hebrew? "Face/presence of El". It is a valid title of Yeshua just as Emanuel is. How is that blasphemy? It means the same thing as Emanuel, ie 'El with us'. We are told Yeshua gets a new name. What was his name in Heaven before his birth? We are not told in scripture but many consider 'mine angel' in the OT to be the pre-birth form of Yeshua. We are not told under what name He was known as in Heaven. Names changed over time to be descriptive titles. Getting a new name is always significant. Abram becomes Abraham. Jacob becomes Israel. Nimrod is called by many names like Orion, Tammuz, Baal and Amraphel. Amraphel is what he was called after the fall of the tower and means 'fall of the sayer', basically meaning 'the cast down false prophet'.

Also, It may not even be a name of Yeshua but an angel in charge of the redeemed in the heavenly realm, not the individual that redeemed them but just a reference to his role of authority in heaven as a representative of Yah to pass messages to the redeemed. Again, how is that blasphemy?

The bible is a collection of writings taken as inspired truth BUT it does not contain ALL truth. It leaves a lot of stuff out as unnecessary for salvation. Other things are obscure and called mysteries and have to be uncovered by serious study. Just because scripture does not call the pre-birth form of Yeshua as Phanuel does not make the statement blasphemy. And I certainly don't judge an entire book off one passage. We don't know what was added by later scribes when the book was copied over and over during the passage of thousands of years. Even with scripture copied letter by letter, there are differences between different codexes.

You are trying to defense something that is not defensible!

You are trying to defend a book of heresey simple so as to use it to support an agenda where demons have mated with humans.

You are trying to use an OCCULT book to support a doctrine that is not possible.

As any well meaning Christian reads the Book of Enoch, they will notice a big difference between it and the genuine Word of God. The Bible is readable, from cover to cover, it tells a story.

In sharp contrast, the Book of Enoch appears to be mocking the Word of God, quoting phrases here-and-there from the Bible, without any meaningful logic or order. This, coupled with a bunch of added mumbo-jumbo, makes the Book of Enoch a ridiculous piece of literature to even consider inspired by God.

As a person progresses deeper into the Book of Enoch, they will eventually find the Books of Adam and Eve fascinating as well, and then they will be into New Age occultism without even realizing it.

Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion. The fact that it's being paraded to the public nowadays on Walt Disney's History Station as a SHOCKING revelation, should be a clear warning sign where this is all headed. The credibility of the Word of God is under malicious attack and I encourage you to not use it to support any Bible teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God say that Manna is angel's food, why suddenly you don't believe God's Word ?


The Scofield Bible is the reference from where come the 2 Peoples of God 2 destiny doctrine.The Church in Heaven before the tribulation /Israel in the tribulation doctrine.



No he simply quote Ecclesiastes 9:5 KJV:, which declares that 'The dead know not anything.'

Can you tell us what happen to the SOUL of a believer when a believer die ?

Thank you, but I know exactly where the reference comes from in the Scofield but you said that it is the Bible I LIKE. Now YOU are just very wrong brother.

Because I agree with the Bible doctrine of the Rapture and Israel being the focus of God during the Tribulation does not mean that I LIKE a certain reference book or the Scofield.

My understanding came from the Bible itself.

Yes, I can tell you where the dead saints in Christ are today.

There bodies are in the grave and there spirits are in heaven.

But you already know that because I have stated that a few times already for you in another thread.

John 11:25.........
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live”.

Yes, I am a believer in the Immortal Soul and if you do not believe that, then may the Lord bless you my friend and we really do not have to waste time on this subject as for me it is a no brainer.
 
Upvote 0

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you, but I know exactly where the reference comes from in the Scofield but you said that it is the Bible I LIKE. Now YOU are just very wrong brother.
Because I agree with the Bible doctrine of the Rapture and Israel being the focus of God during the Tribulation does not mean that I LIKE a certain reference book or the Scofield.

My understanding came from the Bible itself.
Which version of the Bible do you use ?

What i mean is that you surely prefer the bible commentary made by Scofield rather than the Bible Commentary made by Burlinger who use the KJV as basis..

Do you notice that the bible commentary made by Scofield are now PART of all the NEW Bible Versions ...in the annotations, who tells the reader how to interpret -certain- selected- Bible verses based on Scofield own interpretation ?


Yes, I can tell you where the dead saints in Christ are today.

There bodies are in the grave and there spirits are in heaven.

But you already know that because I have stated that a few times already for you in another thread.

John 11:25.........
“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live”.

Yes, I am a believer in the Immortal Soul and if you do not believe that, then may the Lord bless you my friend and we really do not have to waste time on this subject as for me it is a no brainer.
Glad that you finally answer the question.
If you had taken the time to read my previous post[post 916] you will be aware that I do believe in an immortal soul....

That the SOULS of the believers in Jesus Christ goes to Heaven when they die .

That is why there is no doubt that the BULK of the CHURCH is already in Heaven....It is made of hundred of millions of SOULS of ALL the believers in Jesus who have died and are now in Heaven in the presence of Jesus ,since Jesus have ascended to Heaven.

Revelation 19:1-8 -...and his wife have made herself ready- are the SOULS of the dead believers in Heaven [sleep in Jesus] that Jesus will bring with Him to be resurrected on the Earth when Jesus will come down from Heaven to establish His Kingdom on the Earth.
 
Last edited:
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

Riberra

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2014
5,098
594
✟90,164.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now, understanding that in Scripture followers of a system were called "SONS", it is then possible to understand that cities with their patron gods, then, developed a system that helps us understand the meaning of Genesis 6:2. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant.

The “sons of the gods” include all city-kings. Or, it may be describing just one city’s typical religio-politico system, the king with the religious leaders.

That IMHO makes more sense than fallen angels mating with human women. It answers the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 22:30 and it also removes the DNA question and allows all the pieces to fit together very nicely.
Can you tell us how CAIN's descendants before the flood mating with the women descendant of Adam can modify the DNA to the point of creating Giants measuring between 9 to 15 feet tall ?

The GIANTS are also referenced in the Bible AFTER the Flood.
Genesis 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 bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Here an example: Goliath nine feet, six inches....
--------
How tall was Goliath in reality? Normally, we equate him with a giant, as most Bible translations state that he was over nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4, NIV). The Masoretic Text, the Hebrew text that has long been accepted by the Jewish people, states that Goliath’s height was “six cubits and one span.” Taking a cubit to be approximately eighteen inches and a span to equal six, this figures to a height of approximately nine feet, six inches.

Link:
How tall was Goliath?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Postvieww

Believer
Sep 29, 2014
4,634
1,336
South
✟108,450.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
YOU may be able to communicate in this fashion but alas I can not. I tend to get the wrong thing applied to the questions because they run together and there is just too many things to respond to.

I am more than honored to speak with you and I appreciate your attitude and civiliness but can we just speak to ONE thing at a time. Debate it, agree or disagree and move to another ONE instead of all this convoluted back and forth.

It is not you but me who has this problem.

So then.........you stated:
"You are correct, I miss spoke and should have said “only scripturally verifiable definition in the Old Testament”. That is the main area of our discussion, but the mistake was mine."

That is not a problem. Thanks for clarification but I thought that that was the case. Now you are not going to change years of work and study I have done on this and I am pretty sure I am not going to do that to you. However, we may be able to show each other why we think as we do.

Now, there are several references of "sons of God" in the Old Test. The one I posted from Hosea is one example.

Another example is Genesis 33:19. There we see that the "sons of Hamor" must have belonged to a cult in which donkeys were sacrificed while making a covenant.

In Scripture, followers of a religious system were called “sons.”

I understand your position of "Sons of God" being fallen angels. That is not a new theology but actually very old.

Now, understanding that in Scripture followers of a system were called "SONS", it is then possible to understand that cities with their patron gods, then, developed a system that helps us understand the meaning of Genesis 6:2. Such a practice was so widespread that everyone reading this passage in ancient times would immediately understand what was meant.

The “sons of the gods” include all city-kings. Or, it may be describing just one city’s typical religio-politico system, the king with the religious leaders.

That IMHO makes more sense than fallen angels mating with human women. It answers the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 22:30 and it also removes the DNA question and allows all the pieces to fit together very nicely.

Your thoughts on this one aspect of our conversation?

I agree the post have become too long, based on the desire to respond to every point every time. Ok, now to the “sons of God” in the Old Testament .


What is your response to the Hosea passage being prophetic and not relevant to this discussion? It does say “there it shall be said unto them Ye are the sons of the living God”





I disagree on your analysis of the “the children of Hamor”


Shechem was an actual son of Hamor and not called a son because of any religious system.


If you can make a scriptural case Shechem was not Hamor’s real son and only called a son because of a religious system, you might at least be able to argue this point. I see relevance of this to our discussion.


Joshua 24:32


And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.
 
Upvote 0

Yahu_

Active Member
Nov 16, 2016
218
50
60
Atlanta, Ga
✟18,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
You are trying to defense something that is not defensible!

You are trying to defend a book of heresey simple so as to use it to support an agenda where demons have mated with humans.
No where have I stated that demons mated with humans. Demons are 'evil spirits' and have no physical body. They are dead, ie ghosts. Angels are not and can not be demons. Demons are 'evil spirits'. The OT calls them both 'ruach rah' and 'ruach ra'ah' so they are both male and female 'evil spirits' just as there are also male and female angels. Scripture references two female Watchers with wings like storks.

Angels are not asexual but are immortal therefore have no need for children just as we will be immortal and will have no need of children.

Enoch is NOT heresy. It is TRUTH that lines up with scripture. Granted I do discount the passages on the paths of the celestial bodies as being from some later scribe. Later scribes also update place names to more modern names in places but that was common practice through the ages since place names changed.
 
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

2X4

Active Member
Jan 4, 2017
232
29
63
USA
✟16,445.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I would like someone to please show me where a rapture is mentioned in Revelation since the only thing I see mentioned in Revelation are resurrections.

Where does it say there's a rapture if the 2nd advent, as described in the Olivet discourse, is the 2nd resurrection, where that generation, and those standing there at the time of the Olivet discourse, taste death after witnessing Christ coming into his kingdom, which is the New Yah-ru-Shalem?

If the Olivet discourse advent which is the gathering of the elect and the so-called 2nd return of Christ is the 2nd resurrection, when Christ supposedly returns to earth, how does anyone justify a rapture at the "1st resurrection" if there's no advent, no return of Christ to earth until the 2nd resurrection?

Food for thought

A falling away has definitely begun.

There is no visible body rapture. That lie came from the lie that the body of Jesus floated up into the sky. The truth is that all the visible flesh perishes from the minds of men who are created in the image of God. The visible images we perceive with our created senses are only formed illusions within our mind ( consciousness ).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.