Featured Satan and 1/3 od angels falling from heaven ?

HisWitness---I’ve only briefly skimmed over the posts—but some of your points are actually somewhat legitimate---however—I disagree with many of your conclusions. First you need to get your evidence straight----it was 200 angels that sinned in 1 Enoch not 100 (1 Enoch 6—200 descended in the days of Jared onto the peak of Mt Hermon).
Next—the whole point of 2 Pet & Jude is the certainty of God’s divine judgment, where the author uses a typical Jewish triad to make his case. In essence, God's future judgment of the wicked is certain (v. 3b) because God has consistently judged the wicked throughout history. As you stated “you must notice the word IF before the passage is to denote that if that event really happened then....... so both Peter and Jude were not saying that actually happened but IF it did then the same result would be as so with them also.”
You do realize that-- although the protasis (‘if’ clause) is limited to verse 4 ---the Greek structure of 2 pet 2:4-10a is one long conditional sentence, with the apodosis ("then" clause) not coming until v. 9. Thus making the protasis applicable to every point given until this clause is complete. In essence, the logic of your proposal in regards to the use of “if” would also have to apply to the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, & the rescue of Lot. Are you suggesting that they are only hypothetical examples as well?
Third, you keep insisting that 2 Peter & Jude are quoting 1 Enoch. While that is possible, they are more than likely referring to the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6:2, 4 itself, which is referred to in many Jewish writings besides 1 Enoch ( Jub. 4:15, 22; 5:1; CD 2:17-19; 1QapGen 2:1; T. Reu. 5:6-7; T. Naph. 3:5; 2 Bar. 56:10-14; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.73). Admittedly 1 Enoch is probably the oldest record we have of the angelic Gen 6 interpretation, & the book itself was popular in Christian circles (which can be seen with Jude’s use in v 14-15)—there is no historical evidence that any other Gen 6 interpretation existed during the time of NT authorship, which allows Peter & Jude to directly refer to it (instead of extra-biblical lit.) & keep in line with their Scriptural examples of divine judgment. This is especially relevant when you consider Peter’s connection of the sinning angels with the flood & Jude’s use of “ton homoion tropon toutois” connecting the angelic sin of v 6 to the sexual sin of Sodom in v 7.
I am honestly wasting to much time on this when I need to be working--lol—but to answer your question---yes I believe Gen 6 refers to angels (that had fallen or are falling with the act of Gen 6)—this can be accomplished with an angelophany (ex Gen 18-19) or possession of human bodies. I dedicated a large portion of my Master’s thesis to defending the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 & am currently dedicating a large portion of my doctoral thesis to it. But I realize that no matter how much evidence I give, I will never be able to persuade everyone of my own understanding of the difficult passage. And since it is not a first-rate doctrine-- I don’t mind people disagreeing with me as long as they can support their own ideas. If you do respond to my post—I will try & respond back—but like I said I really need to be working—so if I don’t respond in a quick manner please do not think I am being disrespectful—God bless.

 

Well that wasn’t exactly the detailed response I was hoping from you—lol—but while I do think Satan is a fallen angelic being—the fact of the matter is—2 Pet 2:4 & Jude 6 do nothing to prove Satan’s origin nor his current status—so at least we can agree on that

 

The same question could be asked about sin in general—God knew man would sin (or He wouldn’t be truly omniscient)—yet He still created him---regardless of what evil spiritual forces are involved—man is still responsible for his actions—that’s why an outside force (such as the serpent) could tempt Eve—and she still be held accountable—and that’s why Eve could tempt/persuade Adam—& he be held responsible—angels did not ruin mankind—mankind ruined mankind-- b/c he should have known he owed his existence to his Creator & therefore been willing to submit himself to the Creator’s desire for him (ie not eating from 1 certain tree). If God was really concerned with temptation not existing--- then the tree of knowledge of good & evil would have never been created. Thus God’s foreknowledge of man’s choice to rebel against him—or in this case the angelic involvement in impacting mankind toward sin—would in no way impact God allowing such an event to actually happen. The existence of temptation is not the problem—its man’s choice to carry through with his rebellious action that truly matters.

 

That’s actually a really good question---at least the part about why God would offer forgiveness to man & not angels when they sinned. But-- it first must be asked if the reality of a truth—is based on the fairness of that reality. The fact of the matter is---it’s not fair to God (simply based on us owing our existence to Him) that we rebel against His will for our life—yet we still do. Furthermore, the fact we rebel means it’s not fair/just that we get forgiveness—when the consequences of our rebellious actions truly deserve eternal punishment. So the idea of fairness within itself—does not negate the reality of a situation. Just b/c angels sin & God does not offer them forgiveness does not make it a non-reality that angels did not sin. Remember-- He is not required to forgive; mankind & angels are required to submit (simply based on our creation status). While there is a ton more I wanna say about this (especially in regards to the human sin nature--which angels do not have, direct angelic creation--which humans after Adam do not have based on the human procreation process, and angelic insight to God that humans after Adam do not have)—but I’ve got to get up early for work tomorrow—I’ll come check if you responded—God bless.

 

Got a quick question--do you believe in the reality of the demonic realm & if so--how do you define their origin?