Sons of God

Yeah, one hadn't been bound there until the Roman Empire/4th beast fell. Please reread Dan 7:12. "The rest of the beasts" = 3. Rome is the 4th.

skypair

 

let me jump in a minute.

I have only read several pages of this discussion. It seems to me to be an age old argument that has gone on for centuries.

I personally never could see where the idea that the "sons of God" were angels. I have leaned in the direction of the theory that they were the righteous line of Seth that had intermarried with the worldly or wicked seed of Cain.

I know some apocryphal writings back the idea of the theory I hold.

The big question is this: Does it make any difference? Those men were destroyed in the flood. THere are some things which can be argued until the Lord returns and the question will remain, what good did it do us to argue about it.

I'll just say this is my pennies worth because some thought if I threw in a nickels worth I should get change back.

Dan

 

Then a problem for you would probably arise in Job 1 where the "sons of God" can either be a) angels or b) the descendants of Seth that you say died in the flood.

I'm inclined to say that Noah was a "son of Seth." You?

On the other hand, IF NT believers are the "sons of God" and IF the angels" of the churches in Rev 2-3 are their pastors, THEN isn't there an angelic counterpart to the "sons of God?"

That, of course, opens the door to many thoughts. Is your pastor a "guardian angel" of God to you? How about believing parents? How about a believing spouse?

Or maybe not. Maybe we don't want to go there. I haven't studied this out to the extent that I believe it makes a lot of difference to me.

skypair

 

OK, headfirst though! :laugh:

The "arguement" summed up is that some wish to hold to a fantasy type view of the word of God vs a literal view to which i dogmatically will always hold.

Yes. Followers of God should never marry outside of their beliefs. It will only lead to contentions that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Husbands and wives "fight" about enough of other miniscule things already!:tonofbricks:

Thus the Apocrypha shouldn't be counted as worthless in that it does relate a historical viewpoint to the Bible, although it shouldn't be used to determine doctrine, but it certainly, in this case, comes to good use.

Yes, it does matter.

We find the first mention principle here that mandates/ commands that we believers not become unequally yoked with unbelievers.

Seth followed God after the similtude of Adam. Cain spouted, pouted, and touted the mark God placed upon him, his rebellious and disrespectful attitude towards God for rejecting the bloodless works of his hands.

Here's a cookie, I don't have any change, I spent it all buying this dozen cookies. Hope you like pecan/chocolate chip oatmeal?

 

They are angellic in representation only in that they minister the principles of God and are His messengers to the Body of Christ.

They are not, and could not be actual angels, due to the limitations placed upon men in respect to their being human.

I've never been "accused' of being an angel, well, except by my wife occasionally:saint: , but I have been called "satan" for preaching against sin by some one who is NOT right with God!

I have human limits, angels don't.

 

Salamander,

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I'm still drying my head off. It reminds me of two fellows shingling the barn roof and the ladder fell leaving them stuck up there. They looked off to the side and saw a manure pile. The one said,"You jump off and let me know how far you sink in and then I'll jump"

So he jumps off and hollers up to the roof. "I went in up to my ankles!"

"OK" his shingling partner yells. He jumps off and goes in up to his neck. "I thought you said you only went in up to your ankles!" he yells at his buddy.

"Yeah, but I jumped in head first" he replied. :laugh:

Yes, I'll agree that it shows us the relationship of not being unequally yoked, it's just that some folks will forever argue their point and not learn. i once believed otherwise as I had been "taught" from this passage. But then I read the scripture for what it says and didn't try to read into it what some commentator said.

So, right you are, and I'll take oatmeal as not all of us Northerners are into Pecans.

 

Man oatmeal is GREAT with pecans!

 

Surely that does not always work, Salamander. In Psalm 121.1 we read:

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

​

Applying the normal rules of English grammar, we would have to say that the psalmist is proclaiming that the source of his help was the hills. Yet in the very next verse, he puts paid to that idea:

My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.

​

 

The biggest mistake anyone can make when reading the Bible is to take one verse and try to build a doctrine without considering the surrounding verses and the context.

Since the Psalmist said, "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills...", one must consider Who owns the hills and everything found upon those hills.

Taking the verse individually might cause one to think the help came from the hills, but a simple reading of other scriptures shows that to be a mere misconception.

 

There is a discussion on this subject at this (anti-shepherd's chapel) website:

http://gospeltruth.homestead.com/SonsofGod.html

 

I have truly enjoyed reading through all of the responses here. But the words have gotten to big and the tempers to hot. So I'm going to look for cookies I seem to have developed a craving for pecan. Strange.