Featured The Nephilim

Not any pre-NT evidence for any view other then angelic of Gen 6--the 1st historical recorded of anything other does not come until the late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. That being said--there is one version of Jasher that seems to suggest something else--but the modern translation we have of this copy is highly debated. And in all honesty although Josephus verifies the angelic view--I've always personally felt he paid a lot of attention to Seth in his rendition of events & if I was a Sethite supporter I'd try & look into that more--now as far as the dates of historical interpretation--these came from when I wrote my thesis on this topic in 2006--so maybe some other dates have come out since then--but they'd have to pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls--which are older then Targum copies we have--regardless interesting point

 

It seems that the authors were aware of them being angels that fell, but many would not see them as being able to procreate as reason to reject...

 

just checked my thesis--the source I have footnoted there is --Philip Alexander, 'The Targumim & Early Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6," Journal of Jewish Studies 23, no. 1 (1972): 61--if that helps any

 

IF our Savior IS "human", a "thing" created from Dust, we are all lost.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of a Human is CREATED from Dust, and comes FROM the created EARTH and Returns to DUST of the Earth.

Scripture notifies us;
the BODY, the FLESH of Jesus was PREPARED, was something Jesus TOOK UPON HIMSELF, came FROM Heaven, and RETURNED to Heaven.

If you take a COAT upon your self, are YOU A COAT?
Do you not consider what you are IS BENEATH the COAT?

Are you unaware, MEN can not SEE God? Or why?
Are you unaware, God has communicated with mankind "face to face", with a COVER, keeping mankind from SEEING Him?

IF, it was Gods plan for mankind to see Him "AS HE IS", from the beginning, TO THIS Day.....why do you think, Scripture teaches, mankind is being PREPARED, and in waiting to SEE Him "AS HE IS"?

What do you think that means? Mankind is waiting to SEE Him, the same as men saw Him in the past, with COVER, that he can not be seen, AS He is?

Jesus took the prepared BODY of Flesh, upon Himself.....Don't you comprehend there IS a "Himself", "without a Flesh" body.

Heb.10

1. [5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Again, what about when he was not in this world?

What world was he in? And WHY did he not require a BODY of FLESH then?

John.18
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:

My Lord and Savior is NOT a human.
My Lord and Savior is Spirit, is Life, is Truth, is Power.

 

Wasn't thinking so much of an interpretation as just the words written (iow, choice that would seem to reference men rather than angels) and McNamara posited a 3rd or 4th century date for Targum Neofiti (no doubt that is a controversial opinion).

This translation by J. H. Parry Company?

Interesting, 1:73 is clear for angels. What parts are you referring to?

 

Jesus HAD to be human in order to qualify as the messiah!

 

And WHY would anyone come to that conclusion?

 

Due to angels not being flesh and blood and having sperm?

 

before I say anything else--remember I am all in on the angelic interpretation of Gen 6--& it pains me to even give help to a theory I wholeheartedly disagree with--& Josephus clearly affirms the early understanding of the angelic view--but in Antiq of Jews chpt 2:3--after he summarizes Adam, Abel, Cain--he stops & pays a lot of attention to Seth calling him 'virtuous' & 'excellent character'--then says 'so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. All these proved to be of good dispositions...' --now remember in no way do i support the Sethite view--but my 1st agenda is proper understanding of Scripture--& this statement made me actually stop & reevaluate the possible evidence for a Sethite understanding--although it did not change my mind--if I was a Sethite guy--I'd look closer at this idea

 

Correct.

False.

Correct.

 

No. Jesus HAD to fulfill the LAW, in order to qualify as the Messiah.

 

Yes, it does. Found it is available at Journal of Jewish Studies Archives, for free institutional use or purchase of pdf. Searching for that I also ran up on Alexander’s “From the Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch.”

 

if you can find anything by George W E Nickelsburg on 1 Enoch--it will be very helpful for the development of 1 enoch--he has a few articles & 1 big commentary on the text

 

Thanks for your response.
As stated, I have not read it, nor had anyone teaching me from from the book of Enoch.

sons of God was the point. What else "things" may be called, was not the point.

[/QUOTE]None of this proves much, other than historically at least two views of Genesis Chapter Six pre-dated New Testament times.[/QUOTE]

It is not much of a mystery, when one knows, who, what, when and why the title "son of God" is applicable.

just sayin...

 

If one denies the humanity of Jesus, denies the trinity, so holds to heresy!

 

Jude, and the Holy Spirit, took a small part of that to be quoted as imspired history, correct?

 

ONLY a man could die, and since he was also God, His death was all sufficient!

 

I believe this is only true of the Codex Alexandrinus. Have you found it to be different? The print copy I have is, I believe, from Codex Vaticanus, with Lancelot Brenton's translation in English. It has υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Thanks, again.