Genesis 6:1-5 who are the sons of God and daughters of man that is talked about?

[EarlyActs]

Well, if the head covering of women actually was related to the angels who might again have been tempted to commit the same sin again as in Genesis 6, it would no longer be a problem after they were all destroyed in the AD 70 era, leaving only the "elect angels" who have been preserved in a righteous standing before God.

I understand it does give people cause to question why I would claim this Satanic realm was completely destroyed back then in the AD 70 era, but I do this with a list of a number of scriptures which are quite plain that angels had their imminent destruction looming in those first-century days, and they were well aware of it. However, I should probably put all that information in a post dedicated to that theme alone, for clarity.

Yes on dedicated post. Keep in mind that I hold the delay doctrine about Mt 24:29+. That the shift to worldwide judgement after v29 is delayed.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes on dedicated post. Keep in mind that I hold the delay doctrine about Mt 24:29+. That the shift to worldwide judgement after v29 is delayed.

I believe this is also the view presented by Dr. Gentry. However, I see the entire context of Matthew 24 as one cohesive whole without a delay inserted, because Luke puts no such delay in his same account of these words of Christ on that same occasion. As long as one sees a yet future third bodily resurrection event for us at a final return of Christ, then a second bodily resurrection at Christ's return taking place back in AD 70 is not a problem.

 

[GeneZ]

No, I'm not, although I realize that the word "satan" can and is also used simply as an "accuser" in scripture. I am referring to the celestial fallen angels and unclean spirits whose entire realm led by the Devil / the Dragon / that "Old Serpent" / and Satan were all destroyed from the earth and have not been in existence now since the AD 70 era. God did a complete purge of them at that time.

If you think we are purged of Satan and his angels now?

How can that be?

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you think we are purged of Satan and his angels now?

How can that be?

I can give all the scripture evidence for this eradication of the entire Satanic realm in AD 70, but it really needs to be in another post with that title.

 

[GeneZ]

I can give all the scripture evidence for this eradication of the entire Satanic realm in AD 70, but it really needs to be in another post with that title.

Go ahead... Then let me know, please.

But, while you are at it? John wrote Revelation well after 70AD - circa 90-96 AD.
Satan is mentioned as being still active.


“I know your works and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. You hold firmly to my name, and didn’t deny my faith in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells." Revelation 2:13


"And after the thousand years, Satan will be released from his prison... Revelation 20:7

Why is that?

 

[donadams]

All the fallen angels are now dead. God killed Satan and destroyed the entire Satanic realm back in AD 70. Yes, pride had much to do with the different sins (plural) which the third of the righteous angels committed, causing their fallen condition. One of those sins was in taking human women to sire hybrid sons, since all angels in scripture are presented as male, with no way to propagate their own species among themselves.

In revolt against that limitation on their species, some angels over time during the OT left their principality and habitation in which they were created and infiltrated humankind's gene pool. For which crime they were held in judgment until their destruction.

Another way the angels fell into pride was in accepting worship from the Gentiles - and from the Jews when they fell into idolatry.
Satan's sin which caused his fall from perfection was definitely characterized by pride, as Ezekiel 28:17 and 1 Timothy 3:6 both describe.

Scripture about this 70ad bit please?

Are you saying God failed in making only male angels? They are pure spirits “no bodies” not male or female besides male and female are not species.

Thanks

 

[3 Resurrections]

But, while you are at it? John wrote Revelation well after 70AD - circa 90-96 AD.
Satan is mentioned as being still active.

Satan most definitely was actively released on earth at the time John was writing Revelation - which by combined internal evidence was dated somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60 - no later than that, since the letter to Laodicea had to go out before the disastrous AD 60 earthquake that decimated that city. God through John said to the Laodicean church that He was "about to spue thee out of my mouth", which indicates this imminent AD 60 earthquake for Laodicea when John was writing.

The end of the millennium is simple to prove by comparing just two verses in Revelation. Satan's "little season" of release was to take place at the END of the millennium when the "remnant of the dead" came back to life again as the "First resurrection" (Rev. 20:3-7). This "First resurrection" event was in AD 33 with Christ the First-fruits and those many Matthew 27 resurrected saints (144,000 of those First-fruits saints).

John said in Revelation 12:12 that Satan had already come down to earth in great wrath, knowing that he had but a "short time" at that point. This "short time" is the same as the "little season" of Satan's release at the END of the millennium (in AD 33). Put these two texts together, and Satan's "little season" at the END of the millennium had already begun before John was writing Revelation - in AD 59 / 60.

 

[donadams]

What does the "then" refer back to? You are quite a difficult person to follow.

At the NET version with the most text notes out there, read note ai and aj on 'ekporneia.' Of course pride can be involved in sexual sin, but cannot be compartmentalized. The NET is available at biblegateway.com.

If you are connecting verses 6 & 7

Why not connect verses 5 & 6?
And unbelief?
Thanks

 

[donadams]

It identifies the subject (compound) and the verbal clause (about being an example of destruction).

This sentence also has an explanatory clause "since..." The corrupt teachers will end up like the cities and the angels.

Two sexual sins are identified, and the cities and the corrupt teachers did them as the rebellious angels did. You see, in Judaism at the time, there were groups which said that they had heard from the same angels that delivered the torah (Col 2) and that resulted in Judaizers. But in Jude and 2 Peter 2, you are dealing with sexual perversion, quite opposite to Judaizing. But what do they appeal to for their basis? Angels again.

Would you please explain in detail what you are expecting rebellious angels to act like? They mess up EVERYTHING about God's creation that they can.

Only the rebellion of pride!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are you saying God failed in making only male angels? They are pure spirits “no bodies” not male or female

No, this was not a "failure". God created a set number of angels with no commands for them to "be fruitful and multiply" as He designed for humanity to do. Any instances of angelic activity revealed in scripture are exclusively presented as male and never female. And no, they are not only spirit beings, any more than we are only spirit beings.

Paul contrasted the different types of flesh in 1 Corinthians 15:39-40, and said, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." The angelic realm was created with a body form of one kind of glory which was not to mix with the bodies of the terrestrial human forms. The angels who broke that restriction by God on their own kind did so by interjecting themselves into humankind via the daughters of men.

God's creative actions during that first week had each of the animals reproducing "after its kind". Since the angels couldn't do this with their own kind, in rebellion some of them "left their habitation" and mixed with humankind instead.

And I will start a post soon with the theme of the AD 70 destruction of the entire Satanic realm as presented in scripture.

 

[donadams]

No, this was not a "failure". God created a set number of angels with no commands for them to "be fruitful and multiply" as He designed for humanity to do. Any instances of angelic activity revealed in scripture are exclusively presented as male and never female. And no, they are not only spirit beings, any more than we are only spirit beings.

Paul contrasted the different types of flesh in 1 Corinthians 15:39-40, and said, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." The angelic realm was created with a body form of one kind of glory which was not to mix with the bodies of the terrestrial human forms. The angels who broke that restriction by God on their own kind did so by interjecting themselves into humankind via the daughters of men.

God's creative actions during that first week had each of the animals reproducing "after its kind". Since the angels couldn't do this with their own kind, in rebellion some of them "left their habitation" and mixed with humankind instead.

And I will start a post soon with the theme of the AD 70 destruction of the entire Satanic realm as presented in scripture.

Don’t forget to add James 4:7 and 1 pet 5:8

Celestial bodies refers to planets jot angels

Angels are pure spirits not fruitful no offspring

Man is a hybrid body and soul

Thanks

 

[3 Resurrections]

Celestial bodies refers to planets jot angels

I'm afraid not in this 1 Cor. 15:40 passage. The sun, moon, and stars are given as addititonal types of glory in the next verse #41 - not the same as the glory which the angelic celestial bodies have, or the glory which the terrestrial bodies of humanity have.

The context of Jude 6-8 tells us that the angels, just as Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities, as well as the "filthy dreamers" of Jude's day had all similarly "defiled the FLESH". It's a different kind of flesh for the angels, with different capabilities to be sure, but flesh nonetheless.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you are connecting verses 6 & 7

Why not connect verses 5 & 6?
And unbelief?
Thanks

The comparison is to their sexual deviance. You are breaking the established grammar of "since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire[ai] in a way similar to[aj] these angels," which is also found in the corrupt teachers. Very explicit terms are used. Yes it takes pride and unbelief, but you are the one avoiding what it is saying, not me.

I now know that even if the text said so, you would have a problem. Why?

 

[EarlyActs]

Don’t forget to add James 4:7 and 1 pet 5:8

Celestial bodies refers to planets jot angels

Angels are pure spirits not fruitful no offspring

Man is a hybrid body and soul

Thanks

You are way off Don. You are not following the narrative of Genesis. Food was offered to "the visitors" and S&G wanted to have sexual relations with "the visitors."

In other cases, when angels appear, they make people afraid. That's not a pure spirit, it is visible.

 

[EarlyActs]

Only the rebellion of pride!

The rebellion acted out in a sexual way, to see what kind of creatures they could create. That's where the evil creatures of Gen 6 come from. You are breaking the narrative.

 

[GeneZ]

Satan most definitely was actively released on earth at the time John was writing Revelation - which by combined internal evidence was dated somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60 - no later than that, since the letter to Laodicea had to go out before the disastrous AD 60 earthquake that decimated that city. God through John said to the Laodicean church that He was "about to spue thee out of my mouth", which indicates this imminent AD 60 earthquake for Laodicea when John was writing.

The end of the millennium is simple to prove by comparing just two verses in Revelation. Satan's "little season" of release was to take place at the END of the millennium when the "remnant of the dead" came back to life again as the "First resurrection" (Rev. 20:3-7). This "First resurrection" event was in AD 33 with Christ the First-fruits and those many Matthew 27 resurrected saints (144,000 of those First-fruits saints).

John said in Revelation 12:12 that Satan had already come down to earth in great wrath, knowing that he had but a "short time" at that point. This "short time" is the same as the "little season" of Satan's release at the END of the millennium (in AD 33). Put these two texts together, and Satan's "little season" at the END of the millennium had already begun before John was writing Revelation - in AD 59 / 60.

I have a feeling that I need to see my doctor again to get a cult shot.

I'm allergic to them...

 

[3 Resurrections]

I have a feeling that I need to see my doctor again to get a cult shot.

I'm allergic to them...

So am I. I was in a "church" for 16 years in a very spiritually-oppressive environment. It well deserved to be called a cult. An Independant Baptist group with a stifling loyalty demanded by a narcissistic leader with some serious control issues. Got out of it back in the 1990's only by the mercy of God. And now I'm forever inoculated against blind allegiance to any man in the pulpit. Or blind allegiance to any man on my bookshelf either.

 

[GeneZ]

So am I. I was in a "church" for 16 years in a very spiritually-oppressive environment. It well deserved to be called a cult. An Independant Baptist group with a stifling loyalty demanded by a narcissistic leader with some serious control issues. Got out of it back in the 1990's only by the mercy of God. And now I'm forever inoculated against blind allegiance to any man in the pulpit. Or blind allegiance to any man on my bookshelf either.

That was Spiritual child abuse....

But you are reacting only. Not finding a solution.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That was Spiritual child abuse....

But you are reacting only. Not finding a solution.

Actually, I was a young parent with three young children growing up in that toxic environment during that time. It left a mark, but not one which has ruined my desire for fellowship, or I wouldn't be on here earnestly wanting to exchange views with others and examine the scriptures between us. There is a fine line between chucking all others' opinions and being a "noble Berean". I try to find the right balance as best I can.

 

[donadams]

Jesus says angels do not marry (Gen 6 wives = marriage)

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



Psalm 104:4
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
“pure spirits” “no bodies”

Lk 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.

Angels don’t have bodies and cannot procreate

Elsewhere in genesis it Does not say “son’s of God” but angels!
Gen 19:1
Gen 28:12
Gen 32:1

Satan is the leader of the fallen angels and he never lusts after eve? He communicated with her but did not desire her, why not?
May be more than one meaning to the term “son’s of God” just there is more than one meaning to the word “father”.


Who says we have the right to decide these things? Christians must be taught:

Lk 1:4
Matt 28:19
Lk 10:16
Jn 20:21
Acts 8:31
Colossians 2:7

Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13) one faith (eph 4:5) the faith delivered to the apostles (Jude 1:3)