Redemption: The Big Picture

[Josheb]

You're questions about Dispensational Premillennialism are off topic.

No, they are not. You may not understand hos DPism corrupts the biblical account of redemptive history but it does. The point of the op is to assert God's plan of redemption as it applies to the saints here on earth. DPism asserts a viewpoint that is much different from historical orthodoxy. You can deny that fact and/or ignore the fact but you cannot say it is irrelevant to this op.

The other questions have been answered. Go back and look. I'm not gonna dig it out for you.

Okay. I'll look and get back to you.

 

[Arial]

I never said it was....why do you suggest I did?

You are treating it as though it has equal authority as the Bible. How are you doing this? You are using it to interpret a particular scripture. And what Enoch says goes beyond what the Bible says. Why do you think it is not in the Protestant canon?

What i have said if Joel quotes from it..and Moses quotes from it...should we simply toss it aside like you want to do?

The fact that people in the Bible quoted from it does not mean that authenticates it. Paul quoted from pagan sources.
Acts 17:28, likely from Epimenides of Crete (6th century BC and Aratus a stoic poet and echoed by Cleanthes, another stoic poet).
1 Cor 15:33. A direct quotation from Greek playwright Menander.
Titus 1:12. From Epimenides of Crete.

Does that mean we can use those works to interpret scripture or that all else they said is scriptural?


.

 

[Arial]

In my heritage are blood relatives that have 6 fingers. Does that make me an offspring of demons? I had a guy on my construction crew named Tiny, who could nail up soffit and fascia on the eaves of houses without a ladder; he was the smallest of his brothers —only a little over 7 foot tall. Are they offspring of demons?

There are genetically very tall people in this world. Big deal (no pun intended). For all I know, there were 15 foot tall giants in (yes, I made this word up but I like it) tabloidic tribes in the past and wars between them and nomadic people, and they mostly got wiped out.

I was preparing to ask the same thing. @CrowCross.

Also "giant" is usually used in other ways than the only way Crow seems to know to use it.

"He was a giant of a man." Either meaning he was large, or powerful in authority for either good or bad.

 

[makesends]

I never said it was....why do you suggest I did?
What i have said if Joel quotes from it..and Moses quotes from it...should we simply toss it aside like you want to do?

Have you ever read Enoch 6?

No I have not, thank God. Why does Enoch 6 matter?

Have you read 'Til We Have Faces'? It's ok. It doesn't matter.

 

[Arial]

You're questions about Dispensational Premillennialism are off topic.

You have no problem telling someone he is off topic if it is a topic you do not want to discuss at the moment. And yet ever since yur first post, post #6 and we are now on post #64, you have done nothing but switch the topic to Gen 6 which is utterly irrelevant to the OP topic. In spite of the fact that you have been told repeatedly that it was off topic and to start a thread on it if that was all you wanted to talk about. You simply say it isn't off topic and continue to do as you please--as though it were your thread and you are above all the rules. This is being said to you as admin, so don't go get in a huff about me posting off topic here.

Any more post by you on the topic of giants or angels copulating with humans will be deleted and I will start the thread on your subject for you when I get the time. The responses to your off-topic post will stand so as to not have to delete the entire thread.

By inserting Gen 6 and all that followed into a thread that was about the big picture of redemption, you have done exactly what the OP is presented to avoid. Divide scripture from its continuous forward flow as the plan of Redemption unfolds historically, into presenting the Bible as a series of stories unrelated to one another, and with their own independent of the whole, theological and doctrinal puzzles to solve.

So here is a question for you pulled straight from the OP as a guide to getting you back on the rails.

From looking at the beginning, middle, and end of the story, and the scriptures the OP has attached to them, what would you say is God's purpose of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden when there were only two people?

 

[CrowCross]

The Bible does supply what I provided. What I provided was that many places in the Bible God's people are called "sons of God". Do you think fallen angels are called sons of God. And I wasn't speculating either because I did not say "This is what it means!!" I was just showing you that your way is not the only way that passage is seen. That doesn't matter to you. It is your way or the highway. All you have done is picked which theory or argument----all of which have been going on among theologians for centuries---and said if it is what you believe then it has to be right. Those passages in Gen 6 are arguably the most debated of all time in the Bible.

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

gen·et·ics
[dʒɪˈnɛtɪks]
noun
genetics (noun)
genetics (plural noun)

1. the study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.

I didn't believe "Rosemary's Baby" was true either.

Did they cease to be spirit beings when they came to earth? And where does Scripture say they were on earth?

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

 

[Arial]

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

Neither I nor anyone else seem to be able to help you understand anything. You will just continue to argue about it. And I am not going to aid you any longer in your quest to stay off topic.

 

[CrowCross]

So here is a question for you pulled straight from the OP as a guide to getting back on the rails.

Fromm looking at the beginning, middle, and end of the story, and the scriptures the OP has attached to them, what would you say is God's purpose of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden when there were only two people?

The actual answer I don't know. I suggested God has legal boundaries. I could also suggest Adam and Eve were given free will to live or not live in those legal boundaries. Some might suggest that Adam and Eve were on probation. Some might suggest that God puts mankind through a test to see if they will be loyal and chooses them who don't continue in rebellion and human kind doesn't go the way of the angels. Some might even suggest Adam and Eve had to fall because they were not perfect like God is and only God can't sin. Some might say it is to show the God is also a judge or that God is love.......what do you say?

 

[CrowCross]

You are treating it as though it has equal authority as the Bible. How are you doing this? You are using it to interpret a particular scripture. And what Enoch says goes beyond what the Bible says. Why do you think it is not in the Protestant canon?

No I'm not. Did you know the Ethiopian bible still contains it?
Do you know the ancient Jews studied it?
Do you know parts of it were found with the dead sea scrolls?

But, now we are once again getting off topic.

 

[Arial]

The actual answer I don't know.

Hmmm. Amazing. Why is it difficult for you to see it when it is laid out, with Scripture, that connects the beginning, the middle and the end? Would't the end tell you what God's purpose is? And the beginning and the middle tell you how he planned to get to the end? And that the Bible is the story of Redemption playing out in history, always and in every place?
And that Christ is always and every place the subject, the central figure?

I suggested God has legal boundaries.

I suggest that God has no boundaries, legal or otherwise. Do you stand by that as stated or would you like to reword it?

I could also suggest Adam and Eve were given free will to live or not live in those legal boundaries.

You could. But my question was what was God's purpose of the fall, and a sub question to that, in the Garden of Eden when only Adam and Eve were created? He surely had one right?

Some might suggest that Adam and Eve were on probation.

Some in fact do, but that does not address the actual question.

Some might suggest that God puts mankind through a test to see if they will be loyal and chooses them who don't continue in rebellion and human kind doesn't go the way of the angels.

Some in fact do., They are called Dispenatiuonalists. So you see, that was not entirely off topic. What would have been off topic is if you then began talking about nothing but dispensational beliefs and diverted to first and second Thess and Ez and the white horse of Rev. But that does not address the question or that the question was directed at you to answer, not "some this" and "some that". The question being "What was God's purpose----that"?

Some might even suggest Adam and Eve had to fall because they were not perfect like God is and only God can't sin. Some might say it is to show the God is also a judge or that God is love.......

Since it is in the creation story, it would have something to do with why they were created and why God intended that they fall into sin. And it has to be related to all the rest of the Bible that follows. And it has to be working towards the end result. That is the thrust of my question.

what do you say?

Gen 3:15 God speaking to the serpent. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

 

[Arial]

No, I haven't picked which theory I liked best. Over the years I studied the passages and theories and found some of them lacking. In fact I use to scoff at the fallen angel/marrying women theory.
Then I learned more of it and settled on it as being the best 'theory".

I'm not sure I understand that question...and go in multiple directions. Perhaps you could refine it a bitt.

I gave the definition of genetics because you mocked me by implying that I was comparing the genetic process that might produce giants to the same genetics as are demonstrated in the account of Jacob and Laban in Gen 30. I don't know if you genuinely thought that is what I was doing or you pretended that was what I was doing so you could scoff. Color genetics in animals are not the same genetic codes that might produce giants but they are both genetics., Do you understand?

I mentioned not believing "Rosemary":s Baby was a true story because in that movie the devil copulates with a human to produce an evil person to do his bidding., See the connection?

I asked if those fallen angel you say had sexual relations with humans women ceased to be spirit beings when they came to earth because God designed creation to propagate by like with like. Spirit beings and flesh and blood humans are not alike. I asked where the Bible says they came to earth---in those fallen angels because I would like to to show me where the Bible says that. But I no longer want you to answer that question as then we could stay on your topic and not the OP.

I just satisfied your confusion here, or attempted to. And no response to my clarification is needed. Subject closed iow.