THE ANGELS THAT SINNED

[jeremiah1five]

Scriptural and common sense debunking of the false Sethite view.

Some people are "crazy."
This one is teaching error.
But then, some people are "crazy."
Loco. Out of his mind.
I'm a son of God. I'm an angel!
I have two natures!
Nuts.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Still no answers because you have none and divert from the topic by making judgments about me you are not qualified to make.

Of course, I'm qualified to make these judgments.

“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.”​

---- Thomas Paine.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Is that speaking of all the fallen angels..

It's addressing 'the angels that sinned.'
Seems all encompassing to me.
Surely there can't be angels that sinned that were not locked up.

or just the watchers?

You should post this. I'll be there.

Does it refer to the demons that are dead nephillim?

You think demons are dead nephalim but as Strong's defines the word it merely means "bullies" and "tyrants."
You spiritualize and come up error.
No one has been resurrected until the tombs opened in Matthew.
Lazarus was only resuscitated.
In true resurrection you don't have to open up the tombs.

 

[jeremiah1five]

@Wordsmith Get a KJV, pray (maybe fast a few days) and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you rather than referring to man.
You-Tubing your doctrine will take you places all over the map.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No one has been resurrected until the tombs opened in Matthew.
Lazarus was only resuscitated.
In true resurrection you don't have to open up the tombs.

If a "true resurrection" has no tomb being opened, then none of the Matthew 27 resurrected saints had a true resurrection either, since their tombs were broken open by the earthquake.

Lazarus was not in a 4 day "coma" to be resuscitated. The young man had started to stink by then, and corruption had set in. Lazarus was given a bona fide resurrection of a glorified, changed body made immortal.

 

[jeremiah1five]

If a "true resurrection" has no tomb being opened, then none of the Matthew 27 resurrected saints had a true resurrection either, since their tombs were broken open by the earthquake.

Lazarus was not in a 4 day "coma" to be resuscitated. The young man had started to stink by then, and corruption had set in. Lazarus was given a bona fide resurrection of a glorified, changed body made immortal.

Lazarus later died.
No one is immortal but God.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Lazarus later died.
No one is immortal but God.

No, Lazarus could not possibly die twice. There are no scripture texts that say so. Luke 20:35-36 denies that possibility. Dying twice also goes against the Hebrews 9:27 rule where "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, and after that the judgment."

Yes, God is said to be the only one with intrinsic immortality, but with the bodily resurrection of the saints, they "put on immortality" when their mortal bodies are changed into the immortal and incorruptible condition that fits them for dwelling in God's presence. This process is described in 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. Those who are "IN Christ" will share in His immortality in the resurrected state.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, Lazarus could not possibly die twice. There are no scripture texts that say so. Luke 20:35-36 denies that possibility. Dying twice also goes against the Hebrews 9:27 rule where "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, and after that the judgment."

Yes, God is said to be the only one with intrinsic immortality, but with the bodily resurrection of the saints, they "put on immortality" when their mortal bodies are changed into the immortal and incorruptible condition that fits them for dwelling in God's presence. This process is described in 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. Those who are "IN Christ" will share in His immortality in the resurrected state.

If Lazarus is immortal, then he's still on the planet. Maybe he's the so-called 'wandering "Jew"?'
He can't be killed.
He's lived through the dark ages, the Reformation, maybe he was in Japan on August 6, 1945, say, Hiroshima?
Maybe he's online right now. Maybe he's the antichrist?
Nah.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If Lazarus is immortal, then he's still on the planet. Maybe he's the so-called 'wandering "Jew"?'
He can't be killed.
He's lived through the dark ages, the Reformation, maybe he was in Japan on August 6, 1945, say, Hiroshima?
Maybe he's online right now. Maybe he's the antichrist?
Nah.

No, Lazarus is not on the planet anymore. He left with the bodily-returning Christ and all the newly-resurrected believers on Pentecost day in AD 70 (at the end of Daniel's predicted 1,335th day countdown). That was the "rapture" event which Paul described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Lazarus was one of those that Paul said were "alive" but who had "remained" on the earth until Christ's coming. Together with the newly-resurrected ones, they met Christ together in the air at the Mount of Olives location and returned to heaven with Him.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, Lazarus is not on the planet anymore. He left with the bodily-returning Christ and all the newly-resurrected believers on Pentecost day in AD 70 (at the end of Daniel's predicted 1,335th day countdown). That was the "rapture" event which Paul described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Lazarus was one of those that Paul said were "alive" but who had "remained" on the earth until Christ's coming. Together with the newly-resurrected ones, they met Christ together in the air at the Mount of Olives location and returned to heaven with Him.

What's with all the calculations?
Jesus said NO ONE KNOWS when He's coming back, not even Himself.
So, what makes you or your church confident you can calculate His return?
You can't.
So, get real and come down to earth with the rest of us peasants and rst your neck.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What's with all the calculations?
Jesus said NO ONE KNOWS when He's coming back, not even Himself.
So, what makes you or your church confident you can calculate His return?

They aren't my calculations, they are Daniel's. Daniel predicted two notable events that would take place during the same season of time in Daniel 12:11-13 which would start a 1,335-day countdown. At the end of that 1,335th day, Daniel himself would participate in a resurrection. Those two events are ancient history by now, having both occurred in AD 66 during the same season of time. Anyone who could read Daniel in Christ's day could figure this out. "Let him that readeth understand...", Christ said.

The reason no man in those days would know the day or the hour was because Christ's return would be timed according to the day Pentecost would take place. This in turn was timed according to the day Passover took place - 50 days earlier. This was dependent upon the new moon's appearance. The priests would ordinarily watch the skies industriously for the first sign of the new moon. This was the "sign of the Son of Man in heaven" (Matt. 24:30) that was related to Christ's return.

Why else do you suppose the post-exilic Israelites were instructed to worship facing the eastern gate in the Sabbaths and the new moons? (Ezekiel 46:1-3). That worship was related to the location and the timing of Christ's return to the Mount of Olives.

And that phrase "no man knoweth the day nor the hour" is a verb in the present tense. It doesn't say that no man would ever know the day nor the hour. Nor does it say that it is a sin to figure out when this day and hour occurred. Nor does it say that Christ would remain ignorant of that day and hour once He ascended to heaven. That is the reason for the entire book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it says that God told Jesus to tell John so that John could tell Christ's servants what was shortly to come to pass for them in that generation. Doesn't sound as if Christ remained in ignorance for very long about the day and hour of His own return to earth. He wanted His servants informed of the events surrounding His coming in their generation.

 

[SeventhDay]

That scripture in Ezekiel 28:11--19 is not describing the human prince of Tyre (who is described earlier in Ezekiel 28:1-10), but the angelic prince of Tyre that was working behind the scenes attempting to corrupt and deceive the human prince of Tyre and that entire city. (The story behind Satan's reason for wishing to corrupt the city of Tyre is a fascinating study, as an aside.)

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth" (Ez. 28:14) God told this creature. Adam was not a cherub that covered anything, so this Ezekiel 28:11-19 passage cannot possibly be describing him. This "covering" is in reference to the role of the two cherubim in heaven who originally "covered" the ark in heaven's temple.

And yes, Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning of the Fall of mankind when he effectively murdered the human race by his temptation which caused death of body, soul, and spirit for the originally-sinless couple.

This couple was originally created sinless (included in the "good and very good" summation of all God created). However, anything that is a created being is necessarily of a lesser order than the Almighty Creator Himself who "changes not". As such, created beings that are given the choice to perform either good or evil have the potential to fall from that sinless position...a probationary status of sorts. God, who knew the inevitable results of giving mankind this option of freely choosing between good and evil, made advance plans to rescue mankind from that inevitable, disastrous fall from perfection.

God who "changes not" is the only one who can be trusted with this potent power of free will. It is a dangerous, two-edged sword in the hands of any created being. Eventually over time, a third of the angels failed this free-will test (leaving the "elect angels" preserved in a righteous state), and mankind failed this free-will test as well. God has rescued and ordained a vast majority of elect from humankind as well, to be preserved as His children until their perfection is completed in a bodily resurrection, never to fall or die again.

Is there such a thing as free will? We can make influenced choices but is that free will?

Now if Adam was created perfect he would not have sinned and he would not have a need for a Savior. Perfect man was not and neither was Jesus as the son of man but became perfect through the things he suffered.

Now the beginning of Satan is what he always was and he did not change. Satan was created to do what he does and so was Adam but Adam was innocent before he transgressed God because there was no law to transgress.

Show me in scripture that God deals with Satan the way he deals with man. What law was Satan under? Who is he any way? We know very little about him but we think we know him!

What is a cherub? Very few understand its meaning and that includes me. However, why would God anoint an angel like he anoints men? We do not understand very much about angels either except that they are messengers. Now, how do angels become evil and how do they operate and under what laws?

Let us be honest. We understand very little how principalities work nor do we understand ourselves with its carnal mind but if we are spiritual we learn how the carnal mind works and about principalities as God makes it know to us.

God bless you.

 

[jeremiah1five]

They aren't my calculations, they are Daniel's. Daniel predicted two notable events that would take place during the same season of time in Daniel 12:11-13 which would start a 1,335-day countdown. At the end of that 1,335th day, Daniel himself would participate in a resurrection. Those two events are ancient history by now, having both occurred in AD 66 during the same season of time. Anyone who could read Daniel in Christ's day could figure this out. "Let him that readeth understand...", Christ said.

The reason no man in those days would know the day or the hour was because Christ's return would be timed according to the day Pentecost would take place. This in turn was timed according to the day Passover took place - 50 days earlier. This was dependent upon the new moon's appearance. The priests would ordinarily watch the skies industriously for the first sign of the new moon. This was the "sign of the Son of Man in heaven" (Matt. 24:30) that was related to Christ's return.

Why else do you suppose the post-exilic Israelites were instructed to worship facing the eastern gate in the Sabbaths and the new moons? (Ezekiel 46:1-3). That worship was related to the location and the timing of Christ's return to the Mount of Olives.

And that phrase "no man knoweth the day nor the hour" is a verb in the present tense. It doesn't say that no man would ever know the day nor the hour. Nor does it say that it is a sin to figure out when this day and hour occurred. Nor does it say that Christ would remain ignorant of that day and hour once He ascended to heaven. That is the reason for the entire book of Revelation. In the very first verse, it says that God told Jesus to tell John so that John could tell Christ's servants what was shortly to come to pass for them in that generation. Doesn't sound as if Christ remained in ignorance for very long about the day and hour of His own return to earth. He wanted His servants informed of the events surrounding His coming in their generation.

No man would nor will know the day or hour of Christ's return.

That means NO MAN.

 

[Wordsmith]

@Wordsmith Get a KJV, pray (maybe fast a few days) and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you rather than referring to man.
You-Tubing your doctrine will take you places all over the map.

Actually I did not arrive at my conclusion on this topic from YouTube, that said the two videos I provided do clearly and scripturally make valid points which you are unable (my guess) or unwilling to address.

So far on this thread I have read several people throw out the Sethite view which not one person is able to scripturally defend it when questions are raised.

The Sethite view came much later in history and was basically contrived to avoid facing the reality of what scripture actually says and what the majority of early historical believers believed to be true.

If you came to your conclusions after a 40 day fast I suggest you do another 40.

You are very good at repeating yourself, judging the motives and in some case the salvation of others but you come up short on actually supporting your false doctrine on this topic with facts, scripture and exegesis.

You theory about demons and Jesus being tempted by His attitude did not come from the Holy Spirit or a fast.

I have dealt with Mormons, JW's and Muslims that did a better Job of defending their positions on various doctrine than you have on this topic.

Repeating the same old worn-out unscriptural rants does not deal with the questions ask of you. Everyone here by now knows what you believe about 2 Peter. Everyone here also knows you cannot deal with a challenge to those beliefs without questioning the spirituality, salvation, or motives of those that disagree with you and displaying your self perceived spiritual superiority

I will either defend every position I discuss with scriptural reasoning or I will simply say I don't know.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No man would nor will know the day or hour of Christ's return.

That is adding to the scripture. "No man KNOWETH the day nor the hour" was a THEN PRESENT reality as those words were being spoken. It would be the same as if I said, "No man knoweth the result of the 2024 election." A present reality, but not always to be the case.

 

[Wordsmith]

No, Lazarus could not possibly die twice. There are no scripture texts that say so. Luke 20:35-36 denies that possibility. Dying twice also goes against the Hebrews 9:27 rule where "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die, and after that the judgment."

Yes, God is said to be the only one with intrinsic immortality, but with the bodily resurrection of the saints, they "put on immortality" when their mortal bodies are changed into the immortal and incorruptible condition that fits them for dwelling in God's presence. This process is described in 1 Corinthians 15:52-54. Those who are "IN Christ" will share in His immortality in the resurrected state.

Lazarus was not raised to immortality, you miss apply scripture here.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Jesus was the first born from the dead meaning the first raised to immortality not the first brought back from death. People are resuscitated in hospitals routinely from being dead, others have been brought back from death by prayer both in Biblical days and all throughout the church age, but those can and do die again.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Lazarus was not raised to imrotalty you miss apply scripture here.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Jesus was the first born from the dead meaning the first raised to immortality not the first brought back from death. People are resuscitated in hospitals routinely from being dead others have been brought back from death by prayer both in Biblical days and all throughout the church age, but those can and do die again.

Jesus Christ is the First fruits of EVERYTHING.

 

[Wordsmith]

Jesus Christ is the First fruits of EVERYTHING.

We can actually agree on somethings.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Actually I did not arrive at my conclusion on this topic from YouTube, that said the two videos I provided do clearly and scripturally make valid points which you are unable (my guess) or unwilling to address.
So far on this thread I have read several people throw out the Sethite view which not one person is able to scripturally defend it when questions are raised.

What is there to defend. That's the only reasonable understanding of who the sons of God are.

The Sethite view came much later in history and was basically contrived to avoid facing the reality of what scripture actually says and what the majority of early historical believers believed to be true.

A great deal of 'views' on doctrine came about later. We and they did not know everything in one lesson.

If you came to your conclusions after a 40 day fast I suggest you do another 40.
You are very good at repeating yourself, judging the motives and in some case the salvation of others but you come up short on actually supporting your false doctrine on this topic with facts, scripture and exegesis.
You theory about demons and Jesus being tempted by His attitude did not come from the Holy Spirit or a fast.
I have dealt with Mormons, JW's and Muslims that did a better Job of defending their positions on various doctrine than you have on this topic.
Repeating the same old worn-out unscriptural rants does not deal with the questions ask of you. Everyone here by now knows what you believe about 2 Peter. Everyone here also knows you cannot deal with a challenge to those beliefs without questioning the spirituality, salvation, or motives of those that disagree with you and displaying your self perceived spiritual superiority
I will either defend every position I discuss with scriptural reasoning or I will simply say I don't know.

Do you have two natures? No, you don't. It wasn't necessary for any outside influences to test Jesus. He knew who He was.
The human nature of Christ was tested. He knew He had a human nature. He knew it needed to be tested especially after the Holy Spirit drove Him out of the city for that testing.

4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
The Holy Spirit Authored the Scripture. He calls the human nature of Jesus "devil" which means "traducer" which means "false accuser."

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Jesus fasted. The "devil": did not make Him do it.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Jesus knew He was the Son of God. On that knowledge He considered making stones into bread but the Logos addressed it with Scripture

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
ibid.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
The "devil" doesn't have such power. Jesus walked to the Temple.

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Again, being tested as to His power to float to the ground. But nowhere in the Gospels did Jesus ever do this.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Two natures. One human (Jesus), the other divine (Christ.)

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
If you take "devil" as a person (Satan/Lucifer) which is grammatically impossible since the word is an adjective and NOT a noun, angels don't have such power over the Son to abduct Him to places they want to go. NO WHERE in Scripture is Jesus Christ subservient to angels, besides, they are all locked up so find some other explanation for who the "devil" is because it is NOT an angel.

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
It's all about who's going to have the preeminence: Human or Deity.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
God wins the day.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. Mt 4:1-11
The human mind ceases its attempt at running the show.
And these are the good, elect angels of God. Not the ones that sinned for they are all locked up.

Very simple. Two natures. Human and divine. But you could never understand what it's like. One Mind. Two natures. Which one is going to ascend? The Logos wins.

 

[Wordsmith]

What is there to defend. That's the only reasonable understanding of who the sons of God are.

You didn't get there from from scripture you need that to be true to support a preconceived theory. There are many in the church today and all throughout church history and before the church came into being that believe differently than you.