Angels reproducing with humans possible?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are comparing ancient Semetic culture to a NT paradigm

How so when Paul is showing the Roman Jews and Gentiles that God's righteousness is manifest in the Gospel?

Paul is not referring to any OT saint in particular. Also he is not talking about the righteous but those who have received the Spirit of Christ

so if all those Sons of God have already received the Spirit of Christ and COULD, why would Jesus have to come and die?

#context

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Again he is making God's righteousness manifest in the Gospel. That is the whole point. So, he can use "sons of God" just like Moses did in an indirect way - "Israel is my son."

There is still a promise of rest that Israel's son has not obtained. Paul speaks of it in Hebrews 4:8-9.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

How so when Paul is showing the Roman Jews and Gentiles that God's righteousness is manifest in the Gospel?



Again he is making God's righteousness manifest in the Gospel. That is the whole point. So, he can use "sons of God" just like Moses did in an indirect way - "Israel is my son."

There is still a promise of rest that Israel's son has not obtained. Paul speaks of it in Hebrews 4:8-9.

Again the context of Romans 8 is those who are filled with the Spirit of Christ

In fact Paul contrasts it with being under the Law

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

You are comparing a NT paradigm with an OT semitic term (again see Daniel and Job)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again the context of Romans 8 is those who are filled with the Spirit of Christ

In fact Paul contrasts it with being under the Law

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

You are comparing a NT paradigm with an OT semitic term (again see Daniel and Job)

The intent of the WHOLE Book of Romans is to show that salvation is offered through Jesus Christ – to the Jew first and then to the Greek.

How Paul does that, 51 times in Romans, is by using quotations from the Septuagint, linking the Gospel to the OT prophetic affirmation of God’s justice and righteousness. He is proclaiming that God’s righteousness is now, without a doubt, manifest in the Gospel.

In Romans 10:6-8 he quotes Moses in Deut 30:11-14. He is very familiar with Moses of Israel - God's son.

Moses is instructed in Exodus to tell Pharaoh that ISRAEL IS HIS (God's) SON. The means the Jews are the "sons of God".

We've also already discussed that Seth is mentioned in Genesis 4- the religious family.

Cain in mentioned in Genesis 5 - the non-religious family.

We then go on to chapter 6 of Genesis distinguishing between the two - "sons of God" - religious - daughters of men - non-religious.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The intent of the WHOLE Book of Romans is to show that salvation is offered through Jesus Christ – to the Jew first and then to the Greek.

Right and WHEN was it offered? When was the Spirit of Christ given?

The term "Sons of God" is being used in a NT paradigm to refer to those who have the Spirit of Christ IN them

Where as the phrase in the OT was a Semitic idiomatic expression for a divine being

That is clearly demonstrated from Daniel and Job

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right and WHEN was it offered? When was the Spirit of Christ given?

The term "Sons of God" is being used in a NT paradigm to refer to those who have the Spirit of Christ IN them

Where as the phrase in the OT was a Semitic idiomatic expression for a divine being

That is clearly demonstrated from Daniel and Job

Listen, I'll make a deal. If Bro Blume comes back and posts in your favor, then I will consider changing my view. He is very good at explaining things very clearly, leaving no questions remaining.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

People have NO EXPLANATION as to what the writer means by the "angels who sinned" or that "left their own habitation". Its very simple. All the worlds historians point back to a time when beings came down from the Heavens.

That makes it a biblical fact? Were these historians there when the angels morphed into humans?

Or...were these historians commenting on the subject exactly like we are maybe???


Could these historians be working for the National Enquirer?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK let us put aside the Book of Enoch as unreliable.

Let us go straight to the Bible. the word of God.

Look at what it says about the time of creation, before there were any humans at all.

Job 38
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

at this point there are no humans, but the angels are called sons of God.
The words sons of God in the Old Testament are a clear reference to angels.

Guys, it seems to me that both angels or humans are equally called "sons of God"(in reading all of the recent posts). If you really want it to say ANGELS there in Gen. 6, then go for it. As Michael says...all the historians that were there agree with you...LOL

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Listen, I'll make a deal. If Bro Blume comes back and posts in your favor, then I will consider changing my view. He is very good at explaining things very clearly, leaving no questions remaining.

1) I don't care if you change your views

2) I don't care if Mike posts in my favor

3) when did this go from a discussion to a contest?

[shag]

How big would the 'fallen angels' have been, to mate w say a 5'9" woman, and "throw" a child that would be born(how big?)and grow to be maybe 12' tall or so?
Not an easy pregnancy fo sho

[Carl]

Originally Posted by shag

How big would the 'fallen angels' have been, to mate w say a 5'9" woman, and "throw" a child that would be born(how big?)and grow to be maybe 12' tall or so?
Not an easy pregnancy fo sho

Following this discussion I've been wondering if someone would bring this up.