Angels and their ability to sin

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think it's tradition. There seems to be biblical evidence the stars are angels, as you mentioned

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

But these angels in Rev 1 are not heavenly angels, for Jesus tells some of the angel of the churches to repent. In that case, angel is literally a messenger, as a called set preacher in a congregation.

Dan 8:10 It grew so big it reached the army of heaven, and it brought about the fall of some of the army and some of the stars to the ground, where it trampled them.

Army....the Host of heaven.

1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

Host
tsaw-baw', tseb-aw-aw'
From H6633; a mass of persons (or figurative things), especially regularly organized for war (an army); by implication a campaign, literally or figuratively (specifically hardship, worship): - appointed time, (+) army, (+) battle, company, host, service, soldiers, waiting upon, war (-fare).

Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Morning stars.

Now consider the context though

Rev 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,
Rev 12:8 but he was defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

I think IT IS heavenly angels in Rev 12. But to say WHEN that occurred is another thing. Some say it occurred before man's creation, others say it occurred in the days of satan's downfall after the cross. Some say it has not yet occurred!

[EVAunit01]

Originally Posted by mfblume

First of all, since Genesis mentions God creating Heaven and earth in the context leading up to Man's creation, and the same words describing Adam's creation in chapter 2 are noted in chapter 1 in that context, context shows Adam is the first man in Genesis.

Can you tell me specifically what words you are talking about? The book of Genesis is about the genesis of the Jews, not the universe. I agree that Adam is the first man mentioned in the book of Genesis. That however does not mean that he was the first man ever, or that he was the only man created.

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Cor 15:45 notes Adam as the first man. This is the head of the human race, as much as Jesus is the LAST Adam who is head of the new creation race.

1 Cor 15:47 says the second man is from heaven. If we take 1 Corinthians 15 literally as you have done for verse 45 we would have to say that either 1) Cain was from heaven or 2) Jesus was the second man on Earth. Which is it?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not only that, Adam is mentioned as being the reason we all shall die. We were IN ADAM as sinners. how did we get into Adam? We were born in his family. If Adam was not the first man, what about the people not derived from Adam. And, as I noted, sin is attributed to Adam in 1 Cor 15.

1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This means those not born of Adam, from some hypothetical other people, would not be in need of salvation.

There are a few possibilities. But whatever is the case on this issue it would not affect the other issue of whether or not other people not mentioned in the Bible lived during the time of Adam and Eve.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by EVAunit01

Can you tell me specifically what words you are talking about? The book of Genesis is about the genesis of the Jews, not the universe.

I disagree.

The beginnings of the Jews did not occur until Genesis 12 with Abraham. Before that, Abram was in Ur of the Chaldees with his father who w as an idol maker.

Genesis is not only about beginning of Jews but beginning of everything... creation, man and woman, sin, death, families, cities, artificers, musicians, Israel, gentiles...

I agree that Adam is the first man mentioned in the book of Genesis. That however does not mean that he was the first man ever, or that he was the only man created.

It has to, based upon what the New Testament says about Adam. I already noted that Adam was the one through whom sin and death came into the world. In Adam all die, Paul said. This means all must have descended from Adam.

You see, doctrinal statements affect all other areas of doctrine. To say Adam is not the first man literally is to affect all the references to why mankind is in sin, since Adam is attributed to be the cause of sin amongst humanity. And to say Adam is not the first man is to say there are other people descended from someone else before Adam who do not need salvation, for they did not come from Adam in whom all are said to die.

1 Cor 15:47 says the second man is from heaven. If we take 1 Corinthians 15 literally as you have done for verse 45 we would have to say that either 1) Cain was from heaven or 2) Jesus was the second man on Earth. Which is it?

You did not read all of what I said. I said "...just as Jesus is the LAST Adam who is head of the new creation race." Jesus is contrasted from Adam as the head of a new creation race. Adam would not be contrasted with Christ unless Adam was the head of the human race. By the degree in which Adam is contrasted with Christ, we know Adam must have been the first human being.

I did not mean that Jesus was the second one who existed. I meant that He is SECOND HEAD of a race in contrast to Adam. Jesus is not the last human being either, but second and last head of a race, since no more people will be head of any race as Jesus and Adam were. So, the point is that Adam was head of the human race.

And Adam is not the beginning of Israel because Abraham is counted in that context as head since he is father.

There are a few possibilities. But whatever is the case on this issue it would not affect the other issue of whether or not other people not mentioned in the Bible lived during the time of Adam and Eve.

I disagree. the context plainly shows Christ is antithetical to Adam.

[EVAunit01]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree.

The beginnings of the Jews did not occur until Genesis 12 with Abraham. Before that, Abram was in Ur of the Chaldees with his father who w as an idol maker.

Genesis is not only about beginning of Jews but beginning of everything... creation, man and woman, sin, death, families, cities, artificers, musicians, Israel, gentiles...

The first 12 chapters of Genesis deal with the ancestors of the Jewish people from Adam through Abraham. The last 38 deal with the Jewish people. Though talked about the creation of the universe and all life clearly isn’t the main point of Genesis.

One of my biggest issues with people who discuss religion is that Christian and atheist alike tend to treat the Bible as if it were a book of science. It isn’t. It’s a book of theology, history, poetry and other things. But it has nothing to do with science and I for one would wish people would realize this.

EDIT: I didn't mean that last sentence as a flame against you. It's just that that issue is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree.

The beginnings of the Jews did not occur until Genesis 12 with Abraham. Before that, Abram was in Ur
It has to, based upon what the New Testament says about Adam. I already noted that Adam was the one through whom sin and death came into the world. In Adam all die, Paul said. This means all must have descended from Adam.

You see, doctrinal statements affect all other areas of doctrine. To say Adam is not the first man literally is to affect all the references to why mankind is in sin, since Adam is attributed to be the cause of sin amongst humanity. And to say Adam is not the first man is to say there are other people descended from someone else before Adam who do not need salvation, for they did not come from Adam in whom all are said to die.



You did not read all of what I said. I said "...just as Jesus is the LAST Adam who is head of the new creation race." Jesus is contrasted from Adam as the head of a new creation race. Adam would not be contrasted with Christ unless Adam was the head of the human race. By the degree in which Adam is contrasted with Christ, we know Adam must have been the first human being.

I did not mean that Jesus was the second one who existed. I meant that He is SECOND HEAD of a race in contrast to Adam. Jesus is not the last human being either, but second and last head of a race, since no more people will be head of any race as Jesus and Adam were. So, the point is that Adam was head of the human race.

And Adam is not the beginning of Israel because Abraham is counted in that context as head since he is father.



I disagree. the context plainly shows Christ is antithetical to Adam.

I agree that Adam has a special place in Christian theology. But that doesn’t mean that he was the only human alive around the time of 4004 BC.

Also, I never claimed that Adam was an Israelite. However, he clearly is an ancestor of Abraham. My point was merely this: it makes perfect sense for the Jews, who were specially chosen by God, to focus on their history when writing about creation. It would not make sense for them to write about the ancestors of non-Jewish people. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by EVAunit01

The first 12 chapters of Genesis deal with the ancestors of the Jewish people from Adam through Abraham. The last 38 deal with the Jewish people. Though talked about the creation of the universe and all life clearly isn’t the main point of Genesis.

I agree the origin of the universe is not the point. The point is actually why God has to save mankind. However, beginning with the creation of the universe is not necessarily negated either just because science is not the point.

One of my biggest issues with people who discuss religion is that Christian and atheist alike tend to treat the Bible as if it were a book of science. It isn’t. It’s a book of theology, history, poetry and other things. But it has nothing to do with science and I for one would wish people would realize this.

I agree, basically. I would rather say the point is why we need salvation, and it simply mentions Adam was the first man at the dawn of creation, in order to lay that foundation for us and show us why all mankind, not just Semites, are in need of salvation.

EDIT: I didn't mean that last sentence as a flame against you. It's just that that issue is one of my biggest pet peeves.

I agree that Adam has a special place in Christian theology. But that doesn’t mean that he was the only human alive around the time of 4004 BC.

By the way the NT treats Adam as antithesis to Adam, I believe it must mean Adam was the first man. the NT simply says Adam caused mankind to come into sin and require salvation.

Also, I never claimed that Adam was an Israelite. However, he clearly is an ancestor of Abraham. My point was merely this: it makes perfect sense for the Jews, who were specially chosen by God, to focus on their history when writing about creation. It would not make sense for them to write about the ancestors of non-Jewish people. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

However, the NT is for all peoples of the earth, and it deals with Adam to help us understand our need of salvation in Christ.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Sam

OK, I'm not sure but they must have some free will because some of them rebelled against God.

Sounds like humans to me!:

[EVAunit01]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree the origin of the universe is not the point. The point is actually why God has to save mankind. However, beginning with the creation of the universe is not necessarily negated either just because science is not the point.



I agree, basically. I would rather say the point is why we need salvation, and it simply mentions Adam was the first man at the dawn of creation, in order to lay that foundation for us and show us why all mankind, not just Semites, are in need of salvation.



By the way the NT treats Adam as antithesis to Adam, I believe it must mean Adam was the first man. the NT simply says Adam caused mankind to come into sin and require salvation.



However, the NT is for all peoples of the earth, and it deals with Adam to help us understand our need of salvation in Christ.

I agree with a lot of what you said. But nowhere does the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the only people he created or that there were not other people alive during that time.

Falla39: Just because angels have free will wouldn't make them human.

[Falla39]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
OK, I'm not sure but they must have some free will because some of them rebelled against God.

Quoted by Falla39:
Sounds like humans to me!:

I posted that TIC because of Sam's statement about some of them rebelling
against God. That is just so like humans or many of them!