Giants and the sons of god

[other one]

Tom Horn from Raiders News Network that used to post his stuff here has a very indepth study and research of this subject..... I am not sure if his site is considered a conspiracy site so I won't post it here, but you can find it.

Sam

[Guest Christopher_John]

Are you saying that demon possession isn't happening right now, during our time, but will come later?

No, it definately continues during present day and it will increase because part of the Messianic prophecies concerning the 2nd coming are hinged on the people of Israel coming to repentance for the rejection of Jesus. This is why only our Father in Heaven knows when this will happen, because even God Himself refers to the Jews as a "stiff necked people" in Exodus, which means "a stubborn people."

After Jesus condemned the religious leadership of Israel and spoke the eight woes Mathew 23:13-31, he then sets the condition for His return in verses 37-39:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The term henceforth means from this point on, Jesus was declaring that the rejection of Israel's Messiah was now complete, although they (religious leaders) did continue to deal with the humanity of who Jesus was, the chance to deal with their King had come and gone and the means of salvation for all mankind was set in motion. The conspiracy which lead to the Jews bringing Christ before the Romans (Gentiles) for His crucifixion, brought a common union between Jew and Gentile, in other words, they were guilty by association for His death and this is why Christ specifically prophesied to His deciples that he must be handed over to the Gentiles for crucifixion by the Scribes and Pharasees, Mathew 20:18-19, thus breaking down the partition between Jew and Gentile and creating one new man under the blood of Christ. Ephesians 2:11-16

I know I'm getting a little off topic, but it's all connected.

There was an increase before the three years of Jesus' active ministry; wouldn't there be an increase before the Tribulation as well, and not simply during?

Personally I'd have to agree with you, if Mathew 23:39 is what determines the 2nd coming (Israel coming to repentance over Christ) then definately there is great amounts of stanic and demonic activity that will try and interevene any way they can from bringing about Israel's repentance. The Millennial reign of Christ follows His second coming and then eventually the eternal order by which He will have placed all of His enemies under His feet, if anything, when hearing modern day statements like the ones Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made last year, that Israel should be obliterated from the face of the earth, this clearly tells me that there is definately demonic or satanic influences surrounding his Presidency, if Ahmadinejad's will was to succeed in destroying all Jews...who would be left to repent for Israel in order to issue the Messianic greeting to Christ "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord"? No one, Satan and his fallen angels could potentially reign supreme over humanity for all eternity in our earthly abode. So it is an opportunity for some demons to be active right now but only under the will of God because they have already been defeated by Christ's death at the cross.

Just some things to contemplate, when you take demons (fallen angels) into account and the reality that there are true demonic/satanic influences scripturally, then there really is no justification for altering the term that sons of God in Genesis 6 was intended to imply the sons of Seth.

Peace

CJ

[None]

I know I'm getting a little off topic, but it's all connected.

It certainly is, and isn't it beautiful the way it connects?

God is awesome.

...then their really is no justification for altering the term sons of God in Genesis 6 was intended to imply the sons of Seth.

I completely agree with that. The first I'd heard this "explanation" was here in this thread. I'd always thought they were fallen angels, just by the "greater context" of the Bible in completion and how that term's been used throughout. It often seems like things are unnessesarily complicated to keep us Christians busily trying to re-explain the Truth.

[Phil.2:12]

Everybody is assuming that the 'Sons of God" were fallen angels having relations with earthly women. However, the "proof" of this position, relying as it does on the root meaning of a single Hebrew word, is not very strong from a Scriptural standpoint. Where is the Scripture that pointedly says that the "sons of God" are fallen angels?

What if the "sons of God" were really the men in Seth's line since Seth's lineage proved to be the only one from which Jesus could descend and was the lineage that produced all the patriarch's, kings and prophets? What if these "sons of God" (males from the lineage of Seth) began to produce offspring from the daughters of men (lineage of Cain, the Marked One). Then the children, being influenced by their mothers (the daughters of men) would wind up not serving the One True God for they would be of the lineage of Cain, the murderer. Hence men of renown (Nimrod being the first) would arise up and spread their wickedness all over the world, resulting in God causing the flood wherein only righteous Noah and his family were saved.

The scenario does not have to be "fallen angels" being the sons of God, for the angels were not the progeny of God. They were created just as humans were. Having the "sons of God" being the male progeny of Seth seems more likely true than having fallen angels (evil in nature) being the progeny of a Righteous God.

[None]

Job 1:6

6)Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,

and Satan came also among them.

I doubt that term was used for the line from Seth.

Sons of God is generally speaking, it stands for ALL angels, created directly of God, not born of woman, fallen or not.

[Guest Christopher_John]

Everybody is assuming that the 'Sons of God" were fallen angels having relations with earthly women. However, the "proof" of this position, relying as it does on the root meaning of a single Hebrew word, is not very strong from a Scriptural standpoint. Where is the Scripture that pointedly says that the "sons of God" are fallen angels?

What if the "sons of God" were really the men in Seth's line since Seth's lineage proved to be the only one from which Jesus could descend and was the lineage that produced all the patriarch's, kings and prophets? What if these "sons of God" (males from the lineage of Seth) began to produce offspring from the daughters of men (lineage of Cain, the Marked One). Then the children, being influenced by their mothers (the daughters of men) would wind up not serving the One True God for they would be of the lineage of Cain, the murderer. Hence men of renown (Nimrod being the first) would arise up and spread their wickedness all over the world, resulting in God causing the flood wherein only righteous Noah and his family were saved.

Greetings Phil.2:12,

Actually based on scripture, the only assumption, is that the term sons of God refers to the line of Seth. I'm guessing based on your reply that you missed the article in post #15 of this thread?

Starting with the New Testament, there are two key verses which basically wouldn't make any sense at all if sons of God meant the Sethites. IIPeter 2:4-5 and Jude 6.

• IIPeter 2:4-5
  For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
  
  Jude 1:6-7
  And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
  

The scenario does not have to be "fallen angels" being the sons of God, for the angels were not the progeny of God. They were created just as humans were. Having the "sons of God" being the male progeny of Seth seems more likely true than having fallen angels (evil in nature) being the progeny of a Righteous God.

Angels were created by God, Adam and Eve were created by God, the rest of humanity is a product of the union between Adam and Eve, the first two then so on and so on, no longer each a creation unto itself but a product of the union of God's creation. Angels, in their normal domain or abode (place of residence or realm) cannot procreate ( Mathew 22:30 ) and therefore either God created each and every angel as needed, or, He created them all at the same time. Angels can neither be killed naturally or by natural means because all angels were created and not of flesh. If this were not the case, then God would have simply destroyed them with all the other fleshly creatures in the flood but in 2nd Peter and in Jude we have a clear description that they had to be confined in eternal bonds under darkness but the rest of humanity, including the product of the offspring between angels and humanity perrished. The angels went after that which was considered "strange flesh" for them in Jude 1:6-7, their actions were also compared to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which were sins of sexual immorality as well. The only possible state that they could have engaged in this type activity was to leave their original state of being from their angelic realm to engage with humanity in the earthly realm. It is only of the flesh can anyone engage in gross immorality, thus the reference from Jude 1:6-7 speaks exclusively of Angels committing gross immorality with human flesh which was considered to be strange to them because in their original abode or realm, they are not of the flesh. So the only indictation at any time, that angels could have gone after flesh to support Jude 1:6-7 is backed up exclusively by Genesis 6:1-4.

Jude 6 does not assume that the angels left their abode, it says they did leave their abode, is there any other place in scripture that angels went other than from God's realm to the realm of earth? (with the exception of being bound in darkness for Judgment).

The other places in scripture which uses the term "sons of God" are found in Job 1:6, 2:1 and 38:7

6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD.

7When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

So at this point, why would we have to make an assumption that the term "sons of God" refers to the Sethites when in each other case the reference is to Angels?...referencing Sethites as the "sons of God" then becomes the assumption, if you were to debate it literally.

Peace

CJ

[Guest Myco]

4Pillars post is quite interesting, though well above my pay grade--present humans are hybrids, descendants of Adam-Eve, and non human humans? Anyway, on the science side, there is a guy at Stanford, can't recall his name, that recently traveled the globe to visit all of the different races, particularly isolated ones. He took blood samples for epidemiological analysis to see which groups (i.e eskimos, Indians) were related to the other, using information from the human genome project. The results were quite interesting and I think might have suggested that we originated in Africa. I recall the so called "mitochondrial Eve" publication a few years ago, was criticised, but might have been reconfirmed. Interestingly, because of the inheritance of the marker (mitochondria) is maternal only, the lineage only includes the mother. The Y-chromosome inheritance pattern suggests the Y-chromsome Adam lived at a different time that Mit-Eve (140k years vs 60k years). Anyway, if I am not mistaken, I think the same techniques have been used on one or all of the descendents of the original tribes of Israel. I don't know if the data are consistent with Genesis or not, but it would be interesting to compare the biblical accounts with the scientific approaches.

[Guest spider3111]

Completely agree.

900 years is a lot of babies, some could have even been twins/triplets...who knows.

I've often wondered why all of them were not documented but I reasoned that maybe most fell into sin.

I don't know. Does anyone know?

A quick stabb in the dark?... the other lineages were not relevant in establishing the blood line of Israel. For the most part I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone survived the flood other than Noah and his family, regardless of how post flood scripture is interpreted. Any connection between the Nephilim and or the Giants is clearly recorded in scripture out of fear of a great enemy and over sensationalizing their strength capabilities.

For God said...

Genesis 6:7

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 7:22

22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Peace

CJ

Gen. 6:4 states- "There were giants in those days; and also after that....."

After what? - The flood. Don't think that they weren't around after that. Remember the spies sent out who returned to say "...we are as grasshoppers in their sight..."

Stories of these giants have been recorded throughout history, in what seems like every culture. It must be said that for all of these cultures to be in on some fantastic hoax would be unlikely, indeed. There could have been no way for these different peoples to even know the other existed, let alone devise a thorough outline of giants in their respective histories.

These giants did in fact exist after the flood. The Bible is very clear on that standpoint. We must make sure to take the Bible as it is, and not to interject our reasonings and hypotheses which rely on allegory and a sense of "well it MEANS to say this".