Page 2 of 38
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:42 am
by SoCalExile
abelcainsbrother wrote:SoCalExile wrote:You guys are making arguments for the angel-hybrid theory that have already been addressed in my first post. Jude isn't equating fallen angels to the nephilim, and "sons of God" is a term used for all those of faith, angelic and human.
L
Well what strange flesh were the angels going after that Jude talks about?Was it sexual because it really seems to imply it is sexual in nature and especially when it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah and we know it was sexual there.So if "angels going after strange flesh" is not sexual then what does it mean? Do you accept the book of Enoch? Because I have heard that it confirms fallen angels producing hybrid offspring with human women and Nephilim were the off-spring.Also can you show where the term "sons of God"
applies to man too and not just angels?
Jude doesn't say the angels went after strange flesh, he says those in Sodom amd Gammorah did. Again, addressed in my link.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:47 am
by SoCalExile
PaulSacramento wrote:SoCalExile wrote:You guys are making arguments for the angel-hybrid theory that have already been addressed in my first post. Jude isn't equating fallen angels to the nephilim, and "sons of God" is a term used for all those of faith, angelic and human.
Jude is not saying that the Nephilim are fallen angles because they are not, they are the result of mating between the Sons of God and human females, which according to the Book of Watchers (1Enoch), which Jude is quoting, are the result of the divine sons of god going against God orders and mating with humans ( and doing other things as well).
The world view of the pre and during second temple judaism was that the nations were under control of other gods ( like the prince of persia in Daniel for example, and the "prince of this world" mantioned so many times in the NT).
This is stated in the writings outside the OT and NT of the time, just as it is implied ( and at times explicitly stated in the OT) in the NT and OT.
The view of the Jews in the 2nd Temple Period was that the Messiah would arrive and rule from Israel. What they thought isn't a gauge on how to read your Bible.
And we interpret the bible with the bible.
Again, you're making an argument already addressed in my link regarding the term "sons of God", which is used more often in scripture to descrive men who are sons by faith. Only in Job is it ever used to describe cheribim/seraphim, and one of those verses is debateable.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:50 am
by SoCalExile
Btw Jude and Enoch both quote Deuteronomy. Regardless, Paul quotes a pagan work in Acts when evangelizing on Mars Hill, that doesnt mean the pagan work is where we build our doctrine.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:06 am
by abelcainsbrother
SoCalExile wrote:Btw Jude and Enoch both quote Deuteronomy. Regardless, Paul quotes a pagan work in Acts when evangelizing on Mars Hill, that doesnt mean the pagan work is where we build our doctrine.
I think you're coming around.Don't resist because this explains so much from a biblical perspective that I touched on earlier.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:37 am
by SoCalExile
abelcainsbrother wrote:SoCalExile wrote:Btw Jude and Enoch both quote Deuteronomy. Regardless, Paul quotes a pagan work in Acts when evangelizing on Mars Hill, that doesnt mean the pagan work is where we build our doctrine.
I think you're coming around.Don't resist because this explains so much from a biblical perspective that I touched on earlier.
No. Read all of my post. Enoch is pseudographical, and is not scripture, and wasn't considered as such by the Jews you guys want to claim as a source of interpretation. Kinda puts your argument in a bind. The only reason you want to use Enoch as a source over scripture is because it feeds your fancy, which you hold over God's word. Making the same refuted arguments without addressing the refutation doesn't help you either.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:10 am
by abelcainsbrother
SoCalExile wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:SoCalExile wrote:Btw Jude and Enoch both quote Deuteronomy. Regardless, Paul quotes a pagan work in Acts when evangelizing on Mars Hill, that doesnt mean the pagan work is where we build our doctrine.
I think you're coming around.Don't resist because this explains so much from a biblical perspective that I touched on earlier.
No. Read all of my post. Enoch is pseudographical, and is not scripture, and wasn't considered as such by the Jews you guys want to claim as a source of interpretation. Kinda puts your argument in a bind. The only reason you want to use Enoch as a source over scripture is because it feeds your fancy, which you hold over God's word. Making the same refuted arguments without addressing the refutation doesn't help you either.
OK,whatever but if the bible does teach that fallen angels had sex with women producing hybrid off-spring then it is not wrong to use other sources such as Enoch to get a better understanding of it.It would only be wrong to do so if you were correct that angels cannot have sexual relations with people.Also it seems like you cannot read because Jude does say the angels went after strange flesh like the people of Sodom so I don't see how you cannot read.It is clear if you can read,no pun intended.
Also I could'nt read your link because I could'nt get it to work.And also I would like you to show where in the bible the term "sons of God' refers to men also because the term is used to refer to fallen angels in several places.Also how do you explain away Nephilim that were produced in Genesis 6? What were Nephilim if they were not hybrid off-spring?
Also about Paganism nobody is accepting paganism but these god's people believed in make the most bible sense looking at it from a fallen angel and Nephilim biblical perscpective. If we leave them out then the bible does not address who they were and where they came from and yet the bible goes all the way back to the beginning.I think it is better to have the bible address where they came from and who they were for non-believers including pagans maybe.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:20 am
by PaulSacramento
SoCalExile wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:SoCalExile wrote:You guys are making arguments for the angel-hybrid theory that have already been addressed in my first post. Jude isn't equating fallen angels to the nephilim, and "sons of God" is a term used for all those of faith, angelic and human.
L
Well what strange flesh were the angels going after that Jude talks about?Was it sexual because it really seems to imply it is sexual in nature and especially when it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah and we know it was sexual there.So if "angels going after strange flesh" is not sexual then what does it mean? Do you accept the book of Enoch? Because I have heard that it confirms fallen angels producing hybrid offspring with human women and Nephilim were the off-spring.Also can you show where the term "sons of God"
applies to man too and not just angels?
Jude doesn't say the angels went after strange flesh, he says those in Sodom amd Gammorah did. Again, addressed in my link.
Yes and your link is incorrect.
Jude does indeed equate what the angels did with what happend in Sodom and Gomorrah.
As a matter of fact, your link was the first I saw that denied this.
I mean, its pretty clear:
5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
It states that angels did not stay withing their own position and where punished like Sodom and Gomorrah who LIKEWISE indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire.
I mean, it's right there UNLESS you decide to change the very context of the verse and chapter.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:24 am
by PaulSacramento
SoCalExile wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:SoCalExile wrote:You guys are making arguments for the angel-hybrid theory that have already been addressed in my first post. Jude isn't equating fallen angels to the nephilim, and "sons of God" is a term used for all those of faith, angelic and human.
Jude is not saying that the Nephilim are fallen angles because they are not, they are the result of mating between the Sons of God and human females, which according to the Book of Watchers (1Enoch), which Jude is quoting, are the result of the divine sons of god going against God orders and mating with humans ( and doing other things as well).
The world view of the pre and during second temple judaism was that the nations were under control of other gods ( like the prince of persia in Daniel for example, and the "prince of this world" mantioned so many times in the NT).
This is stated in the writings outside the OT and NT of the time, just as it is implied ( and at times explicitly stated in the OT) in the NT and OT.
The view of the Jews in the 2nd Temple Period was that the Messiah would arrive and rule from Israel. What they thought isn't a gauge on how to read your Bible.
And we interpret the bible with the bible.
Again, you're making an argument already addressed in my link regarding the term "sons of God", which is used more often in scripture to descrive men who are sons by faith. Only in Job is it ever used to describe cheribim/seraphim, and one of those verses is debateable.
You are not understanding that you must read the OT with OT eyes. We interpret the bible with the bible, yes, not with anything else.
There is NO context that makes "sons of god" translatable to "sons of faith".
None.
And nowhere in Job is their mention of Cherubim and seraphim, these is simply the EXPLICIT statement of Sons of God meeting in Heaven ( heavenly council), a scene that happens over and over in the OT by the way.
None of that is even close to being debatable.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:55 am
by SoCalExile
Lol there is no "heavenly council", that's a teaching of a modern kook with a degree looking to sell books on the sensational to gullible Christians.
As for sons BY faith (get it right) it is not unique to me; it's a standard objection to the presupposition that it only refers to angels.
As for "OT eyes" it's really convenient to all of a sudden toss out the NT, when we use it to understand the OT all the time. Furthermore, you're only using what fits your presuppositions, and ignoring that angels arent even mentioned in the 5 chapters prior to Noah, and we can easily interpret Gen. 6 with what is in those previous chapters.
In claiming that there's no cheribim/seraphim in Job, you guys are playing semantic games. In Hebrew and Greek, the word for "angel" simply means "messenger" and refers to both human and heavenly messengers, and even Christ Himself as 'THE angel (messenger) of the Lord. I used "cheribim/seraphim" to differentiate your claim from the idea of human messengers.
Also, lets review Jude:
4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [d]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that [e]the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, [f]subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. 6 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, 7 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 [g]strange flesh, are exhibited as an [h]example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
So again, Jude is comparing the Egyptians, fallen angels and the Sodomites to the Gnostics judging by the chiasm we have here in verses 4 and 8. Where is the Egyptians in your analysis of this passage, hmmm? Seems that part of the context always gets thrown out by people looking to make money selling sensational stories to immature Christians.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:59 am
by SoCalExile
PaulSacramento wrote:
You are not understanding that you must read the OT with OT eyes. We interpret the bible with the bible, yes, not with anything else.
So much for book of not-Enoch then.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:56 am
by PaulSacramento
No sure what your issues are since you seem to be making this a clear and cut opinion that you are right and all those scholars are wrong.
Not very conducive to a discussion.
While not all scholars agree, of course, they do acknowledge the issues.
Regardless of your view on 1Enoch, it was quote by Peter and Jude ( that is undisputed by the way).
You also seem to be ignoring all the references I already made, like Pslams for example.
I also think that you may be forgetting that I have a Masters in Theology and I can assure you these things ARE studied and are discussed and that, historically, it is not and never has been as clear cut as you are implying.
As a matter of fact, the ancient writings bare witness to that.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:46 am
by SoCalExile
PaulSacramento wrote:No sure what your issues are since you seem to be making this a clear and cut opinion that you are right and all those scholars are wrong.
Not very conducive to a discussion.
While not all scholars agree, of course, they do acknowledge the issues.
Regardless of your view on 1Enoch, it was quote by Peter and Jude ( that is undisputed by the way).
You also seem to be ignoring all the references I already made, like Pslams for example.
I also think that you may be forgetting that I have a Masters in Theology and I can assure you these things ARE studied and are discussed and that, historically, it is not and never has been as clear cut as you are implying.
As a matter of fact, the ancient writings bare witness to that.
Appeals to authority do not help your case, nor do they prove it. Are you going to tell me that someone with a Master's (or Ph.d) in theology never gets anything wrong? Please. You just lost the argument by appealing to that.
You are trying to appeal to consensus when the context of the passage in Jude doesn't support your argument.
Whether Jude quotes Enoch is disputable, since both are similar to Deuteronomy 33:2. Second, it doesn't prove the inspiration of Enoch, which BTW, is a recent thing among people who can't seem to stick to what's in the text.
here's an analysis:
"While books with similar subject matter may be expected to use similar vocabulary, textual criticism highlights when such similarities are too overt and highly-concentrated to have been written by mere coincidence. And given that Jude specifically names his source as 1 Enoch, offering a direct quote from the apocryphal book, it becomes clear that the epistle of Jude borrowed extensively from 1 Enoch.
We notice that most of the parallels between Jude and 1 Enoch occur in the sections where there are parallels between Jude and 2 Peter. However, 2 Peter does not contain the direct quotation from 1 Enoch 1.9 that Jude 14-15 has, and lacks several of the other verbal parallels Jude has with 1 Enoch.
For example, while Jude 1 and 1 Enoch 1.8 and 2 Peter 1.2 all three share the word 'peace', 2 Peter lacks the words 'mercy', 'called /select', or 'kept /belong' as shared by Jude and 1 Enoch. Or another example, while Jude 4 and 1 Enoch 48.10 and 2 Peter 2.1 all three share the verb 'deny', 2 Peter lacks the words 'Lord' and 'Christ/Messiah' as shared by Jude and 1 Enoch; instead, 2 Peter 2.1 keeps the word 'Master', also found in Jude 4.
The parallels with Jude and 1 Enoch are clear, and the parallels with Jude and 2 Peter are clear, and several of those parallels directly overlap. But the parallels between 2 Peter and 1 Enoch are very vague and indirect. If we assume 2 Peter came first and purposely diluted his references to 1 Enoch, we would have to then assume something rather unlikely: that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter, noticed that 2 Peter scrubbed out all direct references to 1 Enoch, and then restored them.
A far more likely scenario has 2 Peter's hazy verbal and thematic parallels with 1 Enoch explained by 2 Peter being one-stepped removed from the apocryphal book, that 2 Peter was borrowing from 1 Enoch indirectly. The author of Jude made extensive use of 1 Enoch, so that the whole epistle is permeated by Enochic language and ideas. Then the author of 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, adding new material and altering the original Enochic sections to suit his purposes."
If you want to continue this, please knock off the appeals to nonexistant context, appeals to consensus, and your own assumed authority and deal with the facts in the text.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:51 am
by SoCalExile
SoCalExile wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:
You are not understanding that you must read the OT with OT eyes. We interpret the bible with the bible, yes, not with anything else.
So much for book of not-Enoch then.
Soooo ironic that Paul is doing the exact thing with Jude that he says not to do with what in the NT doesn't support his argument. LOLOLOL.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:13 am
by RickD
Yes, knock off the appeals to authority, and listen to PaulSacramento, because he's taken theology classes.
Re: Were the Nephilim and the Sumerian mythical kings somehow related?
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:16 am
by PaulSacramento
Dude, you post an opinion for a website, that is appealing to authority !
I simply gave you tit for tat.
I suggest you watch the attitude though, I am not liking your tone.
We are trying to have a civil discussion here and your tone is far from that.
For every scholar that you can quote, I can quote you the same or more supporting my view, that is my point.
You have yet to address all the passages that explicitly state that there are other Gods, that God has an assembly and that the nations were given to other gods.
How do you address The Pslams I mentioned? the Deuteronomy passages I stated?
And since we are not appealing to authority, like you mentioned above, how do YOU address these things?