Sons of God are not fallen angels and did not produce demigods

WHY I CANNOT ACCEPT OR BELIEVE THAT THE "SONS OF GOD" OF GENESIS 6:2 ARE "FALLEN ANGELS" OR THAT THE GIANTS OF GENESIS 6:4 ARE DEMIGODS OR THE OFFSPRING OF DEMONS

Three principles of biblical interpretation are as follows:

1. No doctrine can be built from one passage that would contradict doctrines established in the rest of Scriputure.

2. When common sense gives the sense no other sense should be looked for or it will end in nonsense.

3. Always interpret the passage in context or you will end up with a pretext.

A. CONTRADICTION OF SCRIPTURE

1. Textually.

a. God is SPIRIT. John 4:24

Until the incarnation there is no record of God "becoming flesh" and "tabernacling among us". Any earthly presence was a manifestation or appearance. "the Voice of God walking in the garden", or the voice from the burning bush, or passing by on Mount Zion, or in the cloud, etc.

b. God's angels are Spirits: Hebrews 1:13,14.

There is no record of them every taking on flesh, but again only appearing in a form to which man could relate. And then "disappearing" once the message is delivered.

c. Angels, being "spirit" and living forever are not concerned with sex, and humans, in the resurrection are "like them" and will not be "married or given in marriage". Luke 20:34-36 and Matthew 22:30

d. Compare the whole matter of the "heavenly body" or "spiritual" as in 1 Corinthians 15:42-56.

e. There are no texts in the Old Testament to suggest that any demons or demigods did any supernormal acts that would be expected if they existed. There are in fact no records of demons at all. (Apart from the "lying spirits" that spoke through false prophets and they, we are told, came from the Lord, as did the "evil spirit" that came upon King Saul. So obviously they are not "fallen angels" or demons at all.)

2. Logically.

a. If there were fallen angels, they would still be "spirit beings". If a spirit being could impregnate a human, then the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit when he came upon Mary would have no significance. Any number of humans could thus carry the offspring of "elohim".

b. If they were spirits indwelling humans, then the sperm would be human and there would be no super race or demi gods.

c. In the New Testament any demon activity was always acknowledged to be only as they "demonized" a human or an animal. And they were subject to the limitations of that body as to time and space. They may have demonstrated a fierce strength but that is not unusual today even in ordinary people when there is a special need. So regular muscles empowered by powerful emotion can produce these results. But that does not make them demigods, or superpowers.

B. SONS OF GOD

1. In Job 1:6 and 2:1

a. Note first of all that this takes place "in heaven" or before the LORD. Note also that Satan should be rendered not as a proper name but simply as a title so that it reads "the Adversary" This is a court of heaven as it were and when these "sons of God" and the Adversary "present themselves" or "stood" before God it was a "servants". The Adversary is not "cast out" and the "sons of God" are not "fallen". As God's "ministering spirits" they are they to do his bidding. The Adversary appears as the witness for the prosecution and God deliberately singles out Job as his exhibit A of what one can do when they are totally committed to the LORD. To get the rest of the story, (and lesson of Job) going, GOD gives the Adversary permission to bring natural disasters upon Job's family. And when it comes to "controlling nature" or bringing disease (boils) it is only as God has "sanctioned" it and the Adversary is permitted to do so.

b. Compare the same situation when Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:7 that the "thorn in the flesh" was a messenger of the Adversary, lest he should be exalted, and that in his appeal to God to have it removed God's answer confirms that it is his will that he should retain the thorn. ie. it was "from God" in the same way that Job's trials were "from God" but delivered by the Adversary. Therefore they hardly qualify to be considered "cast out of heaven" or a fallen angel. (And certainly not incarnated in any human form!)

2.Elsewhere:

1. a. In Luke 3:38 it says that Adam was (the son of) God.

When we read in Genesis 1: 26-27 that God made man (adam) in his own image it has to mean that adam (and Adam) is a son of God. There is nothing to indicate that he was an angel, fallen or otherwise, or anything "spirit". In fact very much the other, he was formed of the "clay".

b. In the NT those who "recieve Jesus" become "sons of God". Their bodies don't change, they are still humans.

Peacemakers are blessed and recognized as "sons of God" Again they are very much ordinary humans...in the flesh.

c. The word translated "sons" can also be translated "daughters" or "children" or "grandchildren", and just about any other word you can think of that suggests an offspring no matter how many generations removed from the original parent. It also applies to branches and boughs, kids, calves, etc. etc.

d. So "sons of God" and "daughters of men" really does not have to signify anything more than "human descendants". The men are traced to God as was Adam, and the women, as daughter of "men" is really daughters of adam. And see Gen. 5:2 where KJV says "male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day they were created."

e. other application of "sons". without implying a literal descent "sons of the living God" "sons of thunder", "son of Zion", "sons of the prophets", and the teachers of the Law whom Jesus said were of their "father" the devil.

C. GIANTS

1. Here there is no reason to capitalize the Hebrew word or make it a proper name. KJV recognizes this and simply calls them "giants". And it doesn't signify anything more than that they were "Large" in some way. Figuratively or physically. Only here and in Numbers 13:33 are they referred to by the word nefeel (as far as I can see) and later descendants of Anak are referred to as rapha, and again it implies nothing more than they were "tall".

There is nothing to indicate that they had any superpowers or characteristics of demi gods. Only that the spies felt like grasshoppers and were afraid of them, but when it came time for battle, they were defeated by the Israelites as God fought for them.

IF one gives credence to a Canaanite mythology that these were the offspring of fallen angels, it would be to buy into a pagan twist. One could even make reference to "the Nephilim" in allusion to the myth, without attributing to them any semi-divine or demigod status in the same way that one might refer to a very tall, strong or athletic woman (in olden times when one did not have to worry about being politically correct) as an amazon, without implying that you thought she was a direct descendant from a mythical race of female warriors.

D. FALLEN ANGELS or DEMONS or EVIL SPIRITS

Someone has appealed to Jude to suppose that fallen angels, vs. 6 supposedly were somehow present and being referred to in vs. 7 connected with Sodom and Gomorha, but there is nothing in this to suggest any such thing. Rather you will see that Jude is writing a warning to the recipient that they need to "earnestly contend for the faith" and know that the ones who are come into them "unawares" are going to face judgment and from verse 5 on to 8 he is giving a list of those who in the past have faced judgement.

He could have done it with "bullets" to highlight it as being item by item:

* the people he saved out of Egypt he destroyed in the wilderness because of their unbelief

*the angels that didn't mind their own business he put into chains under darkness

*Sodom and Gomorrah he destroyed as an example of what would come to others.

So he will do with these filthy dreamers that defile the flesh and speak evil of dignitaries.

In the OT the reference to an "evil spirit" that comes upon Saul does not indicate any form of "demon" or fallen angel. Spirit can be as benign as "the mind" or breath, or wind, and "evil" can be simply "troubled" or "heavy". In any case in Saul's case it says this "heavy mind" or evil spirit came upon him "From the LORD" after the HOLY Spirit had been taken from him. It could have been as simple as "depression" or maybe even "paranoia" which would be very likely, if you knew you had once had close fellowship with the Lord, and because of your own pride and disobedience you were now cut off. Especially when you knew a young "upstart" was getting the glory you once had. The "troubled mind" was not "cast out" as one would do with a demon, but would be (temporarily) lifted or "left him" when David played the harp.

The anti-Christ which is NOT mentioned in Revelation anywhere but rather in John's epistles were men, ordinary humans already present when the epistles were being written and they were those who (under the influence of demons gave forth the doctrines of demons) and denied that Jesus was the anointed Messiah, and that he had the Father to Son relationship that he claimed. To deny that Jesus the Messiah had come in the flesh was to be of the spirit of the antichrist. To do so is to be a deceiver. But note again there is no indication that these are demons or demigods produced by fallen angels and humans. They were just plain, ordinary humans who chose to follow a lie, and did not "obey his commands". They were liars and the truth was not in them. (1 John 2: 4, 18-23 etc.

I found this note about Nephilim in a Dictionary of Bible and Religion'

I do not suggest it is correct that it was a mistake that it was left in the Scriptures accidentally, but the point of it being contrary to the rest of the Bible and therefore needing a different understanding or interpretation (as I offer and accommodate in my reference to "amazons")

If one has not bought into the myth beforehand that the sons of God were fallen angels, then there would be no need to make "giants" anything more than "giants", in the same way we would not make tsawraf into a proper name and speak of the Tsawraf when all we meant were "goldsmiths". A giant was nothing more than a tall person, and what could be expected when genes are passed on from one generation to another if parents had a DNA that gave them extra height.

NEPHILIM. Giants or semidivine beings produced by intercourse between human females (“the daughters of men”) and divine or angelic beings (the sons of God”), according to ancient Canaanite mythology. The Nephilim resemble, in concept the mythical heroes, half-man, half-God, found in ancient Greek mythology. Such mythical figures appear in the OT, but only briefly. Genesis 6:4 speaks of the giants in the earth or Nephelim, and refers to their mixed parentage. Later in Numbers 13:33 the Israelite spies sent into Canaan reported the strength of the Canaanites by saying they looked like the Nephilim or giants.

There is no way to reconcile the concept of Nephilim, and of intercourse between angels and human beings, with the beliefs about God in the rest of Genesis. Genesis 6:4 must represent a fragment of a longer account of an ancient myth that escaped removal from the text by the Priestly redactors (or editors) at the time of the Exile and after (586 B.C.) The concept of heavenly beings engaging human beings sexually belongs to ancient non-Hebrew mythology and, throughout history, to the occult, that is, the incubi (demons), who, superstition holds, visit men and women by night.

J.C.

John Charles Cooper, Prof. of religion; chairman Dept. of Philosophy & Religion. Susquahanna University, Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania.

The Dictionary of Bible and Religion. William H. Gentz Gen. Ed. Abingdon Press, 1986, Nashville, Tennessee.

I urge Christians to give up on "faith"

Is atheism a Sin?

Is atheism a Sin?

Or rather is non-theism a sin?

Is a belief or lack of a belief a choice?

Does one who is a non-theist Choose to be an "unbeliever" in a theo presence?

Is our "faith" or believing simply an act of the will?  We want to believe in something so do we believe in anything we are told to believe in?

If not, then how do we decide what to believe in and what to reject?

Do we have a "pre"-dispostition to believe certain things and if so, what or who gave us this predisposition?

How does a "non-theists" belief differ and how is it similar to a "theists" belief?

I believe:.. The Resurrection of the body, And the Life everlasting. AMEN

CREED: I Believe in ... THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING

I don't know where to begin this conclusion. The creed has already declared the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and I have commented on that as being the very foundation of our faith. Now I must personalize the consequences of that resurrection and state what it means to me to believe that even as I believe Jesus had a physical resurrection, so I will also, and furthermore, having been resurrected bodily, the new life will be “everlasting.”

Am I taking a bigger leap of faith here than I did in accepting Jesus' resurrection? For His resurrection, I accept the testimony of Scripture, eyewitness reports of those who saw the body of Jesus. But when it comes to my own physical resurrection and life everlasting, do I have such “proof”? Scripture gives the example of Lazarus and a few others who were “raised” from the dead, but no “proof” that any body has been raised “incorruptible” and is now dwelling “in heaven”... (or will be, depending on your understanding of the chronological order of things.)

I guess this is where “I believe” takes on the idea of “I trust” more than anywhere else. I trust Jesus' words and I trust Paul's explanations. I can't explain any of the how or mechanics of the bodily resurrection but Paul saw the difficulty and the questions and gave an answer in 1 Corinthians 15. And because 1 Corinthians 15 does such a thorough job, why should I try to add anything? And considering that although it was given 2000 years ago, there is nothing in modern science or thought that could change the soundness of the logic and explanation.

Plain and simple. After all the rest of the Creed is declared, I conclude that I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting, BECAUSE if I don't choose to believe this, then I don't want to believe anything else instead. As Paul concludes. If we are not right about this, we are of all beings and creatures most miserable. We will have believed a lie. And there is no hope, no reason to go on living. But the crux is not “Oh you mean if you can't believe that your body will be raised and you will live for ever there is no point living at all?” No, that is not the issue. Paul joins it together by saying simply, “If YOUR body isn't going to be raised, i.e. Because there is no such thing as resurrection THEN, Jesus wasn't raised, and everything you have believed about HIM is false. THAT is the reason we would be better off not living at all than to live without the Hope that the truth that Christ is the Saviour of the World, the Son of God brings to us.

A chapter heading in a novel I read years ago was. “Death by philosophy”. Simply it was a chapter of a person, who having had the emptiness of his worldly philosophy (I think it was actually a professed Buddhism) pointed out to him, rather than admitting his error and embracing the gospel of the kingdom as presented to him, committed suicide. Whenever I hear of a suicide of an unbeliever, I am never surprised. My surprise is how anyone NOT a believer would want to go on living in a world with no hope or no Purpose except some attempt to “make the world a better place”. A goal which hasn't come much closer to fulfillment since Abel and Cain.

Do you see your profession of faith as being that crucial? “Because HE lives I can face tomorrow”

Do you see the lack of faith on the part of every unbeliever as being that crucial? . If Jesus was not/ is not the Everliving Saviour then the only legitimate question is the deep pessimism of the song “Is that all there is?”

But I DO believe and boldly proclaim, I hope in my life as well as by my lips That:

I believe in God the Father Almighty

I believe He is the Maker of heaven and earth

I believe in Jesus Christ

His Only Son

Our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

Born of the Virgin Mary

Suffered under Pontius Pilate

Was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell;

The third day he rose from the dead;

He ascended into heaven

And sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

The holy catholic church,

The communion of saints,

The forgiveness of sins,

The resurrection of the body,

And the life everlasting.

An invitation to critique.... an idea before I "preach it"

I'll finish off the Creed entry after this has sat for a while.

AN INVITATION TO CRITIQUE

Note of explanation:

I am posting this is several places and I want you to consider a response whether you are a professing non-theist or an ultra conservative Christian of any persuasion.

I am seeking, first for myself, and then for any who might consider it helpful, something which in my own mind I am likening to what scientists hope to establish in the science realm and which they call the "Unified Field Theory", or what they hope the "string theory" might accomplish. Which is to say, I am hoping to find an overarching simplified statement that describes what I believe to be the theme of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. BUT if it is to be true, then it must be as true in the secular world (relating to relationships) as it is in the "spiritual" world.

To this end I propose making several statements, and as necessary, even redefining some terms, (for the sake of argument) and then asking that you think of any and all circumstances where this thesis will not or cannot fit in.

I will try to keep it relatively brief, and as a partial explanation I may have to give references or definitions in footnotes.

To my non-theist readers, I would like you to comment on the strength of the concept, not necessarily that you agree with the spiritual application. But if you do happen to be familiar enough with the theological implications, then let me know where you think such an application or understanding would have helped (or hindered) you or some other secularist in grasping some of the "unusual" teachings that Christians attribute to the Bible or to God, etc.

My thesis:

1. The Christian faith is NOT about religion, if by that we mean a set of rules and regulations, the keeping of which will guarantee us a place "in heaven."

Rather it is about a Relationship between God and Man, and between man and man.

2. Any relationship must be based on trust.

3. Trust would be a preferred term for our day than the now ambiguous term "faith" or "believe". (i)

4. Taking two verses that speak specifically of "faith" and whether out of context or not, I will let the reader decide.

Hebrews 11:6 "Without faith it is impossible to please God..." (NIV) and

Romans 14:23 "Everything that does not come of faith is sin"

I want to suggest that "sin" is first and foremost the breach of trust. So, in the case of Adam and Eve, the sin was NOT in the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so much as it was first of all the breach of trust... and the breaking of the relationship they had with the Father. He whom they knew and had "walked with" in the garden had said, "in the day in which you eat thereof, you will die." (Not "I will kill you."!) But when the serpent came to them, whom they did not know, they trusted his statement that said, "You will not surely die?"

I propose then, that in a human to human relationship, the breach of trust is what "breaks the relationship" and when the trust is broken then the "sin" or sinful acts follow. The sin then, in the human to God relationship is that man says, I want to do it "MY WAY", or if you will "On my own."

Consider if this "definition" would fit every other condition that we, (or the dictionary) defines as Sin. Whether it was the so called temptations of Jesus in the wilderness, or the trials that come to us, such as are common to all people, (1 Corinthians 10:13 the real sin is if the one being tested thinks they can "do it on their own" or "their way", or whether they will rely on God's strength to see them through. It is independence vs co-dependence. It is trust or doubt. If it is not of "faith" (trust) it is sin.

The lack of trust is the real sin, and everything else is just the consequence of that decision.

5. God's solution, or way of restoring the fellowship has been, from Genesis to Revelation, the same. And that is "faith" or trust in his provisions. Even in the sacrificial system it was never in the act of the offering, but in trusting that because it was God's way rather than man's way, it would be effecasious. The question of Cain's offering whether it was an animal sacrifice rather than the product of the earth, misses the point if we don't recognise that it says "Now unto Cain and his sacrifice God had no regard." Because his heart was wrong, and there was no "trust" whereas Abel "had faith".

Jesus, as the fulfillment of all the Old Testament types, is God's way.

The word "faith" (as per KJV) is used only twice in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:20) and Habakkuk 2:4. The latter is translated "faith" in the New Testament but as "truth" at least 13 times and in connection with God being truth, and therefore one to be trusted.

The idea of relationship though is expressed through the verbs showing the right response to God. First of all is the command to "Love the Lord YOUR God with all your mind, heart, body and soul" and "Love YOUR neighbour". And to "obey" is better than sacrifice. Chiefly we have the idea of "walking" with God, so in the garden Adam and Eve "walked with God in the garden". Enoch "walked with God". Micah 6:8 says that what God requires of us is "to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

The condemnation pronounced on Israel when they demanded a king so they would be like all the other nations is this:

"Listen... it is not you [Samuel] they have rejected, but they have rejected me [the LORD] as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you..." (1 Samuel 8:7&8) and compare the New Testament declaration that Jesus said he would be "...'rejected' by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law. " (Mark 8:31)

I suggest that Jesus' came to fulfill all that was needed to restore full relationship with the Father.

His MESSAGE of the good news of the kingdom, spoke of the kingdom in terms of "faith" or "trust" in the Father. This "kingdom" was present, and effected as we became obedient to the Father/king. He introduced us to the concept of Father to whom we were to come with all our needs.

His METHOD was to demonstrate the kingdom in power through his healings and miracles. The relationship being established by "faith" and "trust", not by "works".

His MEANS, so that it was 100 % God's way, and nothing of "man's way" or "my way" or "I can do it on my own" but entirely of God, was the sacrificial death of Jesus and by God, in the Power of the Holy Spirit raising Him from the dead.

The book of Galatians emphasizes that it has always been by faith or trust that we have been made right with God and 2:16 and following would condemn as "sinners" any who would "breach that trust" and try to affect it by any other means.

If we don't start and finish with the conviction that Relationship is what it is all about, then we don't understand how our "mistakes" can be so terrible. If we don't see our "mistakes" as being the results of our lack of trust, and trust as being the foundation of a relationship, then we don't see how our continuing to go on in "unbelief" or "lack of faith" or genuine "trust" only perpetuates the separation or broken relationship.

Could we say that the single most important element missing in our day is "trust"? And because there is no trust between individuals, there is no relationship. And without right relationship there is no co-operation. And because there is no co-operation everyone is looking out for themselves and trying to figure out how they can "do it their own way" or "on their own." And it is a vicious circle.

SO, IF YOU HAVE PERSERVERED TO THIS POINT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHERE THE LOOPHOLES ARE, OR THE WEAKNESSES, EITHER IN APPLYING THE THOUGHTS TO PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND/OR TO THE HISTORY OF GOD DEALING WITH HIS PEOPLE AS MANKIND IN GENERAL, OR ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH IN PARTICULAR.

(i) Faith: As far as I can tell the Greek word translated "faith" in the New Testament comes from a word meaning "persuasion" or moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher. Then the word itself (pistis) is translated in the King James Version as: "assurance" (once), "belief" (once), "believe" (once), "faith"(236 times),or fidelity (once). My conclusion is that in context, the usage implies the trustworthiness of the object in which the faith is placed, and ultimately that implies "trust" in God who stands behind everything else to which it is applied. ie. "the faith" as the system of belief, or that He will affect the healing, or salvation, etc. to which "faith" or "trust" is directed.

My "life verse" so called is Matthew 6:33 and my focus over the past years has been to understand what it means to visualize "the kingdom of heaven is at hand", and all the teaching that Jesus gives concerning the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 6:33 "Seek earnestly, [pursue] the kingdom of God [the reign of God in your own being] and His concept of right [righteousness] and all the other things that are truly important, [clothes, food, shelter.] will be provided.

A different understanding of a strangely translated passage in the KJV concerning the kingdom tell us the following. (compare it to Micah 2:12 for the Jewish/Messianic prophetic implications.)

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven breaks forth and those breaking forth are pursuing [seeking] it." (Matt.11:12.)

(In the context of Micah, the Matt. account has John the Baptist opening the way in the wall that has kept the sheep in and the king/Good Shepherd is leading them out.) See Brad. H. Young in "Jesus the Jewish Theologian" Hendrickson Publishers, Mass. 1955, p 55.