 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Hmm, I'd love to know your criteria for "winner". As I told TBax, this isn't some kind of game in my mind, though it seems it may be to you all. |
Well TwoPutt, Lord knows there are some key theological components that TBax and I do not see eye to eye on, and our focus in rather heated discussion, at times, has been on these. So it's not that I am partnering-up with him because I agree with his theology or anything, but in the referenced discussion between you and him, amazed as I was, IMO, his points were more rooted in biblical truth than yours.
No this is not a game, but it's not life. Life is something you live and FEEL. Life does not consist of logical points in a rational argument. The words of the Bible are life, but the words here, in these discussions, I wonder about.
Your unwillingness or inability to see the truth that I so PLAINLY see, is a prime example of why I wonder. And how TBax can see and demonstrate the truth so plainly in your discussion with him, yet not see it else where, makes me wonder as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | Well TwoPutt, Lord knows there are some key theological components that TBax and I do not see eye to eye on, and our focus in rather heated discussion, at times, has been on these. So it's not that I am partnering-up with him because I agree with his theology or anything, but in the referenced discussion between you and him, amazed as I was, IMO, his points were more rooted in biblical truth than yours.
No this is not a game, but it's not life. Life is something you live and FEEL. Life does not consist of logical points in a rational argument. The words of the Bible are life, but the words here, in these discussions, I wonder about.
Your unwillingness or inability to see the truth that I so PLAINLY see, is a prime example of why I wonder. And how TBax can see and demonstrate the truth so plainly in your discussion with him, yet not see it else where, makes me wonder as well. |
It is neither unwillingness or inability to see the truth...I've presented valid points that are continually breezed over in favor of fables, mythology, and all-around beliefs contrary to the very teachings of the Bible and our Lord.
Let me ask you this....do you hold to the same interpretation of Genesis 6 as TBax, i.e. "rebel" angels having sexual relations with women and producing some half-breed "giants"? What do you make of Jesus' teaching in Luke 20:36 or the fact that both Peter and Jude quote the book of Enoch? Do you consider the book of Enoch inspired scripture?
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Let me ask you this....do you hold to the same interpretation of Genesis 6 as TBax, i.e. "rebel" angels having sexual relations with women and producing some half-breed "giants"? |
God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 5 gives us an unbroken account of Noah's geneology all the way back to Adam. So by the time of Genesis 6 (Noah's time), men, of any rank, having sexual relations with women, is not a particular point that needs the sort of biblical revelation we see in Genesis 6:1-3. Whether the term 'sons of God' refers to fallen angels, or some other creation of God, it certainly dosen't refer to men like Noah nor any of his decendents, many of whom, I'm sure, like Enoch, were considered great men holding high positions (Enoch, perhaps the greatest of them all.)
As we read Genesis 6 we see that the 'Nephilim' (meaning giants in ancient Hebrew) were the off-spring produced by the sons of God and daughters of men. And this bit of revelation is directly related to how great man's wickedness on the earth had become.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | What do you make of Jesus' teaching in Luke 20:36 or the fact that both Peter and Jude quote the book of Enoch? Do you consider the book of Enoch inspired scripture? |
As I said, whether the Genesis 6 sons-of-God were fallen angels, or some other created race, does not particularly matter in gaining proper understanding of the revelation given by the entire book of Genesis. I see the Genesis 6 sons-of-God revelation being connected to the Psalm 82 sons-of-God revelation. If the great assembly, as identified in Psalm 82, consisted of angels, then some of them, at that time, lost the gift of deathlessness, thus becoming "fallen angels". The remaining angels, those who didn't lose the gift of deathlessness, may have attained to eternal life. Luke 20:36 indicates angels do not die, but does not necessarily address "fallen angels".....if that's what we want to call them.
I think the apostles quoting out of the book of Enoch gives it some credibility, but there is some question as to the authenticity of the book as it exists today. I think most folks need not concern themselves with it. From my view it's not authoritive. If one has the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it, then it might be ok to read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | Hello TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Let me ask you this....do you hold to the same interpretation of Genesis 6 as TBax, i.e. "rebel" angels having sexual relations with women and producing some half-breed "giants"? |
God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 5 gives us an unbroken account of Noah's geneology all the way back to Adam. So by the time of Genesis 6 (Noah's time), men, of any rank, having sexual relations with women, is not a particular point that needs the sort of biblical revelation we see in Genesis 6:1-3. Whether the term 'sons of God' refers to fallen angels, or some other creation of God, it certainly dosen't refer to men like Noah nor any of his decendents, many of whom, I'm sure, like Enoch, were considered great men holding high positions (Enoch, perhaps the greatest of them all.) |
Three points here --
1. Fallen angels have to be validated biblically to make Genesis 6 fit that interpretation....it is not possible unless one uses the Book of Enoch
2. Gen 6:1-3 is a historical point. We have to really speculate to make the enochic pattern fit these three verses.
3. Nephillim are assumed to be the offspring of the union between the "sons of God" and "daughters of men." The text actually stops short of making that connection. Not only that, but the nephillim were also on the earth after the flood and the Anakites of Caanan were noted as their descendents (Nu 13:33). Does that make the Anakites 1/4th angelic? I also want to point out that even the meaning of Nephillim is subject to interpretation. The simpliest definition is in the text..."They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men." Nothing in that statement which speaks of them as being of angelic ancestory.
It is certain that enochic beliefs still persist today as they did in the time of our Lord. His simple statement should be enough to refute that fable, but it wasn't then and it doesn't seem to be now.
| Dust wrote: | | As I said, whether the Genesis 6 sons-of-God were fallen angels, or some other created race, does not particularly matter in gaining proper understanding of the revelation given by the entire book of Genesis. |
I disagree. "Fallen" angels is exactly the matter at hand.
| Dust wrote: | | I see the Genesis 6 sons-of-God revelation being connected to the Psalm 82 sons-of-God revelation. If the great assembly, as identified in Psalm 82, consisted of angels, then some of them, at that time, lost the gift of deathlessness, thus becoming "fallen angels". The remaining angels, those who didn't lose the gift of deathlessness, may have attained to eternal life. Luke 20:36 indicates angels do not die, but does not necessarily address "fallen angels".....if that's what we want to call them. |
I have to disagree with your expanation of Luke 20:36. Angels are angels, Jesus makes no distinction; neither should we.
And, pertaining to the "gift of deathlessness" (an interesting way to twist immortality")...did these "rebel" angels take on flesh when they chose to sin? If they took on flesh and sinned, how do they become spirit beings again?
| Dust wrote: | | I think the apostles quoting out of the book of Enoch gives it some credibility, but there is some question as to the authenticity of the book as it exists today. I think most folks need not concern themselves with it. From my view it's not authoritive. If one has the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it, then it might be ok to read. |
The problem is many -- even without realizing it -- use it to fill in preceived gaps, especially in relation to Genesis 6. During the time of Jesus (and before as witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls) enochic tales were widespread and influenced most of Judea. Jesus puts a close to the enochic movement by refuting the tales surrounding the Book of Enoch and Genesis 6 in Luke 20:36.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1761
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Nephillim are assumed to be the offspring of the union between the "sons of God" and "daughters of men." The text actually stops short of making that connection. |
THEN
| TwoPutt wrote: | | the meaning of Nephillim is subject to interpretation. The simpliest definition is in the text..."They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men." |
Contradiction!!!
Gen 6:4 when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
----------------------
The point about the sons of Anak is worthy of consideration.
They appearently were a race of people of extraordinary size who inhabited the mountainous regions of Canaan as well as some coastal areas, particularly in the South thereof.
12 Hebrew spies spied out the land and came back with a report. The only 2 faithful spies said "we can take this land. These people are bread to us."
It was the 10 faithless spies that made the heart of the Israelites sink into cowardice. 10 of the spies subsequently gave an exagerated and frightening report of the experience, alleging that these men were descendants of the pre-Flood Nephilim and that, by comparison with them, the Hebrews were like “grasshoppers.”
That of coarse couldn't have been true as the flood would have killed these ones. However, their exageration worked as the Israelites became fearful and faithless. Thus they suffered 40 years of wandering.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey there TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Fallen" angels is exactly the matter at hand. |
Perhaps, but I provide biblical evidence that the term 'fallen angels' may be a bit of a misnomer. What ever the Nephilim are, it may be helpful to note that in Genesis 6:4 "the Hebrew word translated as giants here is nephilim, a plural, which itself derives from the root word Naphal, which means to fall." (This is quoted directly from Wikipedia)
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Angels are angels, Jesus makes no distinction; neither should we. |
The Genesis 6 and Psalms 82 references to the 'sons of God' give us ample indication, that this term, as used in context, does not apply to men. And thus, as I have indicated, the term, need not necessarily default to a percise angelic race....however, from our perspective (the perspective of those who have read the bible), an angelic-like race is not far fetched. Remember, in Psalms 82, these 'sons of God' were called 'gods'/'elohim' by God himself. A term used to identify the angels as well.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | And, pertaining to the "gift of deathlessness" (an interesting way to twist immortality")...did these "rebel" angels take on flesh when they chose to sin? If they took on flesh and sinned, how do they become spirit beings again? |
No twist. In Psalm 82, in judgement, God says to the sons of the Most High (most high god? In an assembely of gods, God Himself would be the most high.), "ye shall die like men"....meaning that before the judgement they possessed deathlessness, but apparently not in an eternal manner, such as the term 'immortality' would suggest.
Apparently (apparent from reading the Bible) these 'rebel/fallen angels', if thats what you want to call them (try to keep from tripping over the term), had/have? bodies that would/do? not die (unlike the fleshly bodies of men). Perhaps they will not actually die until the second death. (Perhaps Enoch was given a body that does not die, but did not actually attain eternal life until Christ's work on the cross was finished)
| TwoPutt wrote: | | many -- even without realizing it -- use it to fill in preceived gaps |
As you see, I didn't use it at all. Though I am not studied in the book of Enoch, what I have read does not necessarily counter the ever-so minimal biblical information on the subject.
In addition, I might add....the biblilcal citations of the book of Enoch may indicate that it contains truth, but the sparseness of these biblical citations may also indicate that a higher level of understanding, such as the apostles possessed by the power of the Holy Spirit, is necessary, so as not to become confused by the information there-in, and thus may be the reason the book of Enoch, was not included, by and through the providence of God, to be sent out to ALL the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1761
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| (Neph´i·lim) [Fellers; Those Who Cause [Others] to Fall Down]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax,
| TBax wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Nephillim are assumed to be the offspring of the union between the "sons of God" and "daughters of men." The text actually stops short of making that connection. |
THEN
| TwoPutt wrote: | | the meaning of Nephillim is subject to interpretation. The simpliest definition is in the text..."They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men." |
Contradiction!!! |
Where?
| TBax wrote: | | Gen 6:4 when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. |
TBax, look at the context....
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men."
All the text says is that the Nephilim were on the earth at the time the "sons of God" had relations with the "daughters of men." These Nephilim were considered "mighty heroes of old, the famous men."
| TBax wrote: | ----------------------
The point about the sons of Anak is worthy of consideration.
They appearently were a race of people of extraordinary size who inhabited the mountainous regions of Canaan as well as some coastal areas, particularly in the South thereof.
12 Hebrew spies spied out the land and came back with a report. The only 2 faithful spies said "we can take this land. These people are bread to us."
It was the 10 faithless spies that made the heart of the Israelites sink into cowardice. 10 of the spies subsequently gave an exagerated and frightening report of the experience, alleging that these men were descendants of the pre-Flood Nephilim and that, by comparison with them, the Hebrews were like “grasshoppers.”
That of coarse couldn't have been true as the flood would have killed these ones. However, their exageration worked as the Israelites became fearful and faithless. Thus they suffered 40 years of wandering.
|
Is this bit of extrapolation from the Watchtower?
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | Hey there TwoPutt,
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Fallen" angels is exactly the matter at hand. |
Perhaps, but I provide biblical evidence that the term 'fallen angels' may be a bit of a misnomer. What ever the Nephilim are, it may be helpful to note that in Genesis 6:4 "the Hebrew word translated as giants here is nephilim, a plural, which itself derives from the root word Naphal, which means to fall." (This is quoted directly from Wikipedia) |
Do you believe the Nephilim to be the offspring of rebel angels and human women?
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Angels are angels, Jesus makes no distinction; neither should we. |
The Genesis 6 and Psalms 82 references to the 'sons of God' give us ample indication, that this term, as used in context, does not apply to men. And thus, as I have indicated, the term, need not necessarily default to a percise angelic race....however, from our perspective (the perspective of those who have read the bible), an angelic-like race is not far fetched. Remember, in Psalms 82, these 'sons of God' were called 'gods'/'elohim' by God himself. A term used to identify the angels as well. |
Jesus quotes Psalm 82 and certainly doesn't equate it to an angelic race. Then there is the fact that Psalm 82 is actually a rebuke by God to Israel's leaders.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | And, pertaining to the "gift of deathlessness" (an interesting way to twist immortality")...did these "rebel" angels take on flesh when they chose to sin? If they took on flesh and sinned, how do they become spirit beings again? |
No twist. In Psalm 82, in judgement, God says to the sons of the Most High (most high god? In an assembely of gods, God Himself would be the most high.), "ye shall die like men"....meaning that before the judgement they possessed deathlessness, but apparently not in an eternal manner, such as the term 'immortality' would suggest. |
Again, angels aren't the context of Psalm 82.
| Dust wrote: | | Apparently (apparent from reading the Bible) these 'rebel/fallen angels', if thats what you want to call them (try to keep from tripping over the term), had/have? bodies that would/do? not die (unlike the fleshly bodies of men). Perhaps they will not actually die until the second death. (Perhaps Enoch was given a body that does not die, but did not actually attain eternal life until Christ's work on the cross was finished) |
Respectfully, without solid scriptural precedent I can't accept any of this.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | many -- even without realizing it -- use it to fill in preceived gaps |
As you see, I didn't use it at all. Though I am not studied in the book of Enoch, what I have read does not necessarily counter the ever-so minimal biblical information on the subject. |
I disagree. Have a read through the book; you can find a link on this very forum. It's very much a work of fiction.
| Dust wrote: | | In addition, I might add....the biblilcal citations of the book of Enoch may indicate that it contains truth, but the sparseness of these biblical citations may also indicate that a higher level of understanding, such as the apostles possessed by the power of the Holy Spirit, is necessary, so as not to become confused by the information there-in, and thus may be the reason the book of Enoch, was not included, by and through the providence of God, to be sent out to ALL the world. |
So, you think the Book of Enoch is inspired...at least partially?
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Do you believe the Nephilim to be the offspring of rebel angels and human women? |
Yes.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Jesus quotes Psalm 82 |
That's where you are mistaken, but you are not alone, countless folks make the same mistake. The biblical truth of the matter is that Jesus is quoting Jewish law....
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"
....Jewish law is inclusive of 613 biblical laws, and talmudic/rabbinic law, which contains a Jewish midrash on Psalm 82.
The Jews do not view Psalms 82 as a point of law, however the extra-biblical midrash on Psalm 82 is considered part of Jewish law.
Midrash - a haggadic or halakic exposition of the underlying significance of a Bible text.
This misrashic point of Jewish law, or in other words, the extra-biblical Jewish exegesis of Psalms 82, indicates that upon receiving God's law at Mt. Sinai the Jews were made holy, possessing deathlessness, and thus God said to them..."I said you are gods".
So when Jesus asks..."Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods"? He is explicitly quoting the Jewish midrashic explaination of Psalm 82, rather than Psalm 82 directly. His point in doing this is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Jews who believed they were once gods (and believe they will be reinstated as such in the future), yet now want to kill Jesus because He says He is the Son of God.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Then there is the fact that Psalm 82 is actually a rebuke by God to Israel's leaders. |
Israel's leaders? I know this is the popular belief, but exactly where do you see this in the text of Psalm 82?
Biblically we are never told of Israel's leaders receiving deathlessness in a manner as to not die like men.
| TwoPutt wrote: | | So, you think the Book of Enoch is inspired...at least partially? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1761
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
TwoPutt,
You don't see your contradiction??? Your definition of Nephilim is the same as the very ones who were born to the sons of the true God! 
Allow me to spell it out for you. The scriptures make it clear that these "mighty men which were of old, men of renown" were the offspring on the union between women and these sons of the true God. Yet you claim the scriptures 'actually stops short of making that connection".
Please tell me if you can see the contradiction now. 
Your inability to see your errors that were clearly pointed out makes conversation with you difficult.
Also:
Did you believe the report of the 10 spies, or do you believe these pre-flood Nephilim were destroyed in the flood?
| TwoPutt wrote: | | Again, angels aren't the context of Psalm 82. |
I totally agree with you here. Dust cannot seem to understand that when Jesus said "your law" he was specifically addressing Ps 82 and not the talmud. As Jesus said "and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, " where as the "extra-biblical midrash on Psalm 82" could be nullified as that wasn't inspired. Any non-biased reading of Ps 82 should realize it is not speaking of angels.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi TBax,
| TBax wrote: | TwoPutt,
You don't see your contradiction??? Your definition of Nephilim is the same as the very ones who were born to the sons of the true God! |
I already addressed this. The text comes short of making a connection. The event described (the sons of God having relations with the daughters of men) is contemporary with the Nephilim dwelling in the land.
| TBax wrote: | Allow me to spell it out for you. The scriptures make it clear that these "mighty men which were of old, men of renown" were the offspring on the union between women and these sons of the true God. Yet you claim the scriptures 'actually stops short of making that connection".
Please tell me if you can see the contradiction now. |
No I do not see any supposed contradiction on my part.
| TBax wrote: | | Your inability to see your errors that were clearly pointed out makes conversation with you difficult. |
Hmm, you are so confident that I am in error. Interesting.
| TBax wrote: | Also:
Did you believe the report of the 10 spies, or do you believe these pre-flood Nephilim were destroyed in the flood? |
I believe there were Nephilim that were seen by the spies. I'll go ahead and make this statement as well though I know it may side-track this thread....I don't believe in a global flood; I believe it was local to the Mesopotamia valley.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops, double post again. 
Last edited by TwoPutt on Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 841
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | Dust cannot seem to understand that when Jesus said "your law" he was specifically addressing Ps 82 and not the talmud. As Jesus said "and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, " where as the "extra-biblical midrash on Psalm 82" could be nullified as that wasn't inspired. |
Hey T,
Is it possible that Jesus is using the Jews own erroneous belief against them by quoting their own misinterpretation of the Scriptures? After all it is their misinterpretation of Scripture that has them on the verge of killing Jesus. If so, then perhaps Jesus further uses against them their erroneous belief that their midrash is as authoritve (if not more so, in Judaic teaching) as the Scriptures themselves? Their man-made tradition, that is to say, their own law..i.e..the Jewish midrash on Psalms 82, which Jesus refers to as...."YOUR law" does not nullify the Scriptures. However, Jesus actually being who He is claiming to be, does nullify certain Jewish traditions and man-made Jewish points of law. The point Jesus makes is that even according to their very own traditions...(i.e...their own man-made law, which they believe to be as inspired as the Scriptures), they are hypocritical in their current actions against Jesus.
| TBax wrote: | | Any non-biased reading of Ps 82 should realize it is not speaking of angels |
Wow, I can't believe you said this. If anyone is reading it in a biased fashion it is the Jews in their own midrash on the Psalm. Also, it is of Christian tradition that Psalms 82 is speaking of Jewish leaders and Judges, as you say. A tradition which I am indeed biased towards, and reluctantly do not follow. However, in reading the Psalm without bias, I see no indication that those present, those who are to lose the gift of deathlessness, are human decendents of any kind, let alone human judges and leaders. It dosn't make sense, but considering that these in Psalm 82 are the same 'sons of God' spoken of in Genesis 6, it makes perfect sense.....and that TBax, is a "non-biased reading of Ps 82".
Last edited by Dust on Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:47 am; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dust,
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Do you believe the Nephilim to be the offspring of rebel angels and human women? |
Yes. |
Well, this causes a huge divide between what you and I believe and essentially affects the rest of the argument.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Jesus quotes Psalm 82 |
That's where you are mistaken, but you are not alone, countless folks make the same mistake. The biblical truth of the matter is that Jesus is quoting Jewish law....
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?"
....Jewish law is inclusive of 613 biblical laws, and talmudic/rabbinic law, which contains a Jewish midrash on Psalm 82.
The Jews do not view Psalms 82 as a point of law, however the extra-biblical midrash on Psalm 82 is considered part of Jewish law.
Midrash - a haggadic or halakic exposition of the underlying significance of a Bible text.
This misrashic point of Jewish law, or in other words, the extra-biblical Jewish exegesis of Psalms 82, indicates that upon receiving God's law at Mt. Sinai the Jews were made holy, possessing deathlessness, and thus God said to them..."I said you are gods".
So when Jesus asks..."Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods"? He is explicitly quoting the Jewish midrashic explaination of Psalm 82, rather than Psalm 82 directly. His point in doing this is to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Jews who believed they were once gods (and believe they will be reinstated as such in the future), yet now want to kill Jesus because He says He is the Son of God. |
This needs consistency in scripture to be anywhere close to being plausible. Secondly, I need you to provide solid references of this theory. Before you provide that there is no way this can be used to establish your assertion here. It is much more clear that the Psalmist had Exodus 21:6 (elohim used here) in mind when chastising Israel's leaders just as Jesus chastises the leaders of Israel in his time.
And of course, there is the fact you still haven't conclusively linked Psalm 82 to angels.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | Then there is the fact that Psalm 82 is actually a rebuke by God to Israel's leaders. |
Israel's leaders? I know this is the popular belief, but exactly where do you see this in the text of Psalm 82?
Biblically we are never told of Israel's leaders receiving deathlessness in a manner as to not die like men. |
Take a closer look at the context and see the style of writing of that Psalm. Your extrapolating based on an assumption that "sons of God" equals angels here when it is not in the context.
| Dust wrote: | | TwoPutt wrote: | | So, you think the Book of Enoch is inspired...at least partially? |
No. |
I always get that answer but then when confronting those who give heed to enochic fables say there is a bit of truth in the Book of Enoch.
God bless,
2P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
