 |
| A satanic leaf-tailed gecko - how very subtle and cunning! |
Have you been wondering...
Gen 3
1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made....
The LORD looks upon this serpent, who was once a great and lofty angelic being, as a beast of the field; how great was his fall. One distinct characteristic of this beast is its subtlety and cunning.
This beast deceived the woman and brought the fall of Adam and the human race, the crown jewel of the LORD'S creation.
As a result, this judgment was declared upon the serpent.
14 ¶And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The Seed of the Woman shall appear at the appointed time, to crush the head of the beast! Did the beast take note of that divine judgment?
My question:
- Did that most subtle and cunning beast sit passively, waiting for his head to be crushed,
- Or did he plot with all his subtlety and cunning to save his head, to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the Woman who would mean his doooooooom?
What do you think the most subtle and cunning beast had been doing right up to the time when his head was crushed by the Son of Mary at the cross?
What man, with a fraction of that subtlety and cunning, wouldn't have done all he can to avert in a similar doom?
Just asking to learn.
 |
| Now you see the devil? |
Sing
Is it not the zenith of sublime subtlety and cunning when the serpent's direct and active involvement in causing the world to be fit for divine judgment and universal destruction BUT yet his evil hands are completely hidden and unnoticed; and sincere men attribute the cause of such catastrophic and monstrous phenomenon to the natural activity of human procreation?
(I left the above comment to the Facebook post above, and the following conversation took place. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210722203346691&set=a.10204411521703594.1073742711.1097484914&type=3&theater
Adam
"and sincere men attribute the cause of such catastrophic and monstrous phenomenon to the natural activity of human procreation?"
Are you referring to Gen 6:5? And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If so, mixed marriage is certainly not the chief cause of the flood, but would help prove "that the wickedness of man was great in the earth."
Sing
When we come to Gen 6:1, sons of men and daughters of men had been marrying and daughters and sons were born to them for more than a 1500 years.
How would mixed marriage help prove that?
I will give you a good hearing.
I wrote a little note on Gen 6:1 here. Take a look.
Adam
Why do you insist that the flood was brought about by mixed marriages or union between fallen angels (devils) & women? My position is that God destroyed the earth because "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5
Why do you insist that the flood was brought about by mixed marriages or union between fallen angels (devils) & women? My position is that God destroyed the earth because "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5
To consider devils sleeping with women, one must first believe that angels can copulate and that their seed is able to bring about conception in the woman. Your answer is obviously yes, so I consider everything after that as erroneous. If I wrote a long interesting dissertation about math equations and principles but used 1+1=3, wouldn't that taint the whole equation?
The Bible says that angels are spirits. The roman catholic apocryphal work of "Enoch" speaks of angels sleeping with women. I reject it. First prove from scripture that angels can procreate and I'll listen further otherwise, I will not budge.
Sing
Did you read what I have actually said? Or are you expressing your own idea and disagreeing with it?
Did you read what I have actually said? Or are you expressing your own idea and disagreeing with it?
I will respond when you can state exactly what I have actually stated.
"Devil sleeping with women" is your idea, not mine. So, please don't impute your idea as mine.
My late father taught me one simple rule: "If you can't represent the opposing view, you have not earned your right to disagree." I observe that rule.
Adam
Did you not say that fallen angels is what is meant by "sons of God?"
Sing
Go read again, if you had. Thanks.
Read the first paragraph of the above article on Gen 6:2
Adam
Bro Sing, I have no interest to debate. I'm here to try to help you to see an obvious mistake. I have read what you wrote. Not sure why you feel I've misrepresented you by saying devils slept with women. You used the words "fallen angelic beings." Are not devils, "fallen angelic beings?" How can "fallen angelic beings" take on flesh? We see cases where men (flesh) are filled with devils, but the flesh is still man's. Is this what you mean?
Sing
I have the least desire to debate. I do have a desire to tell people who are interested to search the Scriptures and rightly divide it. I take it that that is your desire and intention.
1 Your "the devil slept with women" and the fallen angels that had unlawfully taken upon themselves humanity and appeared as real men as can be, and attracted the daughters of men ARE WORLD OF DIFFERENT, are they not. So, you have not represented me correctly. Do you see the point now?
2. You asked, how can "fallen angelic beings" take on flesh?
- That angels can take on flesh, were perceived as men, entertained as real men, and lusted after as real men by real men... is an indisputable fact.
- I said this in the note on Gen 6:2.
"When it is suggested that the sons of God are angelic beings, everyone knows enough to rightly retort, "but angels neither marry nor are given in marriage." But they fail, or refuse to acknowledge the simple biblical fact that angelic beings are capable of becoming real men, taking upon themselves human flesh, and have real interaction with sons and daughters of men. Take a look at the angels/men in Gen 19.
When elect angels took flesh and became men, they did so temporarily, and at the will of God, running divine errands. But when the fallen angels did the same, it was against God's will, and left their own habitation, and intruded into the human habitation. They SINNED for doing so. They kept not their first estate - the estate ordained for them in the spirit realm. Read 2Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 - do they make some sense to you now?
2Pet 2:4-5
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Jude 6.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Peter informed us of the fact that those angels sinned; Jude disclosed the nature of the sin committed by those angels. Both spelt out the divine judgment that came upon those angels that sinned in the manner stated.
Please note also that verses 4 and 5 are mentioned in the same breath by Apostle Peter. They are related."
Adam
Your "the devil slept with women" and the fallen angels that had unlawfully taken upon themselves humanity and appeared as real men as can be, and attracted the daughters of men ARE WORLD OF DIFFERENT, are they not.”
You have invented this sub-species that the Bible does not describe. That angels can look like flesh is a no doubter! The angel that appeared to Manaoh and his wife appeared as a man as recorded in Judges 13. But can a man in flesh do this? "For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground." vs 20
In order to try to maintain consistency with your error, you have also invented 2 different classes of fallen angels in order to use Jude and 2nd Peter to prove your point.
Angels can not transform themselves into men as this would be to change nature. (Scripture says they fell from their first "estate.") Can men become horses and mate with mares? This is a silly proposition which I am surprised you hold fast to it.
Acknowledge the truth of this first and light will come to you to understand the other points.
Sing
Have I invented?
Read the two angels that came visiting Lot.
The Scriptures tell us they were angels, BUT they were perceived as real men by men. Read the account again. No one invented it. The serpent was more subtle than we imagine...
There is only one class of fallen angels; some fallen angels committed the sin stated in 2Pet and Jude.
Perhaps you may try to tell us what those passages are saying. I have put a link below to facilitate it.
Angels that rebelled and were kicked out of heaven to the earth, and the fallen angels that sinned in the manner stated in 2Pet and Jude 6 and the judgment they suffered are different and distinct. Did you notice the difference? In the former, they were KICKED out of heaven and cast down to the earth, in the latter some of them sinned by leaving their own habitation in the spirit realm (and entered the physical realm) on earth and were reserved in everlasting chains under darkness.
A man can believe only what he can understand and choose to believe. So, stay where you are unless the good Lord give you more light. I have no interest to change your mind or anybody's mind for that matter. What I have understood makes simple sense to me.
Adam
Can you reason with a man on the meaning of John 3:16 if he believes that God loves everyone and desires all to be in heaven? Nay, you first try to get him to understand election, if he doesn't get that point, isn't futile to try to explain further?
Can you reason with a man on the meaning of John 3:16 if he believes that God loves everyone and desires all to be in heaven? Nay, you first try to get him to understand election, if he doesn't get that point, isn't futile to try to explain further?
We have the same situation here. Why should we discuss various other facets of the subject text when you think that angels can mate with mankind? Letgodbetrue has excellent and detailed material available on their website on this topic which you have no doubt read through. Haven't you?
You have built this up in your own mind (invented) and thus see the other scriptures through this lens. It is the same as when a man believes that God wants everyone in heaven and thus wrongly views other passages. Correct the foundational point and the others will come together also.
Sing
Adam, angels, and spirit-beings CANNOT mate with the flesh and blood human being. Is that clear and simple? Does that register with you?
Perhaps, if you will move beyond that wilful misrepresentation, you may not see devils copulating with fair daughters of men.
Angels who had taken upon themselves human flesh and blood, are perceived and received by human beings as real men. If you wish to deny the Scriptures, like the two "men" who visited Sodom, that describes such a phenomenon, it is your liberty. A similar thing happened earlier, except by the scheming of crafty Satan, to circumvent the appearance of the Seed of the woman.
If this doesn't make plain sense to you now, don't bang your head against the wall. Stay where you are. If you wish to pursue the issue, I suggest answering the questions posed in the 2Pet and Jude 6 passages.
If I have invented something extra-biblical, it would be easy enough for a man like you to dismantle it, wouldn't it?
Adam
That angels appear as men is no problem, but they are not men nor can they become men. Can a human flesh do this? "Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name... For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD... For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground." Judges 13
Would you agree that the angel which visited Manaoh and his wife looked like a man? Was he a man... no. Are you trying to say that the angel could have rebelled against God and thus get downgraded to a mortal man which will die and return to dust?
Sing
Adam, look at the two angels who came to Sodom.
I read that the two angels were completely men to Lot and all the other people. What do you see? Why can't you agree that the angels who visited Lot were REAL men at the same time? Why run to Judges 13 to deny what is stated plainly in Genesis 19?
Gen 19:1 "And there came two ANGELS.."
Gen 19:5 "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are THE MEN which came in to thee this night?"
Gen 19:8 "... only unto to THESE MEN do nothing..."
Gen 19:10 "But THE MEN put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house..."
Gen 19:12 "And THE MEN said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides?..."
Gen 19:15 "And when the morning arose, then ANGELS hastened Lot.."
Gen 19:16 "And while he lingered, THE MEN laid hold upon his hand..."
The angels mentioned in Gen 19 is the earliest in the Bible.
Prior to this, "the angel of the LORD" is mentioned 4 times in Gen 16.
I conclude, in my simple mind, that angels are capable to take on blood and flesh, conducting themselves as real men, and performing all the activities of real men. If you read the account differently, it is fine with me - but don't falsely accuse me of inventing what's plainly written in the Scriptures. Just say you don't believe what is stated there! ;-)
Have you tried those questions on the passages in 2Pet and Jude 6 yet?
Sing
I asked some questions about the two passages here.
Perhaps after you have tried answering them, we can continue.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-angels-that-sinned.html
Perhaps after you have tried answering them, we can continue.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-angels-that-sinned.html
