A very common belief among Christians the world over is that Genesis 6 is about angels coming down from heaven and taking women for wives who produced giant, angel/Adamic hybrids. We would like to unpack this view and show why it cannot be true. First, we will briefly present the argument which we are going to address.
The verses used to support this view are Genesis 6:1-4,
1 Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
They will argue that the “sons of God” here is necessarily a reference to angels. Sometimes Job 1:6 will be cited in support,
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
Or Job 38:7,
When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
They presume that because the “sons of God” in Job must be angels, therefore the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are also angels. They further argue that it was these angelic “sons of God” which took Adamic wives and produced children — who are supposedly giants, which are referred to as “nephilim.” And because Genesis 6 does not mention giants, they will often use Numbers 13:33 to connect “nephilim” with giants:
We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Given that the sons of Anak were giants — and given that the sons of Anak were nephilim — they will then conclude the nephilim of Genesis 6 must also be giants.
WERE THE NEPHILIM THE PROGENY OF THE SONS OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN?
However, a close reading of Genesis 6:4 clearly contradicts this entire thesis:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them.
This passage is in no way saying that the nephilim are the product of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of mankind. Rather, it is saying that the Nephilim were already on the earth in those days — and also after those days — when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind. In other words, when this union between the sons of God and daughters of mankind came about, the nephilim were already there.
We can therefore already state categorically that the nephilim were not the product of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of mankind.
COULD THE SONS OF GOD HAVE BEEN ANGELS? — WHAT IS A “SON OF GOD”?
Next, we would like to address whether or not the “sons of God” were angels at all — going beyond the references to the book of Job. But first let us stipulate that we are not arguing that the “sons of God” in Job were not angels — on the contrary, it seems hard to imagine how the “sons of God” in Job are not referring to angels.
However, the logic which states — Job’s angels were “sons of God” and therefore the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels — is not necessarily true. To hold this logic sullies the lesson of what “sons of God” actually are and necessarily divorces this concept from the New Testament entirely.
Hosea 1:10 — which is even before the New Testament — says,
10 Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted; And in the place where it is said to them, “You are not My people,” It will be said to them, “You are the sons of the living God.”
If we were to take Hosea 1:10 at face value, we could fairly conclude that being a “son of God” is a title which can be bestowed upon a person — just as it was bestowed upon those “not my people” to become “sons of the living God.”
Moving on the the New Testament, Paul says in Romans 8:14,
For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
This explicit reference in the New Testament to the “sons of God” is simply ignored and cast aside when considering what the “sons of God” refers to in Genesis 6 — as if Paul were completely unaware of how that phrase was used in Genesis.
Paul tells us that the “sons of God” are necessarily led by the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is something which was bestowed on the New Testament church as well as believing Christians who follow the Lord Jesus in spirit and truth. The Lord says in Matthew 5:44-45,
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
The same is recorded in Luke 6:35,
But love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil people.
The Lord is clearly teaching that to be able to love one’s personal enemies in life is a necessary prerequisite of becoming a son of God. Consider how easy it is to be puffed up and justified against those who would personally slight us, and that to resist this fleshly urge and to love them instead is a requirement to be a son of God.
John 1:12 says,
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name
One of the cornerstones of the gospel of the Lord Jesus is that the work which He has done on Earth — and the good news of His words — enable people to become children of God.
Paul connects his argument ending in Romans 8 with the argument beginning in Romans 9 by this concept of being “sons of God”. He continues from Romans 8:14 quoted earlier and says in verse 19,
For the eagerly awaiting creation waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Paul then says in Romans 9:8
That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Paul has stated that everything which He described in Romans 8 is realized by “children of the promise.” If one is not a child of the promise, then one is not a child of God — and none of the things which Paul stated in Romans 8 apply either. Paul then goes on to quote Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:26 which we quoted above.
There are even more places in the New Testament we could go to address this concept — however, the point has probably been made already: being a “son of God” — which is a “child of God” — is a title for those who are chosen by God for righteousness through the Lord Jesus.
One could then postulate that this behavior required by true “sons of God” should be evident in angels as well, seeing as how the “sons of God” in Job are angels. For example, Jude 1:9 says,
But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him an abusive judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
Here we see that even when having disputes with one another, some of the angels who are righteous display behavior fitting of a son of God. The Lord says in Matthew 5:9,
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Isn’t it incredible then that angels would even be peacemakers with one another as we can clearly see in the book of Jude? 2 Peter 2:11 says,
whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a demeaning judgment against them before the Lord.
Even before the Lord, the angels do not presume to judge the sinners who hate authority described in 2 Peter 2. However, there are angels who do not display this behavior. Job 1:6 says,
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
Note how Satan is said to be among the sons of God, but he is not one of them. Revelation 12:10 describes the character of Satan,
…Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, the one who accuses them before our God day and night.
This is the exact behavior which he displayed in the book of Job — and it stands in stark contrast to the angels who “do not bring a demeaning judgement” in 2 Peter 2:11.
Therefore, it stands to reason that there are angels who are not sons of God — and there are angels who are sons of God based on their behavior which the New Testament teaches. The natural conclusion then is that being an angel does not necessarily make on a son of God.
COULD THE SONS OF GOD HAVE BEEN ANGELS? — “THEY TOOK WIVES FOR THEMSELVES”
Another inconsistency with the belief that the “sons of God” were necessarily angels arises in Genesis 6:2:
that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
The Lord Jesus says of the time before the flood in Matthew 24:37-38,
37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark
What He has said here corresponds with the narrative given in Genesis 6:2 — although He seems to put it in a negative light. Marriage in the Scripture was a law given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24,
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
The Lord confirms that this is the law of marriage when He says in Matthew 19:5-6,
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.
The becoming of one flesh and marriage itself is the act of sex between a man and a woman — which is confirmed in Genesis 24:67 when Isaac marries Rebekah:
Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; so Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
The same is confirmed in Genesis 29:21-23, 25-26 when Jacob accidentally marries Leah,
21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is completed, that I may have relations with her.” 22 So Laban gathered all the people of the place and held a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and Jacob had relations with her… 25 So it came about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, “What is this that you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the firstborn.”
By virtue of having slept with Leah, Jacob knew that he was married to her — and there was nothing he could do to change that.
If we look at modern times, people sleep around with one another completely oblivious that they are “marrying and giving in marriage” continually. Therefore, if marriage is sex — and if modern times will be like the times of Noah — and if the law of marriage had been given to Adam and Eve — then we can conclude that there was a similar kind of sexual immorality happening in Noah’s day.
Yet in Matthew 22:30 the Lord says of our resurrected bodies,
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
He is stating categorically that angels do not marry. And so if the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 took wives of the daughters of mankind — but angels are not able to marry — then it logically follows that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 could not have been angels.
However, we have heard many times across many different Christian circles that Matthew 22:30 is allegedly referring only to “angels in heaven.” They are contending that “angels in heaven” do not marry, but angels who are not in heaven — possibly fallen or some other state — are indeed able to marry. This line of argument does not at all support the case that the “sons of God” were angels — rather, it merely assumes that the “sons of God” were angels.
If it were true that angels allegedly can or cannot marry based on the state of their existence, we need some evidence of this somewhere in the Scripture. We would expect to see fallen angels somewhere in Scripture sleeping with people and producing children. Suffice to say, there is literally zero supporting evidence for the “only angels in heaven” idea anywhere in the Scripture.
One cannot cite Genesis 6 as evidence, because they would simply be assuming angels are involved — without any mention of angels in the narrative — and contrary to the stipulations which the Lord made in Matthew 22:30.
WEREN’T THE ANGELS LOCKED UP FOR DOING WRONG?
A key aspect of the belief that angels allegedly slept with Adamic people in Genesis 6 is 2 Peter 2:4 which says in the King James Version,
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;
They believe that the angels who sinned were the angels of Genesis 6 — and that they were sent to “hell”. Some will even go as far as to fancifully allege that the “chains of darkness” are the seed of the angels trapped into their mortal progeny — which are supposedly giants or some other mixed-breed.
However, Genesis 6 doesn’t even mention angels at all — let alone angels sleeping with Adamic men. Neither does Genesis 6 mention angels sinning or being cast into hell. In reality, there is nothing to connect Genesis 6 with 2 Peter 2:4 except in the minds of those who can see things that are not there.
But let’s look at 2 Peter 2:4 again but this time substituting two key words that they rely upon in the King James version — “hell” and “chains” — to maintain their belief:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment;
The reason we substituted “hell” for “Tartarus” is that’s literally the word Peter wrie — “Tartarus” (Strongs G5020) — and significantly it is the only time that it is used in the New Testament. To arbitrarily change “Tartarus” to “hell” — as the King James translators did — discards what Peter is trying to say.
Peter chose this word not because he believed the Greek myth of Tartarus actually existed but rather as a comparison that his Helenized readers would understand. Tartarus was a place very deep under the earth, like an abyss, where the gods locked up their enemies — like the titans — to reserve them for a later judgement. Peter confirms this meaning when he says they are “held for judgement.” Tartarus is a holding place for judgement.
Incidentally, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:3,
Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
The angels then are specifically being held for our judgement. If angels are placed in a place like Tartarus to be reserved for a later judgement — which is our judgement — then how is it that this could be referring to angels which are chained into their progeny? Will the angels spring forth from their progeny one day in order to be judged? The question may seem obtuse, but it highlights the problem with this belief.
Of the early manuscripts from which we get our New Testament writings, there is only one which says “chains” — while the rest say “pits.” The source writings in the original Greek seem quite divided overall as to whether it is saying “chains” or “pits.”
But it doesn’t really matter which one is used so long as our understanding of the verse aligns with the rest of what Peter said — that it is like Tartarus — and a holding place for those reserved for judgement. With that in mind, it seems to make more sense that it is saying “pits” because Tartarus, of course, is like a pit.
Elsewhere in Scripture we find this narrative to which Peter and Paul have referred, such as Isaiah 24:21-22:
21 So it will happen on that day, That the Lord will punish the host of the height in the height, And the kings of the earth on earth. 22 They will be gathered together Like prisoners in the dungeon, And will be confined in prison; And after many days they will be punished.
Some Christians will assert that the “host of heaven” or the “heights” are references to worldly political power, but here we have a host of the heights which is distinguished from kings on earth. They are higher than the kings on earth which can only be angels in heaven.
This prophecy states that sometime in the future — after the time of Isaiah — which is well after the time of Genesis 6 — the angels will be gathered to prison. And after that — after many days — they will be punished. This presents a big problem for those who believe that Genesis 6 shows that confinement to be in the past.
However, this imprisonment and confinement is well documented in the New Testament — no more obvious than in the story of the madman of Gadara in Luke 8:20-22:
30 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion”; because many demons had entered him. 31 And they were begging Him not to command them to go away into the abyss.
The Greek word for “demons” is “daimonion” (Strong’s G1140) — the diminutive form of “daimón” (Strong’s G1142) — a pagan Greek concept, which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines as follows:
1. the divine Power, deity, divinity… 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men…
Some Christians make the mistake of believing that there were actual “daimóns” in the Bible according to Greek mythology; however, the authors are merely accommodating their Hellenized audience by referring to something which is very much like a “daimón” without confirming that Greek mythology is true. What are these “daimón” then?
Daniel 8:1-8 refers to the destruction of the Medes and Persians at the hands of the Greeks under Alexander the Great. Verse 9 refers to how upon Alexander’s death, the Greek empire was split into four kingdoms: The Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, the Kingdom of Pergamon and the Bactrian Kingdom. Verse 9 refers to the little horn — Antiochus IV Epiphanies — who takes away the sacrifice in verse 11. Verse 10 says the following,
It grew up to the heavenly lights, and some of the lights, that is, some of the stars it threw down to the earth, and it trampled them.
This is the very same verse being referred to in Revelation 12:3-4,
3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven crowns. 4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and hurled them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her Child.
The same event is referred to differently in Revelation 12:7-9,
7 And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, 8 and they did not prevail, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Therefore — comparing Revelation 12 with Daniel 8, Daniel 8:10 is referring to a heavenly battle which is happening simultaneous to the earthly events. Daniel 8 refers to a battle which is happening with the little horn of Greece, yet Daniel 10 refers to a battle with the “prince of Persia” — chronologically prior to the battle with Greece, where it says in Daniel 10:21,
However, I will tell you what is recorded in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.
Michael then is the prince of Israel, which we have already ascertained is an archangel according to Jude 1:9. This is the same thing which is being referred to in Revelation 12 — Michael and his angels fighting Satan and his angels.
If Michael is the archangel — or prince — of Israel, then the other “princes” with whom he is battling are archangels as well. Even earlier, in the time of Isaiah 14:13-15 we are told,
13 But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 Nevertheless you will be brought down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.
This is the same language being used to describe the little horn’s hubris in Daniel 8:11,25,
11 It even exalted itself to be equal with the Commander of the army; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was overthrown… 25 And through his shrewdness He will make deceit a success by his influence; And he will make himself great in his own mind, And he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, But he will be broken without human agency.
The Commander of the army — the “Lord of armies/hosts” — and the Prince of princes — is the most high God, the Lord Jesus. This is confirmed in Revelation 1 — where verses 13-16 describe the Lord. And we encourage the reader to look up each citation we have given in and amongst the description of these verses,
13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet [Daniel 10:5, Isaiah 6:1], and wrapped around the chest with a golden sash [Daniel 10:5]. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow [Daniel 7:9]; and His eyes were like a flame of fire [Daniel 10:6]. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze [Daniel 10:6] when it has been heated to a glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters [Daniel 10:6, Ezekiel 1:24]. 16 In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength [Revelation 10:1, Ezekiel 1:26-28].
The figure in Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, Daniel 10 and Revelation 10 are all the Lord Jesus. We can see a “prince” or archangel resisting Him again in Daniel 10:13, where the prince of Persia is opposing the Lord Himself,
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was standing in my way for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.
Then Daniel 9:26 says,
Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
This prophecy is an obvious reference to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD. If the Romans were the “people of the prince who is to come,” then the “prince who is to come” was the prince of Rome.
It is clear then that there have been “princes” or archangels opposing the Lord from the time of Babylon (Isaiah 14:13-15), all the way until the time of Rome. Each time, it is Michael the prince of Israel who stands up and fights for the Lord to execute His will. Given that the battle of Revelation 12:7 happens after the Lord’s ascension (verse 5), it is likely that it is the overthrow of the prince of Rome. Paul prophecies this very event in Romans 16:20,
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
These heavenly battles have been happening continually — and five kingdoms along with their princes were defeated: Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece and Rome. Each time the angels along with their prince — or archangel — were cast down to the earth. To this end, Luke 10:17-18 says,
17 Now the seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!” 18 And He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”
Therefore, the seventy-two’s authority over the demons are the result of Satan — their prince — being cast down from heaven. The Lord elaborates on this in Luke 11:20-22,
20 But if I cast out the demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are secure. 22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, that man takes away his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.
The Lord has shown that as a result of Satan having been defeated in heaven and cast down along with his angels, he is under the authority of the Lord — the angels under his command become plunder. No wonder the angels who fell were so afraid of Him, as Mark 3:11 tells us,
And whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!”
Let us then consider Luke 8:21 again,
And they were begging Him not to command them to go away into the abyss.
Remember how Isaiah 24 said that at some later stage they would be cast into prison reserved for judgement — and how Peter said they were cast into Tartarus reserved for judgement. In Luke 8:21 they are begging the Lord Jesus not to cast them into the very same abyss. This imagery is replete in the Revelation, where it says in Revelation 9:11,
They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon.
There is another ruling angel — the king of the denizens of the abyss, who in Revelation 11:7 makes war with and kills the two witnesses of the Lord Jesus. In Revelation 20:3 Satan is cast into the abyss, being released again “from his prison” in Revelation 20:7.
At this point things might seem rather confusing. Who are all these “princes” or archangels who have fallen? Why are there multiple accounts of the same battle — with different entities — where Michael stands up for the Lord? Why does this all seem to be happening since the time of Babylon and continue all the way through to the end of the Revelation?
Consider Revelation 12:3 which describes Satan,
Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven crowns.
Satan himself is clearly represented by seven heads and seven reigns. Revelation 17:8-11 says,
8 “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who live on the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was, and is not, and will come. 9 Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11 The beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.
Again, Satan is seven kings — or princes/archangels. Five have fallen — princes of Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece and Rome. One has not yet come who remains only a little while — the king of the denizens of the abyss (Revelation 9:11).
One was and is — because he is with us now. Then he will not be when he is cast into the abyss when the Lord Jesus returns, as Revelation 20:2 says,
2 And he took hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Then he will “come up out of the abyss” (Revelation 17:8), as Revelation 20:7 says,
When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison
Then “those who live on the earth, whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not, and will come” (Revelation 17:8), as Revelation 20:8 says,
and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore.
Then he will “go to destruction” (Revelation 17:8), as Revelation 20:10 says,
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Therefore, the “head” or “king” who is now in these modern times — and at the writing of the Revelation — is “Gog”, the “prince” or archangel of Magog, Meshech and Tubal (Genesis 10:2), as Revelation 20:8 identifies him explicitly. Ezekiel 39:1-2 says,
1 And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “Behold, I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal;
Ezekiel 38:2 says,
Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him
Ezekiel 38 and 39 are visions which are referring to separate events, except counter-intuitively they are not given in chronological order — as Ezekiel 39 happens first. Ezekiel 39:17-20 says,
17 “Now as for you, son of man, this is what the Lord God says: ‘Say to every kind of bird and to every animal of the field: “Assemble and come, gather from every direction to My sacrifice, which I am going to sacrifice for you as a great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel; and you will eat flesh and drink blood. 18 You will eat the flesh of warriors and drink the blood of the leaders of the earth, as though they were rams, lambs, goats, and bulls, all of them fattened livestock of Bashan. 19 So you will eat fat until you are full, and drink blood until you are drunk, from My sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. 20 You will eat your fill at My table with horses and charioteers, with warriors and all the men of war,” declares the Lord God.
Now compare with Revelation 19:17-18 which says,
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great feast of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, both free and slaves, and small and great.”
Revelation 19:17-18 is referring to the very same defeat of Gog as in Ezekiel 39:17-20. Therefore, when the Lord Jesus returns He will destroy Gog and regather Israel, as Ezekiel 38:25-28 says,
25 Therefore this is what the Lord God says: “Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on all the house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name. 26 They will forget their disgrace and all their treachery which they perpetrated against Me, when they live securely on their own land with no one to make them afraid. 27 When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall show Myself holy through them in the sight of the many nations. 28 Then they will know that I am the Lord their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then I gathered them again to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer.
However then Ezekiel 38:9,15-16 says,
9 And you will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you.” …15 You will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding horses, a large assembly and a mighty army;16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I show Myself holy through you before their eyes, Gog.
Compare with Revelation 20:8-9 which says,
8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
Therefore, Gog will be defeated once again after he is released from prison when he attacks the “camp of the saints” and the “beloved city.” These terms are referring to an already regathered Israel as is related in Ezekiel 39:25-28. Ezekiel 38:8,11,16 says,
8 After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual place of ruins; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them… 11 and you will say, ‘I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, who live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates… 16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I show Myself holy through you before their eyes, Gog.
All of this being said, when Peter said that the angels who sinned were cast into Tartarus, he is referring to an actual and verifiable angelic rebellion which began in the time of Israel’s captivity in Babylon and will continue until the end of the age. When angels who sin by defying the Lord Jesus are defeated and thrown down to the earth, they are cast into Tartarus for later judgement.
It is therefore no wonder that Paul says in Colossians 2:15,
When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
Paul says of the work which the Lord Jesus did on earth in Ephesians 3:10,
so that the multifaceted wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
Paul elaborates on why this came to be in Ephesians 1:19-22,
19 and what is the boundless greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Peter echoes the same thing in 1 Peter 3:21-22,
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
There is much written across the Scriptures of these heavenly events which we have hopefully shown. Some references we have not even touched on, but we hope it is obvious then what Peter is referring to: That it is not a rebellion which happened in Genesis 6 — which doesn’t mention angels, rebellion or imprisonment at all.
WERE THE NEPHILIM GIANTS?
Another facet of this belief about Genesis 6 is that the product of the angels and the daughters of mankind were giants. It is tacitly implied as intuitive that when an angel and a person have a child, it makes sense that the progeny would be a giant, right? This all comes from the word “nephilim” which has come to be synonymous with giants in many Christian circles.
But what does “nephilim” (Strong’s H5303) actually mean though? Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance agree that it comes from the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strong’s H5307), which basically means to fall. That doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything which has a giant stature.
Some will claim that it means that they are “fallen ones” — probably a reference to their angelic parents who supposedly fell before begetting them. Logically that doesn’t really make sense — in spite of maybe sounding appealing. Were the progeny of the angels who fell also fallen? How did the progeny fall? What did they fall from? The logic has baited us in with the supposed falling of their parents, then quickly switched in the progeny to take the designation.
Never mind as well that there is literally no record of angels falling around that time — or anywhere close to it.
Instead, we would propose that it means to cause others to fall — like the English verb “fell” — a “feller”. This is corroborated by them being described as “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
Things start to get very interesting when going through the same account in the Septuagint. The Septuagint translators translated the Hebrew word “nephilim” into the Greek word “gigantes” (“γίγαντες” — there is no Strong’s entry). At face value it seems like a done deal — Nephilim are “gigantes” and so they are obviously giants. As we will see, a closer look reveals the exact opposite.
In our modern understanding of mythology, “giants” always refer to something of larger than normal stature; however, in Greek mythology, that is not necessarily true. In fact, most Greek myths do not state that “gigantes” were of larger than normal stature. Some might refer to the Greek “cyclops” — which was much larger than a man — and say, “The cyclops was a giant.” In the modern English usage of “giant” that is indeed true. But the mythological “gigantes” were something else.
According to Greek mythology, the gigantes were the product of blood which spilled from Uranus when he was castrated by Cronus. These were incredibly strong and aggressive men who were mighty warriors who were always depicted in Greek artworks as being clad in armor and armed — yet conspicuously man-sized.
Josephus gives us some incredible insight as to why exactly the word “gigantes” was used in this instance:
For many Angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants.
Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter 3, section 1
For the sake of an honest citation, we have chosen to acknowledge that Josephus viewed them as the product of angels; however, Josephus was not a Christian and not familiar with the New Testament teachings which provide much needed context in order to refute this view — as we have already shown.
What’s important to note here is that Josephus mentions nothing of the great size of the gigantes — rather he says that they were called such because of what they did — not because of what they were. This certainly aligns with Genesis 6:4 itself which states that they were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” — their acts were like the gigantes of Greek myth, who also were mighty men.
This interpretation can be seen all over the Septuagint. Genesis 10:8 says,
And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a giant upon the earth.
Isaiah 13:3 says,
I give command, and I bring them: giants are coming to fulfil my wrath, rejoicing at the same time and insulting.
Ezekiel 32:12 says,
with the swords of mighty men [Greek: “gigantes”]; and I will cast down thy strength: they are all destroying ones from the nations, and they shall destroy the pride of Egypt, and all her strength shall be crushed.
In the passages we cited above — which are a few examples among others — it is obvious that they are not referring to actual giants — but rather to mighty men or warriors. In a bizarre twist, “gigantes” is also used to refer to departed spirits. Job 26:5 says,
Shall giants be born from under the water and the inhabitants thereof?
Isaiah 14:9 says,
Hell from beneath is provoked to meet thee: all the great ones [Greek: “gigantes”] that have ruled over the earth have risen up together against thee, they that have raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
Ezekiel 32:21 says,
Be thou in the depth of the pit [Greek: “gigantes”]: to whom art thou superior? yea, go down, and lie with the uncircumcised, in the midst of them that are slain with the sword.
We have no special insight to offer regarding the use of “gigantes” for these instances, but suffice to say that when the original translations of the Septuagint were being done, the translators had some complex view of what the giants were. No doubt they were hoping to appeal to their Greek audience.
Most assuredly, however, whenever the actual giants/Rephaim were referred to, the translators also used the word “gigantes.” Given everything we have covered, in their minds it was likely a reference to their great strength and mighty deeds — not simply their size. By this we conclude that the Septuagint translators saw the “nephilim” of Genesis 6 as mighty warriors, and since Genesis 6 states explicitly that they were might warriors, we would agree that makes sense. Simultaneously, Genesis 6 makes no mention of size in the Masoretic text or the Greek Septuagint.
Therefore, the logic which states — given that the sons of Anak were giants — and the sons of Anak were nephilim — therefore the nephilim were giants, is not necessarily true. Rather, the nephilim of Genesis 6 were might warriors, and the sons of Anak were mighty warriors. That is what “nephilim” means — “fellers” — as well as “gigantes” in the Greek. Numbers 13:33 says,
We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
The passage does not say that the sons of Anak were the Nephilim — but rather it states that they were part of the nephilim, or from the nephilim. Just earlier in Numbers 13:28-29 it says,
28 “Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And indeed, we saw the descendants of Anak there! 29 Amalek is living in the land of the Negev, the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan.”
It seems clear that the Israelites were not just afraid of the sons of Anak — they were afraid of all of the inhabitants of the land. They considered them all to be mighty people — the sons of Anak were only a part of that, as “the sons of Anak are a part of the Nephilim.” Deuteronomy 1:26-28 echoes the same thing,
26 “Yet you were unwilling to go up; instead you rebelled against the command of the Lord your God; 27 and you grumbled in your tents and said, ‘Because the Lord hates us, He has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to hand us over to the Amorites to destroy us. 28 Where can we go up? Our brothers have made our hearts melt, by saying, “The people are bigger and taller than we; the cities are large and fortified up to heaven. And besides, we saw the sons of the Anakim there.”
They are afraid of the people who are bigger and taller — whose cities are fortified — and then the sons of Anak are mentioned over and above those things. Deuteronomy 7:19-21 says of all the inhabitants of Canaan,
19… The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. 20 Indeed, the Lord your God will send the hornet against them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you perish. 21 You are not to be terrified of them, because the Lord your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God.
We would argue that to state in the context of Numbers 13 that the sons of Anak are the nephilim — and the nephilim are the sons of Anak — is a reading comprehension failure. Just like assuming that the nephilim are the progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of mankind is a reading comprehension failure. This is not what the author is trying to convey. Rather, all of the people who they were afraid of were nephilim — sons of Anak included.
This more than lines up with the view that “nephilim” and “gigantes” refers to a mighty warrior or someone with immense strength. It also accounts for the fact that Genesis 6 has no record of angels and cannot be referring to angels. Genesis 6 is stating that there were mighty men in the time when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind — and they were also there after that.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the nephilim were angel/man hybrids in the time before the flood.
WASN’T NOAH “PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS”?
Another popular verse that some Christians use to “prove” the copulating angels doctrine is Genesis 6:9:
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (KJV)
Many claim that in order to be “perfect in his generations” Noah — along with his wife and children — must necessarily have been the only Adamic man left in the world who was still unmixed by the corrupted seed of the angels. In other words, in his genealogy Noah did not have any ancestors who were not pure white, Adamic people. Of course this would necessarily extend to his sons and their wives as well.
Thankfully there are many qualifying statements providing some detail about why the earth was being destroyed. In fact, in all of the references to Noah in the entirety of the Scripture, there is no mention of mixing with angelic hybrids. Most of all, Genesis 6:5,11-13 says,
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually… 11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of people; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.
The first issue here is that “mankind” here is translated from “Adam” — and that term is reserved in the Scriptures only for pure Adamic people, not mamzers or hybrids. So this fact alone implicitly establishes that “wicked” — albeit pure — Adamites existed right before the Flood.
On top of that, there is nothing in these verses at all that mentions any mixing with angel hybrid seed. Some may speculate that the “corruption” is the mixing itself — however, if Genesis 6 were referring to mixing, then “shachath” (Strong’s H7843) would not be the word to describe it. Consider also Psalm 14,
1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed detestable acts; There is no one who does good. 2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of mankind To see if there are any who understand, Who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, together they are corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.
4 Do all the workers of injustice not know, Who devour my people as they eat bread, And do not call upon the Lord? 5 There they are in great dread, For God is with a righteous generation. 6 You would put to shame the plan of the poor, But the Lord is his refuge.
7 Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of His people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.
Psalm 14 is very interesting in the context of Noah and the flood — as it reads almost like Genesis 6. It relates how everyone is corrupt and no one does good — and there is no one who seeks God. However, He is with a righteous generation — as He was with Noah.
Just as in the flood, no one did good and everyone was corrupt. Noah sought God — he walked with God. He was righteous in his generation — and so God saved him and his family. Paul even quotes Psalm 14:1-3 in Romans 3 right after he has said in verse 9,
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Judeans and Greeks are all under sin
Paul is stating that Psalm 14 is not a reference to unmixed Adamic peoples — rather, it refers to the Judeans and Greeks. In other words, white people can also be corrupt and continually evil — just like they were before the flood. In fact, Paul goes as far as to say that this was exactly the reason why the Lord Jesus was necessary for us — “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (verse 24).
With the above in mind, it becomes more clear that there is a lesson in the Genesis 6 story which transcends mere mixing of kinds — which is only one aspect of righteousness. 1 Peter 3:19-21 says,
18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Peter here is comparing the flood with the baptism of the gospel of the Lord Jesus. He is saying that the world was washed with the flood — like a baptism. This baptism left only eight survivors, which was Noah and his family. Likewise, the gospel of the Lord Jesus with His death and resurrection ought to leave only righteousness in us. Peter says it must be “an appeal to God for a good conscience”. To this end Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:5,
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith.
Paul says of the baptism of the gospel in Romans 6:3-7,
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
If the gospel of the Lord must bring about freedom from sin, then Noah was a type or shadow for the righteousness which must result in us from the baptism into death with Christ Jesus. If we are to die with the Lord, then in the words of Peter we must also be “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit“.
He continues to say that it was by the same Spirit “in which He [Christ] also went and made proclamation to the spirits [in the time of Noah] [who are now] in prison”. They are now in prison because they refused to die to the flesh and live in the Spirit, as Noah did. Noah accepted the proclamation and in doing so he “condemned the world” (Hebrews 11:7).
It is no wonder that when the sons of God had sinned, the Lord said in Genesis 6:3,
My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.
Even those sons of God who were supposed to keep His ways had been overcome by their flesh, as it says in Galatians 5:17,
For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want.
If even those who were supposed to be His children had failed, there was naught left to do but make a clean slate.
But by the power of the Spirit and by the proclamation of the Lord Jesus, Noah “walked with God” — filled with the Spirit — which surely adds some interesting context to His conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:6-11,
6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again [or born from above].’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus responded and said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you people do not accept our testimony.
There are lessons throughout the Old Testament of men who are filled with the Spirit, of which Genesis 6 is just one. The Lord is amazed at Nicodemus, who has these lessons of the Spirit recorded in Scripture, yet he was unable to see the truth of the matter — at least not yet.
According to Peter, the Lord Himself made that proclamation to the antediluvian people — by the Spirit. In doing so, He Himself witnessed that which was recorded in Scripture. Therefore, He testifies of what He has seen.
Yet despite Noah’s great faith in that proclamation and the struggles he must have faced — even himself being patient for those 120 years — we are expected to simply believe that Noah was saved from the flood merely because of his white skin? And why save only Noah’s white skin when there clearly were other pure, white Adamics — albeit wicked — whom the Lord could have saved?
One must have the Holy Spirit — being born from above and being children of the promise — in order to attain to righteousness and faith — to be preserved — just like Noah was.
WHY IS THIS VIEW DETRIMENTAL TO CHRISTIANITY?
We would go as far as to say that this belief of angelic hybrids in Genesis 6 is indeed harmful to Christianity. When Christians see the corruption of the rephaim/giant mixed breeds in the land of Canaan, they believe that it was the product of angels. They think that the giants in Canaan were the only non-Adamic bipeds that people could sleep with to produce children.
When they encounter other bipeds, they think that these bipeds — which look and act very different from white, Adamic people — just like the giants — are somehow different from the giants. After all, in their minds the non-whites are “people” but the giants weren’t — because they were the product of angels.
Making this matter about angels confuses people into thinking that the giants were something other than what they were. If people could only accept that the giants were simply beasts per Leviticus 18:23 — and that the product of a giant and a person is a “mamzer,” then our understanding would be a lot more straight forward.
Never mind the fact that Genesis 6 is objectively not about angels anyway.
Furthermore — and possibly more importantly — Paul says in Titus 1:13-16,
13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprimand them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Judean myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.
Paul warns us to disregard these Judean myths — in the way Josephus clearly gave credence to them. These pagan myths will shipwreck our faith, which must produce righteousness — just as Paul said in Galatians 5:5,
For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
When we reduce the meaning of Noah’s preservation to something so banal as his white skin, we completely miss these important lessons about the indwelling of the Spirit and faith — as Noah acted by faith and attained the righteousness which comes from faith (Hebrews 11:7) — and we will fail to apply them in our lives.
In doing so, we become like Nicodemus who couldn’t understand the spiritual lessons which Christ Jesus was relating to him.
When we cling to these banal myths, we profess to know God, but our deeds will deny us — because our knowledge has failed to bring faith or righteousness.
Galatians 3:26 says,
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
It is by faith in the Lord Jesus that we too may attain to be children of God. If only our faith will produce righteousness, just as was the case with Noah.
I do not even know where to start with this. But let’s begin with Hebrews 1:5-7, which completely dispels the myth that ANGELS were sons of God.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 and again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Then we will move to 1 Corinthians 15:35-50:
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[e] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall[f] also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
VS 50 makes it clear that FLESH AND BLOOD cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If FLESH AND BLOOD are not in Heaven, then you have a lot of explaining to do if you believe that “ANGELS” can mate. Natural seed are animals and humans. Angels do not have seed. PERIOD. FULL STOP. As an aside, animals and humans cannot reproduce either. FULL STOP with serpent seed theory.
Also, there is an interpretation issue on “daughters” in the ancient greek this translates to young girl, and in another definition it says, “incest”.
I read the articles to get an idea what others in Israelite identity believe. I stumbled upon CFT while doing a search on something I can no longer recall. Hopefully this satisfies your questions.
This comment has nothing to do with David Eicke or any thing he pushes as his agenda. Whether he took up conspiracy theories as a means of being exposed to them, or gave his interpetation of the evil in this world or to do it to make a living after being unable to play sports, I don’t know .
Alex Jones has him on his show occassionaly and I’ve read some of Icke’s books, but haven’t seen any proof that I can tell , of what he says.
But this is my experience and I can know that to me it is a true happening. I have never in my life saw anything that wasn’t real to my consciousness.
I was working in a grocery store one evening , years ago , doing something near the Produce Department looking down at the floor , probably sweeping something that broke or spilled, which is always located in many store’s near the entrance door.
I happened to look up causally without really thinking about it and saw a young black women looking at various items of produce. She was an ordinary looking black women who seemed to be dressed as coming from work, and on her way home, and was buying some items.
Without consciously thinking, I again looked up causally in a sideway’s glance and the women had her mouth slightly open , and I noticed that , what are called “eye teeth” were fangs extending over her lower lip. They were exactly the same looking fangs children wear in their Halloween coustumes pretending to be vampire’s or in the Hollywood movies of vampire’s.
She did not put them in her mouth. I believed my mind at a certain frequency level was able to see her as she really was and why the New World Order, and those who for eons have sought rulership over mankind and the world , use drugs, pornography, sexual themes in movies, women as pin up stars, chemicals in our foods, religion, and many other things to destroy our spiritual eyesight so that we are unable to see them as they really are. So they are able to look and appear as we are and claim all mankind or races are equal and the same.
“Some Christians make the mistake of believing that there were actual “daimóns” in the Bible according to Greek mythology; however, the authors are merely accommodating their Hellenized audience by referring to something which is very much like a “daimón” without confirming that Greek mythology is true. What are these “daimón” then?”
This faulty and invalid argument could be used to dismiss the entire NT.
Charles weiusman used a similar argument to dismiss many of the prophets.
CFT has license to correct the Scriptures based on this premise. A premise which is unproven. CFT doesnt reaally believe the Bible!
It is pointless arguing with someone from this position of faithlessness. Faithless argumentation, illogical, invalid…
We are saying that daimóns were indeed “godlike” — and they were literal supernatural entities. We followed up our argument with witness from the Scripture that the daimóns were indeed angels — which you haven’t addressed.
Similarly, Tartarus was a useful Greek mythological concept used by Peter in 2 Peter 2:4 — and Hades is a useful concept to describe death. These mythological concepts refer to things which actually exist — but just because they are referred to in the manner of Greek mythology doesn’t prove Greek mythology true.
What exactly is your contention here? Do you believe that Tartarus and Hades literally existed according to the Greek mythology? If not, why would you presume that literal daimóns existed according to the Greek mythology? What about dragons?
First of all I’d like to point out to writers of this article that 2Peter ch.1v20 states 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This is exactly why the Church is in such a disarray today. Are we following Talmudic teachers into the same error. ? Intellect and degrees will not help here, but the Holy Ghost alone. Preconceived ideas will not bring us into the Truth. So stop searching internet for answers , stop and pray, and be patient, and The Lord will bless you.
We agree with you, which is why we wrote the essay. Much of Christianity, even “alt-Christianity” is infected with Talmudic thinking. We also reject gnosticism, and the search for salvation through esoteric “knowledge.” But we disagree with you — the “internet” has the ability to bring the true gospel to God’s children in a way that is far more powerful than any brick and mortar churches, which are now dominated by judaized pastors.
“which are now dominated by judaized pastors.”
Ain’t that the truth!
I tried those “Pentecostal Evangelical” churches, just to see if they wouldn’t be “lukewarm churches” and while signs were initially good–male pastors, no rainbow flags–they all started preaching feminism and that was a no go. What kind of pastor calls for men to give control of their finances to their wives?
A sleazeball who wants a giver whom he can much more easily dupe into being cheerful, that’s what I figure.
Nowadays, the only difference between a church and a synagogue is that the synagogue is the one without the overt feminism.
The Jus have often distorted the contents of the Bible in their favor, changing the identity with new clothes and new names, so that the dimly interested hope seeker will immediately put the book out of his hand if he does not know this website.
And now pay attention: a good friend of mine from Morocco told me that AMALEK is the old arabic expression for the “sons of the gods”. He calls me and my pals “Poor Amalek” – because we are under constant racist attacks from no less our government, schools and official history. Few are aware of the scope of the lies that our perception of reality on the part of the sciences.
Unfortunately, the tv reality proves them right day after day and with it the awakening and with it the common spirit together with the other peoples of the world to free us from the yoke of the Pharisees by taking the power away from the money and to take back the world and to heal it and to dance into the golden age. (halluzinating continues)
Very interesting, Herr Voice….
Jews call those who oppose them or whom they hate “Amalek”, so it only makes sense that Amalek are the “sons of God” because Jews hate anyone who follows God and not them.
In the Bible, Amalek were the enemies of the Israelites…..not the “sons of God”…..just Jews have twisted the idea to serve themselves. They are Amalek and Christians are Israelites.
The webs they weave….
@Christians for Truth
Right there with you brother. The same accuses me and others for the same reason.
Greetings. Im thankful for another day given to us from God, the Father and Lord, Jesus Christ. I have some critiques/objections that id like to share.
But, before I say anything, id like to state, as to remove any assumptions about what im about to say, that I am currently agnostic to the idea of Sons of God being angels, the Nephilim being giants, and Cain being the serpent’s seed (although I do believe that Satan’s influence existed in Eden).
Im happy to see that the CFT team did state that the title of Sons of God can be applied to both angels and adamkind. But, the reasoning for why they think Genesis 6 can’t refer to angels is, ill argue, also a reading comprehension failure. You’ve stated:
“Yet in Matthew 22:30 the Lord says of our resurrected bodies,
“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
He is stating categorically that angels do not marry. And so if the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 took wives of the daughters of mankind — but angels are not able to marry — then it logically follows that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 could not have been angels.”
The statement of “He is stating categorically that angels do not marry” is incorrect. The statement should be “He is stating categorically that angels IN HEAVEN do not marry”. Yet, we know there exists angels that are not in heaven anymore, as is recorded in Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 and Luke 10:18 etc.
The statement of “but angels are not able to marry” is also incorrect. Christ said “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”. He never said they are not able to, but rather that they don’t do it (like you accurately pointed out in the previous sentence). The very implication that they DON’T do something USUALLY means that the capacity for doing it is there. It’s like saying “true Christians don’t commit murder”, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do it. On the contrary, they can.
It is your own interpretation of Matthew 22:30 that leads to your next assertion which is:
“If it were true that angels allegedly can or cannot marry based on the state of their existence, we need some evidence of this somewhere in the Scripture. We would expect to see fallen angels somewhere in Scripture sleeping with people and producing children.”
The actual text does leave the door open for the possibility. And the evidence that you would be looking for would be recorded in Genesis 6. But, it’s your own interpretation that doesn’t allow for the potential evidence to come forth.
Even if you want to leave out Genesis 6, we have evidence in the Bible where men saw angels (even mistaking them for people) and thought them to be good for sex, as is recorded in Genesis 19:5:
“and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”
The sins of these men from Sodom against the angels in their heart could also provide context for the sins committed by the angels whom didn’t keep their proper place. They could be one and the same thing. Or they could not be. We will know one day.
Regarding your assertions on the timing of the fall and their subsequent lock up, and how it doesn’t relate Genesis 6, ill say that the fall doesn’t predate the angels sinning. They first sinned, then fell. How long have they been sinning? Probably from the beginning, but we don’t know for certain. You also can’t state that Genesis 6 wasn’t a rebellion. It was, considering sin in and of itself is a form of rebellion against God. Genesis 6 just boils down to if one thinks the sons of God were angels or a form of mankind. It could be either or, or something else entirely.
John, I’d like to think if I were agnostic of something, then I would approach it with a clean slate. If I had to read the Bible for the first time without anyone telling me about angels sleeping with people in Genesis 6, would I see it that way? What is there in the Bible that would make me see it that way?
I guess we don’t have evidence of angels not in heaven (“Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 and Luke 10:18 etc.”) taking wives though. Genesis 19:5… No sexual act happened (least of all making babies). So is it really evidence? We’d have to make the assumption that were they to have homosexual relations with angels, they’d be married. I don’t mean to be thick, it’s just that extra assumptions have to be made and the parameters themselves are even wrong (homosexual).
I guess if I believe Genesis 6 is about angels, then I have to make the assumption that it’s about angels, because there’s nothing in Genesis 6 which mentions angels. What am I basing that assumption on? Where’s the extra evidence to bring in?
I mean, if there’s no record of angels having sex with people or having babies, and Christ said angels don’t marry… No more assumptions should be made than what is necessary. We should only make assumptions if there is evidence for assumptions.
Genesis 6 is only evidence if I assume it’s about angels (and second assumption: sons of God produced nephilim). Genesis 19:5 is only evidence if I assume that their sexual attraction to angels would have resulted in sleeping with them, marriage and children. I can’t let Genesis 6 which is based on an assumption be evidence for Genesis 19:5, and Genesis 19:5 which is based on an assumption be evidence for Genesis 6. At some point the assumption itself needs to be proven.
Why not rather just let it all go? Angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage… Occam’s razor, angels can’t marry or have sex no matter what. To say angels not in heaven can marry is based on the assumption that angels not in heaven can marry. At some point, the assumption that angels not in heaven can marry needs to be proven.
Don’t you think maybe the only way to see it that way is to have the idea in the first place?
Thanks for the reply Johan.
I think our definition of agnostic may be different. The one I had in mind when using the word was “a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something”. This, I believe, has little to do with lack of foreknowledge, but rather a knowledge of different opinions or avenues. I try my best to read the word as a child. Like you, I’ve asked myself the same questions. What has resulted thus far are many options for how to interpret Genesis 6; of which I’ve abstained from selecting. Hence, my agnostic stance.
Your stance relative to Genesis 6 is that you believe one must place assumption on top of assumption in order to come to the conclusion that it’s about angels and them mating with women. However, you neglect to see that your own stance (that Genesis 6 isn’t about angels) is also based upon assumptions.
The evidence that is pointed to as the crux of the article’s argument is Matthew 22:30. I’ve objected to the article’s authoritative assertion that their interpretation of Matthew 22:30 is A) what’s actually said by our Lord and B) that your follow up to the assertion is proof that the asserted view is correct (because you have now caused there to be an omission of potentially rock solid proof).
One needs not to have an opinion on Genesis 6 to see that the inhabitants of Sodom in Genesis 19:5 saw angels and tried to rape them. This means they thought the angels were capable of having sex and they acted on it, so much so that it prompted the angels to blind them. I didn’t say that this was the evidence that would satisfy you or anyone else, but it is evidence for the case regardless.
Your application of Occam’s razor comes across is a little hypocritical. Occam’s razor states that Genesis 6:4 means that the Nephilim were the children of the sons of God and the daughters of man. But, the article being defended states that Occam’s razor applied here shows “a reading comprehension failure”. Likewise. “Angels are not able to marry” are not words spoken by our Lord in the Scriptures. They are words spoken by man.
Your stance of “at some point, the assumption that angels not in heaven can marry needs to be proven” is a perfectly valid one, and one that I agree with. But, for me to “just let it all go”, it needs to be disproven. Which, this article hasn’t done.
I don’t have an opinion to push here and I aim not to change anyone’s personal faith on the matter. What my aim to do was to point out the assertions made are not authoritative and shouldn’t be presented as such, especially at the cost of insults to one’s intelligence.
John, those who believe that angels copulated with Adamic women have the burden of proof. The people who don’t believe it do not have the burden to prove it is not true. Get it? You claim those who do not believe it must prove it’s not true. You are wrong. That’s not the way it works.
I can claim that Genesis 6 is about flying saucers and extra terrestrials, but I would have the burden of proof — you don’t have the burden of proof to prove me wrong. That’s silly. It’s a waste of everyone’s time to claim otherwise.
If you are claiming that the essay did not disprove the copulating angels doctrine to your satisfaction, you are tacitly implying that those who believe it have made a strong case, which you find sufficiently persuasive, and therefore, you cannot be unbiased or “angnostic” in this case. Clearly you have a dog in this fight, despite your protestations.
Thank you for your input jas.
What I’ve said about my stance is the truth. I’ll let my yes be yes and my no be no. Whether my thoughts and feeling were wrong, I’ll know one day. All I can do right now is the best that I can.
I am glad that you believe the matter of genesis 6 to be settled. I hope I can be there some day. I dont think one’s belief of genesis 6 is a matter of salvation, or at least it’s not for me.
You are right. I do have a dog in this fight. And that is that I don’t care for people making assertions through putting words in our Lord’s mouth and then insulting people. Which I do think more closely relates to matters of salvation.
Taking stances that say “we believe that x and y belief is destructive and if you think it, you have a reading comprehension problem” is a big red flag to me. It’s very reminiscent of the Catholic church throughout the centuries. They denounced efforts to get the Word into the common man’s hands for their own reading, and then when they finally got their own English edition, they riddled it with their commentaries, definitions, and warned the reader to follow it or else they could end up in hell. They did this by claiming divine authority and perfect conformity.
Then, from there and over time, Christianity has devolved into tons of different denominations with everyone following their own earthly leaders and pointing the finger at other Christian groups and calling them wrong (and certainly, many are wrong these days, and I sympathize with the efforts to correct it, but we all error somewhere).
A house divided against itself can not stand.
But, when you assert and curse, you’re no different than any other mislead denomination or Christian faction. “With it (the tongue) we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God”.
My initial post was intended to treat my brother as he treats others, and to show that the assertions and curses are unwarranted.
I don’t care to change anyone’s personal faith on these minor doctrinal matters. I care about people not setting themselves up as judges and I care about a lack of grace and mercy.
John,
There is a fundamental Scriptural truth you are overlooking that proves the burden of proof belongs to you: Marriage is between an Adamic man and an Adamic woman – kind after kind. I’m pretty sure you recognize that God does NOT recognize mixed unions as “marriages”, and thus the resultant usage of such words as “wives”.
The Word of God would become hypocritical in order to support a belief that angels could now marry (e.g. take wives of) adamic women. The authors at CFT have also Scripturally witnessed as to whom the Word is referring to when “son of God” is written – the context in which they were written. There is nothing in the context that would make one assume that “sons of God” would mean angels, since angels had not been referred to in the text save for the one wielding the flaming sword protecting the Tree of Life (Michael?)…and you can’t say “the serpent in the Garden” because that would, again, be assumption not based upon the Scriptural text.
So, logically, “sons of God” would have to be the descendants of Adam in Gen. 6. So, in the context in which it was written, it would make perfect sense that the great evil of the time before the flood was rampant promiscuity, with much incest, resulting in a low moral social order. That is chaos. Violence. This also lends to the specificity of the phrase “perfect in his generations” in reference to Noah – it is not a statement of ‘racial’ purity (which is part of an assumption built upon assumption), but a statement of verifiable ancestry that followed God’s natural law – which was later codified into the Mosaic Law.
When you simply drop the 2SL baggage, which is a preconception, and read the Scriptures for what it ‘logically’ states (remember – logic according to God, not man), the Word becomes much clearer.
Much love.
Thanks for the reply.
Like i said, i didnt come here to push a view, especially not a 2SL one. I came to show that this article has no business making assertions about things that are not plainly stated by our Lord and that the article certainly shouldnt make the assertion at the cost of insults (even if they are right).
I didnt say that the interpretation of Genesis 6 was wrong. On the contrary, i stated that im open to it and have not yet decided for myself what i believe to be the identity of the sons of God and daughters of man. The crux of this articles argument, the punch line per se, is their interpretation of Matthew 22:30, which is being pushed as absolute truth and if you disagree then you’re lacking in intelligence (this is what ive objected to). One can believe that i carry around baggage of this kind of that kind, and im ok with people thinking that of me. The Lord will judge us all, and everything will come to light in time.
Because one thinks that their interpretations are absolute (or rather that someone else’s views are inferior, or that the other person is inferior), it makes it impossible to have an open conversation. If the conversation is struck up you hear “burden of proof is on you” or they put words into your mouth to paint you in a light that is convenient to them so that they can cast off what you bring to the table. Its the same thing that is done at “other places”. The hearts of the people involved seem to be unchanged in this regard. The thing that has changed is just a doctrine.
Maybe i am wrong. But when i decide to not point it out, then its like Jeremiah says:
“if I say, “I will not remember Him Or speak anymore in His name,” Then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire Shut up in my bones; And I am weary of holding it in, And I cannot endure it.”
So, i choose to say it and deal with whatever follows because its better than hiding myself and risk being the slothful servant. Its painful.
John,
Just wanted to say that I support your point of view. This issue for me would fall under the category of a “non-essential’. I do enjoy the “conversations” here at CFT and I like the adage “Iron Sharpens Iron”. I hope in the future, with those issues that are not so ‘cut and dried’, we all follow your advice and attitude. Cheers brother.
Thank you westwins for the vote of confidence. I genuinely was not expecting it.
I praise our Lord, Jesus Christ, that it happens to be you to say what you have said.
I am guilty of these same things of which I’m trying to point out here, and I’m guilty of them against you. I’d like to apologize for my comment here:
https://christiansfortruth.com/malachi-and-the-treachery-of-end-times-anti-christ-judeo-christian-ministers/#comment-34077
I presented you with no grace or mercy here and I imposed my own selfish views of you onto you (that is, trying to paint the picture that you were a selfish man trying to do a self-promotion of your blog). I became a liar in that moment and I commit murder against your character and in doing such became a law breaker. I’ve not forgotten about this, and I do try my best to repent of this. Please forgive me for the open slander against you. No matter how strongly i felt about my position, i should not have done this.
Hi John,
I appreciate the explanation/apology.
If it seems I “promote” my blog — I only do so because I truly believe the “implications” or “conclusions” set forth on my blog. And I have my blog because I love Truth first and foremost and second, I love my people. It started because I love my immediate family. My parents and my brothers and sisters are all married unrighteously. So, it was my love for them that motivated me to create my blog.
Look ………… I hope I am wrong. But I fear I am right.
I have a new post. I’d like you to look at it. I ask a very simply question —- What would have Jesus said to the woman at the well, so that she could “make” the man she was living with her husband. Pretty simple question and it should be a simple answer IF …………. IF marriage (one flesh) is more than sexual intercourse.
I would place “marriage” into a more important category than this one that we are talking about on this article. And I say that because the Scriptures say that Adulterers and the Sexually Immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. So, this is a Salvation issue to me; whereas talking about Angels is highly speculative.
Thanks John. 🙂
Ps….. I did reply to you on my blog and my reply “may” seem harsh. I don’t mean it to be “personal”. But my convictions are strong and therefore sometimes my words might come across as “strongly” condemning. Please understand that if you read my comment. My frustration in the past is that people have often criticized my point of view — but fail to address simple questions that I put forth and this can be very frustrating. Because they are “my” questions as well and I can’t seem to get direct answers for them. So I get ridiculed at the same time “ignored”. It can be frustrating.
westwins, please don’t use this article as a vehicle to promote your ideas about marriage. They are not directly relevant to the subject matter of this essay. If you want to discuss them, your own blog is a better place for them.
“Because one thinks that their interpretations are absolute (or rather that someone else’s views are inferior, or that the other person is inferior), it makes it impossible to have an open conversation.”
I think that is a very wise statement, John.
CFT….
My apologies.
Unfortunately, “comment sections” are about the only way our peoples can communicate with each other these days.
John was someone I spoke to months ago on a separate article. He was apologizing to me here on this article — and I was simply accepting his apology. I purposely did not cite my blog address here on this article as to not promote my blog.
I appreciate you posting my comment above. Sincerely.
John,
I certainly understand your trepidation with men thinking they can rule over other men with their personal doctrine. We can all agree that is not Christian – so we all need to be careful – otherwise, we are just going to be precluding one another from honest, heartfelt Scriptural scholarship and bringing those findings to our brethren!
With that being said, you will notice that my original point was not to address your personal position on “angel or adam”, but to point out that you are wrong as to where the burden of proof lies, ultimately making your argument moot because CFT DID prove their assertion, which is that “angels” are nowhere in the context of Genesis at all – so the concept that the Sons of God COULD be angels only exists in a preconception. If we are truly seeking the truth, do we not fully grasp the concept of patching wineskins and cloaks, and coming to Christ as children?
Yes, we should not be beating our brethren over the head with doctrine – true or not. Zeal is a problem we all tend to deal with in varying amounts, especially when it feels like the spirit is truly working through you during your scholarship. I am waaaaay guilty of that. The best defense we have against it is Scripture. Iron sharpening iron.
I believe your “agnostic 2SL” preconceptions have helped to put you a little more on the defensive than you need to be (in this instance). The truth bears out the truth, and it is my opinion that this article has met the muster of Scriptural testimony. If it does not, it has eluded me, and I have read the article a few times now and referenced most of it, and it appears to me to be sound logic and scholarship. I’m not exactly sure where it’s coming across as “this doctrine is right, and you’re wrong, and you’re stupid if you don’t agree”, but we all read things differently.
I pray you see my point. I don’t disagree with you, but I think you’re kinda barking up the wrong tree this time…
I agree with Konrad!!!
You speak the truth John. When people take an opposing viewpoint and then they tell you how detrimental and bad you are, I tend to take issue with that. Arrogant elitism….Just Stop!
Genesis 6 should say the son’s of the angel saw the daughters of Adam and they took them as wives.
Those were Cain’s kids.
Adam was the son of God and his descendants have kids.
Cain was the son of satan and his kids also have kids.
I see them all over today with Adam’s daughters and it’s quite disgusting.
Which is why Jesus said when I return it will be just
like in the days of Noah which is now.
I was at the theater a few weeks ago and this gorgeous blonde haired girl
about 18 was in the lobby and guess who she left with…One of Cain’s black kids.
You want to see the giants, they run up and down the basketball court…
Cain was black? And what is your proof for this.
If Cain was black — then this mysterious entity in the Garden was also a black – flesh and blood — entity?
So Eve had “literal” and physical intercourse with this black entity and then Adam also engaged as well.
Is this what you believe?
And why would Eve be so interested in having sex with a black entity? Very strange. And honestly, very gross. This is the Mother of all living???
Curious…
If Cain was the first “black”, then he obviously had to be half white, making him ‘milk chocolate’ at best. So, if “blacks” started out with a half white father, then the resultant sons who obviously couldn’t be fully “black” even if their mother was 100% “black”, began copulating with white women – how did the “blacks” become “black”?
Such a great point, Konrad! Cain would have been a mulatto. If Adam and Eve had a bunch of daughters — they would be white.
So this half-black “Cain” would have had babies with his half-white sisters and the result would be 1/4 black.
WHERE DO BLACKS COME FROM THEN?!!!
Great point Konrad!
It’s interesting that Jews, especially students of the Talmud, insist that the name “Adam” (אָדָם) comes not from “Aw” and “dahm” but rather from “adamah”, or אֲדָמָה in Hebrew, which means the earth, the soil, and thus, if his skin was any color, it was reddish-brown, like the earth. They know exactly what Adam means — to show blood in the face — but that would not fit their agenda, so they pretend otherwise. All of them believe this without exception, like robots. Even though it is a proven deception.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/127.htm
According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew, Adam is אָדָם, and it means ruddy, red, and the participle is מְאָדָּם, which means “redden”, or “blush”. flush, turn rosy. Case closed.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/119.htm
Could somebody who believes in the copulating angels doctrine please explain to me why you trust the Jewish extra biblical sources, such as the targums, that agree with this theory? And why doesn’t the fact that occult Jewish texts agree with this theory immediately make you suspicious of its veracity?
I found that essay very interesting and thought provoking, thank you CFT.
I found the original question rather bemusing: Of course angels and mankind cannot make babies… angels cannot get married AKA have sexual intercourse! Jesus said! I’ve met a few people who thought that way about Genisis 6, but I didn’t know it was a fairly common idea til now.
I am slightly puzzled by the demons and princes aspect of it, how-ever. That was a new line of thinking for me. Here is what I have; could people criteek please?:
1. Angels are all in the guise of men when on earth. Archangels are the chief angels AKA princes AKA Satan? Michael is the archangel prince of Israel who is fighting constantly up in heaven with his army of angels against the current world empire archangel.
2. As each Satan, of which there are seven, is defeated he is cast out of heaven down to earth with his naughty angel army mates in to hell.
3. Hell is the grave. When you die you go to sleep and wake up on resurrection day for judgement. But angels go to a pit AKA hell AKA Tartarus to await judgement. Are they dead and asleep like Mankind? or awake? and the pit is like a gaol?
4. Who are the demons that can be expelled in Jesus’s name? Christians are given the power to exercise demons… but (if I read it right) the demons are naughty angels that inhabit people? What happened to their angel bodys?
The demon idea has always mystified me to a degree, so any help is appreciated. Ta.
I could take a stab at it:
1. There seem to be multiple chief angels each of whom are given authority over certain nations. Seven of them are Satan. Daniel 12:1 says that Michael will continue to fight all the way until the end. Paul says that there is a “restrainer” which will be removed in 2 Thes 2:7, which is probably Michael who is defending Israel. Daniel 12:7 says that the power of the holy people must be destroyed, which could be in part because Michael is removed, because he was defending Israel. Mark 13:25 says that the powers of heaven will be shaken, showing that right before Christ’s return, there will be massive upheaval in heaven. Interesting that a star falling from heaven opens the abyss again (Revelation 9:1).
2. They are cast down to the earth, but by what we can see in the New Testament, they still needed to be banished to Tartarus.
3. That is my understanding. I think they are probably awake/conscious, whereas people aren’t.
4. They are fallen angels who had been cast to earth, but not yet cast into Tartarus. As to what happened to their angel bodies… I don’t know. That’s a good question. Why do they seem so limited after being cast to earth? Why did legion ask to go into pigs? Why did that seem like the only alternative for legion? Most people assume legion made the pigs go into the water, but what if Christ did it to ensure they went into the pit anyway?
It’s also interesting that John’s gospel is the youngest gospel, and his gospel doesn’t including demons at all. As in zilch. Probably by the time John wrote it, the fallen angels on earth had all been taken care of. Also Peter refers to their imprisonment in the past tense of course, and we don’t see demonic activity today, so it is the only explanation IMO.
Thanks for your reply, Clock. Yes, I have many questions, and I’m tryna see if I’m reading from the same Hymn sheet as others haha.
Interesting points you raise concering demons today… no, I don’t think demons are around today either; I read a lot of books like Kiss of Satan by H.A. Maxwell Whyte. He has a lot of interesting things to say, but I just dunno about all the casting out of demons that goes on today: most people’s “demons” seem to be psychological, and if a “faith healer” casts them out, and they feel better, then that is just a psychological remedy I think. The storys in the Bible of demons, and I’m generalizing here, are different as they are able to speak and be seen.
We are thinking the same then. It’s funny how the encounters people have with “demons” these days are very different to the encounters which are recorded in the Scriptures. I think it’s a combination of two things:
1. People are watching too much jewish media. They need to switch off their TVs. Media is actively trying to convince Christians of the doctrine Satan wants them to believe. People start to get confused about where their own doctrinal views actually come from… The Bible or the TV. Like the “traditional” view of Satan for example is everywhere in media, movies, etc. It’s just not really in the Bible. I think the Bible itself tells a different version of Satan and demons than what the TV tells… which I think is highlighted by the article above.
2. People want to have some connection to the supernatural world to validate their own beliefs and faith. They want to feel special in a way which doesn’t actually require them to put any work into serving God. Pretending to be possessed or seeing demons is a “quick fix” to feeling special. I think you were right on when you said it’s “pathological”. But hey, we have many examples of people who actually believed their own lies and false prophecies in the Bible. Just look at that Zedekiah fellow in 1 Kings 22. Good grief. He was so confident in his own lie, he made himself some props and even slapped the prophet of God.
Yes, Clock, you’re dead right about your point number one. I grew up with the God vs THE Devil idea… not many Devils, not no Devil, but THE one and only Devil: all this I learnt through paintings of old, so, catholic art, and films and books. When I started reading the Bible, I was rather bemused to find no arch nemisis of God.
The devil of the Bible is very, very different from the Devil that the greater populace of the world know, and all from just not picking up the Bible and reading for oneself. I’m STILL tryna work it out! Just like Heaven and Hell: very, very different once again from what’s thought of by the vast masses of Christians and non-Christians alike.
You’re dead right about number two also. I see this all the time… it’s like this transgender tidal wave that is crashing over the White Nations to-day. “Transtrender” more like. People wanna feel special and like they count for something, which is not bad in itself, mind you, so they seek attention, but far out, wearing a loud tie versus supposed demonic possession? Get off the grass. The difference for a Christian is that a Christian needs to realize that humility and meekness are part of what makes a Christian, not vain rituals, leaping up and down in church, “speaking in tongues”, etc, and that nothing matters except God.
I reckon that in a few years we will see a heap of the trannies of this day come back to normal and pass off their tranny years as a “phase that I went thru”. Goths, hippies, emos, punks, rockers, mods, whatever – only the hardest of the hardcore seem to stay in it for the long run.
So when I see the people saying they are possessed or what-have-you, I just think… yeah, nah. If they were truly possessed, we wouldn’t see all this exorcism nonsense, as Jesus states, that we will cast out devils in His name: if the demons and devils were real, they would be cast out at the mention of Jesus’ name, and not go on and on and on and on like the hollywood films like to show with catholic priests. Look how Jesus did it. How long did He take to do it? Not long at all.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the matter.
Christ is King wrote, “Angels are all in the guise of men when on earth.”
I would say that Angels are all in the guise of men when they reveal themselves to men on earth, but their actual “bodies” are something else entirely.
Their bodies which they reveal to men are not corporeal, because they disappear and reappear (angel which appeared to Balaam, Gideon and also Samson’s parents). David sees an angel ready to destroy Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. It doesn’t explain how that looked, but it says in 1 Chronicles 21:30 that David was terrified by the vision. Then the angels seen by Elisha are all described as “chariots of fire”, when Elijah is collected and when the Arameans are captured (2 Kings 6). There is also the angel which was a burning bush, a column of smoke, a pillar of fire.
Christ says we will be like the angels in heaven in the resurrection, so I assume that whatever angels are, we will also be.
John also says, “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.” (1 John 3:2)
So whatever Christ is, we will be like Him, and that it is connected with being “children of God”.
Paul describes the resurrected body…
“39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of mankind, another flesh of animals, another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15)
What I get from this, is that when comparing our bodies now to what they will be, it is like comparing animals, birds and fish with the sun, moon and stars. I mean, stars aren’t even really comparable at all with birds at all.
I assume that our bodies are different to angel’s bodies in the same way, because we will be like the angels. How could something so different copulate together? It also just goes to show that the original creation of Adam wasn’t the end goal of creation. Paul describes this as he continues in 1 Corinthians 15…
“45 So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy one, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly one, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.“
Thanks for that, Johan. I agree with you.
“I would say that Angels are all in the guise of men when they reveal themselves to men on earth, but their actual “bodies” are something else entirely.”
Yes, that is very true.
I must say, I’m always amazed by your knowledge of chapter and verse… I’m more of an overview sort of bloke; I’m detail focused, but I like to see a big picture mesh together, and I try my mightyest to remember what says what and where, but alas, no. We’re all different eh 🙂
We are the same there I think. Sometimes a bit of practice with Googling verses and a Bible which has a robust cross-reference system goes a long way!
I’m right there with you, lol…
CFT writes:
“Some Christians make the mistake of believing that there were actual “daimóns” in the Bible according to Greek mythology; however, the authors are merely accommodating their Hellenized audience by referring to something which is very much like a “daimón” without confirming that Greek mythology is true. What are these “daimón” then?”
So Christ was just pretending to cast out demons?
Christ was going on with a lie to pander to Greek mythology…
And then I notice that Jude 1:6 is not mentioned but verse 9 is. I have noticed that CFT does this often, imo.
The angels that left their first estate. We know the serpent has seed. Christ also told us of tares planted by the devil and not by God!
Jud 1:6 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.
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
EVEN AS sodom and gomorrha, going after strange (different) flesh.
CFT should explain somewhere, I think many of their papers have discussed similar themes, what “sin lieth at the door” means. Most serious DSCI students suggest it is referring to a woman, a woman should bring forth sons without sin lying at her door (birth canal).
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
A good tree bringeth forth good fruit. Behaviour is ultimately genetic.
And why was Abel even allowed to make a sacrifice?
Cain, if Adam’s legitimate offspring, would have been the rightful heir. Yet the younger Abel challenged cain and made a sacrifice also and actually prevailed. God accepted Abel as the legitimate heir. There is no other explanation that makes sense.
Then cain was OF that wicked one. Was that Adam? Was that God?
Cross-reference that to John 8, those who were of their father who was a murderer from the beginning.
Also there was only one Law at the time of Noah. Dont touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So the sin of that time could not have been any vague ‘bad thoughts’ etc. There are no punishments for thoughts in the Bible. So Eve’s sin had to be related to the commandment not to TOUCH the bad tree and it could not have been a thought crime. That word for touch has similar connotations in other verses of Scripture. And then go to Genesis 6 and the same sin is happening at the time of Noah; all flesh had become corrupt.
Also there are celestial and earthly messengers in Scripture. Not every instance of the words refer to a celestial angel, it doesnt have to be celestial angels. Mankind does indeed marry and men can be messengers or angles. Some manuscripts have ‘angels of God’ at Genesis 6:4. If these were white Adamites then what was the sin exactly? What is the sin of the angels that left their first estate of old?
I dont believe the other races come from God. That anything bad has an origin with God.
I dont believe bad fish or tares originate or were planted by God. Everything God made is good. Rather their origination is in the sins of the world. In the corruption of God’s creation.
4ntioch wrote, “So Christ was just pretending to cast out demons? Christ was going on with a lie to pander to Greek mythology…”
Greek mythology is all over the New Testament, like mentions of Hades, Tartarus, daimons and dragons. DSCI are happy for the dragon of Revelation to be metaphorical — and be a “lie” according to your words. To say that dragons, Hades and Tartarus are metaphors, but simultaneously not accepting daimons as literal is a “lie”, is a double standard.
Christ was no stranger to pandering to people. He healed a man by putting mud on his face. He was prepared to follow the Roman centurion, but tacitly admitted that He didn’t have to when the centurion revealed his faith. He told men to go and show themselves to the priest to be healed when it clearly wasn’t necessary. Did He actually need to do all of these things? We expect that a mere thought would have sufficed to heal them.
I just don’t think calling Christ a “liar” for accomodating the flawed understanding of His audience is a tenable one. Taking that position also simply assumes that every Greek mythological concept needs to be taken literally. It doesn’t actually support the idea that every Greek mythological concept should be taken literally, especially when there are many examples of Greek mythological concepts in Scripture which are clearly not meant to be taken literally.
4ntioch wrote, “EVEN AS sodom and gomorrha, going after strange (different) flesh.”
This statement assumes that the angels went after strange flesh. It doesn’t support the idea that angels went after strange flesh. There is no other account in the Scripture which states that angels slept with anyone, and Christ says that angels don’t sleep with people.
The subject of Jude and Peter’s discourse are those who enagage in “indecent behavior” (2 Peter 2:2, Jude1:4), have “eyes full of adultery” (2 Peter 2:14), “entice by fleshly desires” (2 Peter 2:18), “slaves of corruption” (2 Peter 2:19), “churning up their own shameful deeds like dirty foam” (Jude 1:13) and “following after their own ungodly lusts” (Jude 1:18).
They also “reject authority” (Jude 1:8, 2 Peter 2:10), “speak abusively of majesties” (Jude 1:82 Peter 2:10), are “without fear” (Jude 1:12) and “speak arrogantly” (Jude 1:16, 2 Peter 2:18).
By Peter and Jude’s own words, we have a verifiable subject of their discourse who are engaging in lust of adultery and indecent behavior. Simultaneously, they are rejecting the authority which would bring them in line with the law and out of sin.
Both Jude and Peter have made it very clear what kind of behavior the subject of their discourse are engaging in, so when Jude says “just as” and “in the same way these”, he is referring to the subject of his discourse, not angels. To assume they are referring to the angels ignores that there is no record of angels doing any such thing, and it ignores the flow of their own discourse which is referring to adulterers.
Peter and Jude are applying each example they have given to the subject in a way that ties in to the behavior they are engaging in:
Death in the wilderness (Jude 1:5) — Unbelief/rebellion.
Angels who abandoned their estate (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6) — Unbelief/rebellion.
Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:6-7, Jude 1:7) — Sexual sin.
Noah and the flood (2 Peter 2:5) — Sexual sin and unbelief/rebellion.
Balaam of Peor (2 Peter 2:15, Jude 1:11) — Unbelief/Rebellion.
Rebellion of Korah (Jude 1:11) — Unbelief/Rebellion.
Cain (Jude 1:11) — Unbelief/Rebellion.
They are not applying these examples to one another. Applying these examples to one another doesn’t make sense, because death in the wilderness, Korah, Cain and Balaam are not a reference to sexual sin, even in your own view. Neither are they even referring to non-whites, even in your own view.
4ntioch wrote, “God accepted Abel as the legitimate heir. There is no other explanation that makes sense.”
Isaac had the birthright over Ishmael. Jacob was destined to receive the birthright since before his birth. David was made king in spite of being the youngest brother. Ephraim received the birthright in spit of being younger than Manasseh. Judah had the birthright over Reuben. I’m not sure why you think there is no other explanation. It is not self-evident to me.
4ntioch wrote, “Then cain was OF that wicked one”
John wrote “of the evil”. He didn’t write “of the evil one” (or “OF that wicked one”). Evil is anthropomorphized and is referring to Cain’s own sin nature. This is made more clear by three things:
1. John says that Cain committed the act “Because his own deeds were evil”. Not because He was of “the evil one”, or “of the devil”. This lines up with “the evil” being an anthropomorphization of one’s own sin nature.
2. Previously in 1 John 3 he was saying “of the devil”, but he shifts to “of the evil”. John made an intentional shift from referring to being influenced by the devil, to Cain’s own sin nature. The shift would be jarring unless John intended to mean something different. This is qualified and proven because John says, “his own deeds were evil”.
3. Hebrews 11:4 says “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain”. The writer of Hebrews states that faithlessness and disbelief is sin in Hebrews 3:17 and 19: “Was it not with those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? …those who were disobedient? And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.” This again shows that Cain failed due to his own sin nature.
4. Cain is not recorded in Genesis 4 as having been influenced by anyone. Incidentally, Genesis 4:6 affirms that it is his own sin nature “waiting at the door”, just as it is with all of us. It must be mastered. Job 11:14-15 says the same thing: “14 If wrongdoing is in your hand, put it far away, And do not let malice dwell in your tents; 15 Then, indeed, you could lift up your face without moral blemish, And you would be firmly established and not fear.” Paul says the same thing in Romans 6:12 and 16, “Therefore sin is not to reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts… Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?”
Matthew explicitly divorces the two concepts of being “of the evil” and “of the devil” in Matthew 13:38-39, where the sons of “the evil” were sewn by “the devil”. In other words, one can be enticed by the devil to ingratiate one’s own sin nature. This is an important lesson.
Importantly, the devil is not necessary to be there in order to be enticed to “the evil”. This is all the more obvious in Matthew 5:37: “But make sure your statement is, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of the evil.” This is a moral instruction to white people. Let’s reflect on your logic:
You have said that Cain was “of the evil one”, and therefore he is a literal child of Satan. So if someone does not let their “yes be yes” and their “no be no”, then are they literal children of Satan? Rather, if someone speaks falsely to their brother, is it not just their own sin nature who has overcome them?
4ntioch wrote, “Also there was only one Law at the time of Noah.”
There were two extra laws: The law of marriage (Genesis 2:24) and a kind of law of faith and obedience (Hebrews 3:17-19, Hebrews 11:4).
Also Cain was punished for murdering Abel. Whether there was a law or not, his punishment is evident.
Again, this proves that it was Cain’s own sin nature and his disbelief, not him being a literal child of Satan. In any case, Genesis 4:1 states explicitly that Cain was the son of Adam.
4ntioch wrote, “There are no punishments for thoughts in the Bible.”
Matthew 5:28: “but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This completely contradicts your position, and it is therefore not tenable.
4ntioch wrote, “Some manuscripts have ‘angels of God’ at Genesis 6:4. If these were white Adamites then what was the sin exactly?”
Whatever they are, it’s not in the DSS, Masoretic or Septuagint.
4ntioch wrote, “What is the sin of the angels that left their first estate of old?”
It says “that left their first estate”; it doesn’t say “they left their first estate of old.” In any case, their estate was to serve Christ. They rebelled against Him, and so they left that estate.
4ntioch wrote, “I dont believe bad fish or tares originate or were planted by God. Everything God made is good.”
Nothing is inherently “good” but the Father alone (Mark 10:18, Matthew 19:17, Luke 18:19). In order to take a position where something is seen as inherently good which is not the Father means to simply disagree with Christ. When God said that creation was good, it is obviously in a way which is different from being inherently good. If I make a table and I call it good, it does not mean the table is inherently good. It just means that it is fit for purpose.
4ntioch wrote, “I dont believe the other races come from God. That anything bad has an origin with God. I dont believe bad fish or tares originate or were planted by God. Everything God made is good. Rather their origination is in the sins of the world. In the corruption of God’s creation.”
You don’t believe? Or you don’t want to believe? Your belief is contradicted by Scripture which you are forced to either ignore or twist into another “meaning” to maintain this doctrine.
For example, Ecclesiastes 3:1, is a witness against your doctrine, ““To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:”
Or Ecclesiastes 3:19: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.”
Who taught you this doctrine that everything you decide is “bad” is not created by God? It certainly wasn’t Christ — or the Bible. Did God create hurricanes and earthquakes? Wild beasts that tear men apart? Are these “good” or do they serve God’s purpose? Who are you to decide what is “good” or what does or does not serve God’s purpose? Just because you can’t see its purpose doesn’t make it “bad” or that God didn’t have a hand in it. Ecclesiastes tells us that God has a purpose for everything.
4ntioch, I sincerely want you to consider that whoever taught you this doctrine has led you astray. Such a teacher is described in Luke 11:52, ““Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
I am confused by Ecclesiastes 3:19: if we go by the notion that “beast” in the Bible can mean “non-Adamic bipedal humanoids”, is it effectively codifying “The White Man’s Burden” by making us responsible for them?
…hopefully this is not the case, because if the “African Missionary” types in the churches today ever caught wind of this we might never hear the end of it.
To cut to the quick, I believe I am still hung up on the idea that “beast” seems to selectively mean non-Whites on some occasions but non-humanoids on the other.
Genesis 9:2 outlines the relationship between man and beast after the flood. I don’t see anything in there which makes the white man responsible for them.
With “beasts of the field”, the word for field is “sadeh” (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7704.htm). This word strongly implies cultivation and civilization. Just saying “field” doesn’t do it justice really. They aren’t “beasts of the field”. They are “cultivated beasts”. The only time in Bible translations when the word “sadeh” doesn’t mean cultivation or civilization of some kind is when it is used in combination with “chayyah” (living thing, animal). I guess it just confuses the translators too much.
I suppose if our ancestors did know of the non-whites, they fundamentally did not consider them to be people. How could they consider them people? Their minds hadn’t been corrupted by jewish education/media, which is already a powerful defense against insanity the likes of which would consider things which obviously aren’t persons to be persons. Still, relative the the rest of the animals, they are “cultivated”.
God doesnt create devils or bastards. God didnt corrupt His Own Creation.
1Jn 5:18 For we know that each who has been born from of Yahweh does not do wrong, rather he born from of Yahweh keeps himself and the Evil One does not touch him.
Each born of Yahweh, because Yahweh covers his sin (in Christ).
Psa 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
A white man can choose to follow the flesh or the spirit, and his sins will be forgiven by God. But nonwhites are beasts, they dont have a spirit from God and they cant do well for this reason.
The idea that God would create the nonwhites is blasphemous imo.
God does not sin.
4ntioch, your entire comment can be summed in your “IMO”.
Your “opinion” simply doesn’t square with Scripture. Your opinion squares with the Talmud though, but you have no problem with that.
If Israel cannot sin or do wrong, then why did God divorce them? God divorced Israel because they engaged in the worst, venal sin that any non-White has ever practiced, but because of their White skin, you give them a free pass, and make up excuses for them.
There will be no excuses or “lesser rewards” for Whites who live in sin — they will be destroyed, and there are numerous witnesses to that.
Yes, Israelites nailed Christ to the cross, according to Peter, but you deny Peter and claim Jews did it. You are the one who is blasphemous, exonerating the sinners, and denying their requirement to repent merely because they are “white”. Peter’s words condemn you (Acts 2:23):
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
You honestly believe those unrepentant Israelites who nailed Christ to the cross will be saved?
You will be among those who say, “Lord, Lord, did I not prophecy in your name?” And He will say, “Get away, I never knew you, you worker of. iniquity.” It won’t be Edomites who are weeping and gnashing their teeth, it will be Israelites who thought their white skin would save them.
Eternal destruction vs earthly destruction.
That is why Paul’s statements at 1 Cor 3 are important, with the x-refs.
1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
If you follow the ways of the flesh you are on the path to death. Yet the Adamic man has an immortal spirit from God, as the Bible teaches.
God did not plant the tares. Or the children of the Devil.
4ntioch, please explain how your doctrine is not AntiChirst. If you believe, as you do, that white Adamic/Israelites are saved automatically at birth, even without professing Christ, how does that not make Christ and his death unnecessary?
If a white person can be saved and enter the kingdom regardless of whether he conforms to Christ or not, how is this any different from what the Jews believe — that Christ is not necessary to enter heaven? How is what you believe not antiChrist, and not Jewish in its relation to Christ?
It isnt anti-Christ, in the very place in Isaiah where we see “all the seed of Israel shall be saved” we also see it prophesied that “every knee shall bow”. In the end all white people will know their God.
Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Isa 45:24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
Isa 45:25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
Would you claim that Paul or John were anti-Christs, or the prophet Daniel, because that is what the Apostles taught and Daniel prophesied. As can be seen in my other posts regarding racial salvation, which is what the Bible teaches and is what demonstrates the justice and will of God.
Any other doctrine is anti-Christ because it is against Christ stated will and purpose to redeem Israel. Christians should be overjoyed when they here that their people are saved, even their people who were lost sheep and never knew CI, true Apostolic Christianity, in life.
4ntioch, of course there will be racial salvation — of Israel and the Genesis 10 nations — but that is NOT what “all Israel shall be saved” means. That refers to corporate Israel — all Israel — all the tribes — will have the opportunity for salvation, but it doesn’t guarantee that individual Israelites will be saved regardless of behavior.
And that salvation must be through Christ, as no one gets to the Father except through Him. According to your doctrine, you don’t need to go through Christ to get to the kingdom. Every white person gets to the kingdom and the Father without going through Christ. That is antiChrist.
You say “every knee shall bow.” Are you seriously suggesting that means every Israelite will conform their lives to Christ? We can clearly see that is NOT the case. Yes, Israel will be resurrected and face judgment. Yes, every Israelite will be forced to bow to God in judgment. But there will be many Israelites who did not conform their lives to Christ in this life, will therefore be judged and thrown in the fire.
Isaiah says the seed shall glory….in the Lord, which is a qualifying statement. If you are not “in the Lord”, you shall not be justified. No, the apostles did not teach unqualified individual salvation. You’ve made that up. You’ve taken Israel’s corporate salvation and applied it to each individual Israelite, regardless of fruits.
You do indeed make Christ irrelevant, and the apostles would scoff at your salvation by white skin doctrine. Paul said his Israelite genealogy would count for NOTHING unless he conformed himself to Christ. Paul would seriously disagree with you here — no Israelite like himself will be saved except through faith in Christ — notice the IF in his statement, as in salvation is conditional to Israel:
“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Phil 3:8)
Right, Jas. Romans 9:8: “This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
Isaiah 45:25 and Romans 11:26 is “all Israel”, who are the children of the promise. Only the children of the promise are “all Israel”. When Paul said “counted as offspring”, the “offspring” is the Greek word for seed. Only the children of the promise are seed, not the children of the flesh.
So the children of the flesh are not all Israel. The children of the promise are all Israel.
4nctioch, what do you think John 3:14-15 means: “14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
If non-whites are considered “beasts” in Scripture, wouldn’t God have created them? It is also recorded by the prophets (I can’t remember which one) that God said he will sow the seed of man with the seed of beasts – so who is the blasphemer here? And then there is Matthew 5:45 (KJV) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
4ntioch, your 2SL theology keeps falling apart. You are debating with former 2SL ‘scholars’…we already know all the arguments, lol…
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 13:38 now the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. But the tares are the sons of the Evil One,
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sows them is the False Accuser, and the harvest is the consummation of the age, and the reapers are messengers.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
They were actually of the same religion at Malachi 2:10. The question is “hath one God created us?”
Then we see that the goat nations have a destiny with the devil and his angels. Origin and destiny. Just as those who are born of God have a destiny with Him. Just a few of the things I have mentioned.
4ntioch, you quote verses that witness against you. Not all Israelites will be “sons of the kingdom”. Just because you are “Israel according to the flesh” does NOT mean you will be “Israel according to the promise” or “sons of the kingdom”.
Matt 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Who do you think that is referring to? Many of Israel are called because they are Israel, but few are chosen, few are children of the promise, or sons of the kingdom.
Psalm 51:11, “11 Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Here David proves that Israelites can have the Holy Spirit taken away from them, in which case, they will not be “sons of the kingdom.”
Matthew 7:21 – “21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”
Again Matthew 7:21 witnesses against you. Not every Israelite will enter the kingdom. How much more plain can this be to you? Not all Israelites will be “sons of the kingdom” and therefore not all Israel is the “good seed”. There are “bad seed” Israelites who will not see the kingdom. Your white skin is not your free ticket into the kingdom.
Romans 9:6 confirms this, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” True Israel does the work of the Father. Bad seed Israel are workers of iniquity who will be cast into the fire.
Tell me, 4ntioch, Acts 2:23 clearly states that Israelites nailed Christ to the cross. Are these Israelites “sons of the kingdom”? Are these “children of the promise”? Are these Israelite “trees that the Heavenly Father planted?” Can these Christ killers be counted among His sheep?
4ntioch,
You claim Paul taught “Eternal Security”.
But yet Paul wrote — “..For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting…”
Why did Paul contrast “Eternal Life” with a word — that according to you — still means “Eternal Life”?
In other words ……………….. Paul compares Eternal Life to Corruption. Must not “corruption” mean the opposite of Eternal Life?
I fought “OSAS” in the brick and mortars for 10 years. And I never received a satisfactory explanation for this one verse.
Maybe you have one?
4ntioch, all you did was regurgitate a 2SL argument and misapplied it as an answer, not at all addressing what I just pointed out. There must be a point at which you think for yourself, right?
It wouldn’t bother me at all if a man hoped for all Israel to be saved, however irrational it might seem compared to scripture. After all love conquers knowledge. A knowledgeable man who hates can only kill but a man who loves can edify and encourage.
I believe scripture tells us that men who have received the holy spirit but then turn aside from God and sin can lose their eternal life. But, just as we take “all Israel is saved” into greater biblical context, we can also do so here.
I mean, David sinned after knowing God and being led by Him. Is his soul laid to waste now?
I could be off but as i continue to study and reflect I more and more believe that scripture tests us, spiritually. It asks us to contemplate and wonder on these things, even pray for answers.
As an anecdote – not an assertion – imagine that it proves fruitful for Israel to have the great fear of eternal loss, not only for themselves but for loved ones. It brings forth those pangs from above, as Christ was a man of sorrow. Sorrow for what? Certainly not anything He did because He was sinless.
I think if 4ntioch wishes to hearken to the ideal “of all Israel is saved” then that is ok as long as he has a healthy fear of Yahweh’s sovereign right to give and take life as He sees fit.
We are children, even less so, even worms. Therefore the word of God is no less a strict letter than our perceptions of God Himself could possibly be. I don’t mean to say that His commands are not concrete, rather that the spirit teaches and scripture edifies. Man cannot attain the spirit from mere word study.
If Enoch is a fraud, why does the Bible quote it verbatim in so many places?
Give us just one example in the Bible where the Book of Enoch is quoted “verbatim”?
Enoch himself is, of course, mentioned numerous times, but never the supposed Book of Enoch. Jude mentions Enoch, but not the Book of Enoch. Many people mistakenly believe that the Book of Enoch is “quoted” whenever Enoch is mentioned, which is a huge leap in logic.
https://biblicalhistoricalcontext.com/biblical-inspiration/does-jude-quote-enoch/
All we have of the “Book of Enoch” in the main texts is a scant few scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which don’t say very much), and those scrolls weren’t even grouped with the Essene’s Scriptural texts.
It is not in the Masoretic text or the Septuagint. There’s just not enough witness to it to take it seriously.
The “Book of Enoch” we know today comes from the Ethiopic collection of texts. These appeared long after the events of the New Testament, so the writer could easily have written the alleged quotes into his own work.
The “Book of Enoch” also blatantly disagrees with the writings of the Scripture. It just wasn’t written by Enoch himself.
One of the most common sources to “prove” the copulating angels theory in Genesis 6 are the Targums. It is unfathomable to me how anyone who calls themselves Christian would use the Targums to prove anything about the Bible. Why? The targums were very popular among Babylonian Jews, and they became part of the Jewish “oral tradition” that would eventually become the Talmud oral tradition. When they were written down, they became part of the “traditions of the elders” which Christ rebuked in the New Testament.
One of the common traits of the Targums is that the writers very often used “anthropomorphism” — giving non-human things or beings human traits — like the copulating angels. Targums are also known for their “midrashic” qualities — and in case you don’t know, the Midrash is the Talmudic mode of interpreting the Bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash
So if any Christian ever tries to tell you that using these Talmudic Targums is somehow “scholarly” they are lying to you. It’s not “scholarly”, it’s Jewish, it’s Talmudic. If you think the Targums/Talmud are “scholarly”, then the term has no meaning to you. These are the primary Babylonian sources for all kinds of sexual perversions that have been imposed on the Genesis account, including the sexual seduction of Eve by the serpent. Yes, same source. See a pattern developing here?
Right! And if one reads studies of people who use those extra-Biblical sources to cover this topic, it very quickly becomes apparent that all they really do is just read from those sources. There’s not much critical thinking involved… Just apply the midrashes, targums and whatever else to the Scripture, whether it disagrees with the Scripture or not.
I think it’s a symptom of a bigger problem, where people want to feel informed or have knowledge without putting the effort in. When they read these extra-Biblical sources they perhaps feel like they’ve found some hidden gem. It’s just laziness, because they haven’t even studied the core canonical Bible to begin with, yet they are quite happy to already branch out into other sources.
I don’t understand the mindset of someone who couldn’t be bothered to just study the core Bible by any objective standard of diligence, yet leap at the opportunity to accept things not in the Bible as “facts”.
But the Bible itself (which has been ignored apparently) tells us what is required to find Him:
But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. (Deuteronomy 4:29)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)
I get the feeling that people want to have found Him without searching for Him with all of their hearts. Instead, they end up falling into this:
For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
If only people could just study the Bible and seek Christ with all of their hearts, instead of accumulating teachings according to their own desires.
Even these articles which have been posted shouldn’t just be accepted at face value. They shouldn’t just be read and agreed with. Everyone needs to seek Christ and come to a knowledge of Him through their own diligence… God is no fool that He can’t see whether someone is half-hearting their service to Him. True understanding comes from Him revealing Himself, which fundamentally cannot come unless He knows that we are truly seeking Him…
Another “primary” source used to “prove” the copulating angels theory is, of course, the pseudoepigraphic Book of Enoch, which purportedly was written by Enoch who lived pre-Flood, which is simply ridiculous. Real scholars have clearly proven that The Book of Enoch was a 2nd or 3rd century BC fabrication popular among the Gnostic Essenes.
What so-called “scholars” don’t tell you about this spurious book of Enoch is that it describes giants who are 450 feet tall, and one translation puts the giant at 4,500 feet tall.
But as far as the copulating angels in Enoch, none of the Christian “scholars” ever mention that the women who copulated with these angels to produce these 450 foot giants — were then transformed into Sirens, or half-bird, half-human creatures out of Greek mythology, proving this book could not have been written by the real Enoch — and proving that the copulating angels myth has its basis in Greek and Babylonian myths — not the Bible.
I strongly recommend every serious Christian read the work on the following website which completely exposes the anti-Christian fraud of the Book of Enoch — and why no Christian should ever cite it as a “witness” to biblical doctrine.
http://www.refuteit.com/the-book-of-enoch-debunked.html
The Daughters of Man, means Daughters of ADAM. Same as Christ is referred to a Son of Man , means Son of Adam. The non Adamic men was called in the Bible a beast a literal animal. Many words in the Bible have been change by jew satan him self and Judases who serve them. That’s why today many people have been deceived, as is written: “Satan deceived the whole world”.
The name of Our Father YHWH has been removed, so we can’t call on Our Father to heaven to save us and heal our land.
We have to present the Truth to our people simple and easiest way so anybody can understand. National socialist in Germany was successful to wake the German people, because they tell the the truth simple so can even child could understood. In science and in life the simplest explanation is always the correct one.
Some incredible premises laid out here. My entire understanding of the fall in the Garden as well as why the flood occurred has certainly changed. Nothing has to be inferred or assumed anymore. Throwing out baggage and preconceived notions allows for the Scriptures to speak for themselves.
Well the sin in the garden of Eden could not have been a thought crime and had to be related to TOUCHING the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, since that is the only Law that existed at that time.
And then we see the serpent seed. Those not planted by God. Their origination must be in the sins of the world.
C4T, curious to know how serious it is to one’s salvation to hold the correct view on this. If I side with the fallen angels view, how dangerous is it? Would you suggest I have not the Spirit in me or is it smaller than that? I think both the fallen angels view and the one you propound could convince reasonable minds.
I’m surprised that no one has responded to Jimmy. if anyone here bases his salvation on his interpretation/view on subjects such as this then I would quite surprised, maybe shocked.
No, your “salvation” is not based on your doctrines but on the fruits you produce. However, certain doctrines can be an impediment to producing good fruits.
For example, if you believe that you are saved because you are born with white skin, as many two seedliners do, then you will have very little motivation to produce good fruits. After all, Jeffrey Dahmer and Teddy Bundy will be saved, so why bother making much of an effort if that’s all it takes?
If the doctrine you hold takes motivation away from you from walking with Christ, then your doctrine can affect your salvation.
Some will have a resurrection of judgement and eternal shame. Daniel 12
The inherent nature of the white man was that he have an immortal spirit from God, that is the nature if his birth. That was God’s purpose.
The Adamic man has a spirit from of God and flesh. He is born of water and spirit John 3.
Paul explains that some will have no reward yet be preserved in 1 Cor 3.
So you want to do well so that you have a reward. And you dont want eternal shame.
4ntioch wrote, “Some will have a resurrection of judgement and eternal shame.“
“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)
We can agree that all Adamites will be resurrected. Or for argument’s sake — for the sake of your own views — all Israelites. Revelation 20:12-15 confirms this. It also confirms that directly after their resurrection, depending on how they are judged, they will be killed immediately again, which is the second death.
Now we must connect the “second death” of Revelation 20 to the “everlasting contempt” of Daniel 12. Mark easily accounts for this,
“47 And if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell [Gehenna], 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished.” (Mark 9:47-48)
This is a quote from Isaiah 66:24, where Isaiah 66:22 has already confirmed that this is a reference to the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21 — the holy city,
Then they will go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.
Their eternal death is their everlasting shame and contempt, and they will be viewed as such for all eternity.
4ntioch wrote, “Paul explains that some will have no reward yet be preserved in 1 Cor 3.“
Apollos himself, being a good man, was the work of others, having been built into the foundation (Acts 18:24-28). The same applies to Paul, naturally, being the work of Christ Himself. If the Corinthians, who are the work of Paul and Apollos, end up not being saved through their factions (Galatians 5:20), then Paul and Apollos will still be saved because they themselves are a work which is able to withstand the fire, because they are not factious like the Corinthians.
The fact that the Corinthians might be burned away through their own error does not change the fact that Paul and Apollos will not be burned away, because they themselves are not in error. They will withstand the fire.
(Responded to these arguments before here: https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/#comment-44122)
4ntioch wrote, “The Adamic man has a spirit from of God and flesh. He is born of water and spirit John 3.“
“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5)
“This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14-15)
“Whoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe him out of My book.” (Exodus 32:33)
4ntioch wrote, “So you want to do well so that you have a reward. And you dont want eternal shame.“
In a prophecy about Revelation 21… “The smallest one will become a thousand, And the least one a mighty nation. I, the Lord, will bring it about quickly in its time.” (Isaiah 60:22)
There will be no one who has shame in the next life.
I was gonna answer Jimmy with something very similar to what you have said WaffenSSman, but Jimmy asked C4T directly, so I left it to CFT.
But yes, for me, Jimmy, I agree with WaffenSSman. This sort of study and indepth analysis is what I believe is termed the Meat of the Bible… most Xtians are on the Milk. Most Xtians can’t stomach the Meat, and there is no shame in that. As WaffenSSman said, I don’t hold my salvation on these sorts of topics… and anyway, God chooses who He saves, the Elect aren’t called the Elect for nothing! 🙂
Seek ye the kingdom first, Jesus said.
Thanks all, for your responses. They all line up with what I perceive as Truth. The Lord is grieved and appalled by all the splits that have taken place over various doctrines being placed as greater in importance than the actual Gospel itself. Glad to see that’s resisted here.
Also, didn’t know there was a Jimmy already here, so I’ll change my moniker.
Regards, JJ
It’s ridicilous how some “Christians” see race-mixing in every second sentence in the Bible. They propably don’t realise that most people in Biblical times didn’t even know something like a negro or mongoloid existed at all.
Great and eyeopening article as always!
If the people in Biblical times did not know of the existence of a negro or a mongoloid then firstly I am a bit envious of them as I wish I didn’t know these plagues.
Secondly though, I would be mightily confused as there has been presented to me a strong case to be had that many, if not all, of the references to “beasts” and particularly “beasts of the field”, apply to non-Whites rather than to non-humanoid animals.
(Someone on here recently countered that, by modern examples of them desolating civilization WRT Lev 26:22, the Beasts of the Fields could be boars, however I noticed that Psalm 80:13 specifically lists boar as separate from beasts of the field; similarly both dogs and bears are listed separately also)
If the beasts are non-Whites, then the negro and the mongoloid must have been known to the Adamic people in Biblical times. Irrespective of the beast contention, based on that the Romans knew of the negro, and that the sons of Cush were in and around present-day Sudan/Eritrea/Ethiopia, I believe it can be held that the people in Biblical times knew of non-Adamics.
Absolutely the Israelites knew of non-Adamic peoples. The dark Arabs were very much in the outlying areas, and the Nubians, of course, were well known to the Egyptians and Israelites who dwelt among them….
If there were no giants, why do a vast number of cultures have stories of them, more or less twisted, just as they do with the Great Flood? There are reports of LIVING ones from Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands.
How do you explain their skeletons, bones, skulls, even their massive weapons being found (and suppressed of course because these finds are too disturbing for the public) in various places? Or giant megaliths where clearly normal humans could not have lifted (stones cut out that weigh up to 1200 tonnes)???
Come on, man, don’t write things for polemics.
What makes you think that the Bible must account for everything that people discovered buried everywhere across the earth? Just because giant skeletons have been discovered somewhere doesn’t mean that they must be explained within the context of the Scriptures. After all, clearly the Bible does not account for the Aborigines in Australia. The dinosaurs aren’t mentioned either. The Bible isn’t a universal account of everything and every being who ever existed on earth. Nor does it have the burden to explain it all. It’s the history of one people — Adam and his legitimate descendants. No one else.
Dinosaurs only exist as paper machete, All made up in man’s imagination
The dinosaur skeletons and fossils look pretty real to me… do you have an explanation for the existence of them?
Whilst I’d say that what we think they looked like will always be open to debate, the mentioning of dragons in the Bible means that the authors of the Bible must’ve got their ideas somehow, and I would suggest that that was through looking at dinosaur skeletons and fossils.
I’m curious about your ideas.
Richard, I think the point of the article is that Genesis 6 itself isn’t talking about giants. Basically saying “Genesis 6 isn’t referring to giants” isn’t the same as saying “giants never existed”. They are explicitly referred to in the OT of course.
I recently began reading some of the articles at this site and I just wanted to say that I am glad I did. I had been having very similar thoughts in regards to spirit, morality etc regarding common CI doctrine.
See I spent the last 4 years fellowshipping at a particular forum where such things like behavior, honesty, spirit etc are taken for granted, and race alone is of concern. Race and pork and sorcery, or anything material that one can touch.
I agree 100% about john 3. What is the water Christ speaks of to nicodemus if not the same water (or what it represented) John brought to the levites? Water and spirit. One must be born again as Paul says “in newness of life.” The new man. The clean man who has repented and made clean by Christ. Of course that new birth comes from above as our old.man is of the earth. We may be planted in the earth from above – by Yahweh – but we are renewed from above into new life, as you guys have succinctly pointed out.
There is no Christian life otherwise, and sadly too few now days get that.
1 Corinthians 15:44-47
*It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The **first** man is of the earth, earthy; the **second** man is the Lord from heaven.*
Kevin, we’d like to extend our welcome to you, and we are glad that you find some of the articles here edifying. Yes, there are other “Christian” forums that focus on race to the exclusion of all else, reducing the Bible to a banal racial manifesto, which ensures that those who do so become self idolators — if your race can save you, why do you need Christ at all? And, yes, arguing about pork and when to properly celebrate the sabbath and feast days is about as Jewish and pharisaical of a mindset as you can get.
We do not insist that everyone here agree on the same doctrines, but we do insist that we all treat each other with respect and a proper Christian deference. We also expect that commenters answer challenges to their views with a sound scriptural foundation. We also expect commenters to stay focused on the articles at hand, and not use our articles as merely an excuse to promote their own agendas.
Thanks for your welcoming words.
As Christ told us, if we love our brother and our God (meaning, if we devote ourselves to Him in Spirit, not letter) then we do well. Personally i don’t care about “2sl vs 1sl.” I find the idea of such labels confuses a lot of people.
When I used to hear that ‘so and so’ was 1sl, i guess i assumed that meant they had no line held on race. But I see that isn’t the case. Perhaps I will find a better article to voice my own two cents on that topic.
I see it is obvious you guys are biblically sound on race, and on point regarding the moral commandments of our King. That works for me.
Praise Christ.
P.S. I must humbly apologize to you fellas here, as I could have sworn a certain man had provided evidence that y’all were prosperity shucksters, and I may have – in ignorance – said a thing or two of what I think about that. But that seems to have been another lie in a string of lies that have been told about a number of decent folk.
I am happy to know better now.
Kevin, no, we do not promote any form of “prosperity gospel” whatsoever. We do not believe that God brings material blessings to those who “please Him” with their pet doctrines. We do not believe, conversely, that those who are materially poor are necessarily “out of favor” with God. This website has never had any association with any minister or individuals who held or promoted such views, and we do not know why anyone would think that of us, nor do we care to guess why they would except to dissuade people from investigating our material and judging it for themselves based on its merits.
For my edification, is there such a thing as a “daughter of God”?
Yes.
I left a comment on the article entitled “Was Esau a Fornicator”. In that comment I mentioned how the 6th day creation of man was never told to multiply kind after kind, just to multiply. Below is the account of Adam’s son’s taking wives from 6th day adam’s daughters.
Gen 6:1-4 “And it came to PASS, when MEN (6th day adam ) began to MULTIPLY on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the SONS OF GOD (the Adam formed in the garden, his descendants) saw the DAUGHTERS OF MEN (6th day adam) that they were fair (pleasant); and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, 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.”
In this article you said “If people could only accept that the giants were simply beasts per Leviticus 18:23 — and that the product of a giant and a person is a “mamzer,” then our understanding would be a lot more straight forward.”
I can accept that. However you made another point that the nephilim existed BEFORE the sons of God took the daughters of men to be wives. If, according to my understanding of the Genesis account from the creation to the flood, that 6th day man was never given the directive of kind after kind, then the nephilim are the offspring off 6th day adam and the biped beasts . The sons of God saw these nephilim/mamzer offspring of 6th day adam and chose from among them wives. That is why God puts a difference between the daughters of adam and the sons of God. The reason God brought the flood was because of race mixing. Noah was pure in his generations. Even you said in the article entitled “The Problem Of Racial Diversity And A Worldwide Flood” this: “Noah and his family were obviously of one race. The Bible states that Noah was “perfect in
his generations” (Gen. 6:9). The word “generations” [note the plural] here is the Hebrew word “T0LEDAH”– and means “descent.” Noah was perfect in his descent from Adam — meaning his lineage had not mixed with any other races — [as Cain did].
Then in this article you said: “Many claim that in order to be “perfect in his generations” Noah — along with his wife and children — must necessarily have been the only Adamic man left in the world who was still unmixed by the corrupted seed of the angels. In other words, in his genealogy Noah did not have any ancestors who were not pure white, Adamic people. Of course this would necessarily extend to his sons and their wives as well.”
All that being said, God did not save the other pure, white, Adamic son’s of God because they race mixed, not because they were not pure. The penalty for lying with a beast/nephilim/mamzer is death. Noah, and by extension his family, were the only ones left who did not race mix.
—–Elle——
I’ve been reading your comments. I even left you a reply, which you either did not see; or ignored.
No one seems to be interested in replying to you.
I think perhaps because they might be just as lost as me in trying to figure out “what” are you trying to say?
You seem to be disagreeing with CFT — but, aren’t really saying anything resembling “correcting” and or “teaching”.
This is a common attitude I find from opponents — ” You are wrong; you are wrong; you are wrong; but I can’t tell you what is right.”
I’m not saying this is what you are doing. Or that you are even a “opponent”.
I can’t make this judgment call because you are not giving us anything to work with.
Why don’t you just come out and make a Post explaining YOUR beliefs. Not, why CFT is wrong. But just tell us about YOU. Who are you? What is your Theological Background. Are you a Modern Christian? A Universalist? Do you adhere to the basic tenets of Israelite Identity?
These types of questions. Are you White? What is your Ancestry? How did you find CFT? Why do you read the articles? Are you Jew Wise?
Help us out here. You seem like you really want to talk — but for me, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Well said, West.
Yes, please, Elle, testify, if you would be so kind. 🙂
Well West, no where did I say they were “wrong”, that is your view. I’m simply giving a different perspective. Whether anyone responds or not is not my goal. I think I gave a fairly lengthy description of what I believe, not going to do it again.
My father was Jew wise, not in the biblical understanding of Jews, from day to day dealings with them. Therefore my siblings and I were warned about them at a very young age. I’ve known about the Jews and there evil doings for 48 years. I don’t buy into organized religion, I am not a Universalist, nor a modern Christian. The Holy Spirit is the one given to you by Yeshua upon baptism, that is the one who leads me into all truth. I am cautious when it comes believing all white people are necessarily pure, so I do not consider all white people Adamic, or an Israelite. Many have a non-Adamic biped in their woodpile.
My ancestry is Scottish, Irish, German, Danish, Russian, Welsh, English. My son took a DNA test at my urging because he liked this girl who was part Native American. I told him if he is not mixed, he cannot get involved with her. His results came back 100% European. He moved on.
Elle wrote… “I am cautious when it comes believing all white people are necessarily pure, so I do not consider all white people Adamic, or an Israelite. Many have a non-Adamic biped in their woodpile.”
Where did anyone say that “all” White people are “necessarily pure” racially? Sounds like a strawman argument.
Many Jews can “pass” as “white”, but they are not White. Some Turks, Syrians, and even Persians might be able to pass as “white”, but no one here would concede that they are White.
It’s highly unlikely that most Whites from Northern Europe have anything “in the woodpile”. Those with any Jewish ancestry usually know it. Even Americans will have heard in the family if they have any non-White ancestors, often feather Indian, but often that turns out to not be true.
Pacer how can you be sure all Northern Europeans are pure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richmond
For example this man was a black slave who became free, lived in the uk and had many children with a white woman and his descendants are alive to this day.
Then you see other Northeners like Johnny Depp, George Clooney Taylor Lautner and you start to wonder what was going on in their family tree…
” My son took a DNA test at my urging because he liked this girl who was part Native American. I told him if he is not mixed, he cannot get involved with her. His results came back 100% European. He moved on.”
Elle, I wholeheartedly commend you for that action of yours. I have 10 cousins on one side of the family… 5 have race mixed and most of the family doesn’t care a jot.