Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Paradox · 02-20-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

Those refer to human people, i dont think thats what Spitfire was refering to!

Not necessarily. Genesis 6 is almost certainly referring to angels (if the book of Enoch is taken into account also).
Sons of God, I believe, is a phrase used to refer to any offspring that is created by direct intervention from God.

Spitfire · 02-20-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

Those refer to human people, i dont think thats what Spitfire was refering to!

You're so smart! :grin: Yes! Sons with a capital 'S'!

There's a footnote in the online Catholic Bible for the one from Genesis: "The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion."

Paradox · 02-20-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire

There's a footnote in the online Catholic Bible for the one from Genesis:

Investigate why the Catholics take this interpretation and reject Enoch's version (which Genesis is obviously drawing from). It's very interesting.

nygreenguy · 02-20-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox

Not necessarily. Genesis 6 is almost certainly referring to angels (if the book of Enoch is taken into account also).
Sons of God, I believe, is a phrase used to refer to any offspring that is created by direct intervention from God.

Well, that would leave us 4 options. (referring to genesis 6) Jesus, angels, fallen angels, or Man. We know its not Jesus, as it is plural. No, we KNOW its not angels as angels are sexless (Matthew 22:29-30), and that an angel could do no wrong, if they did they would become fallen angels. Fallen angels can take any shape or appearance they please. Fallen angels can ALSO explain the "super humans" that came to be. Other than fallen angels, man is the only option. And since we are speaking of the Christian trinity, I'm not so sure Enoch is valid. NOW, as with the OTHER examples, they speak of humans who have found riotousness with god.

Quote:

13For if you live according to the sinful nature, [B]you will die[/B](this cant be an angel or jesus because they are not sinful, and its illogical to assume it is speaking of demons) ; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, "Abba,[b] Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory

I think this shows a person who attains salvation is a "son of God"

nygreenguy · 02-20-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox

Investigate why the Catholics take this interpretation and reject Enoch's version (which Genesis is obviously drawing from). It's very interesting.

Well, i still disagree with your interpretation as tothe coralation between enoch and genesis, but this is an interesting article on the "sons of God" Catholics disregard Enoch and several other books at the Council of Laodicea, even though the Book of Enoch is MENTIONED in the bible.

Paradox · 02-20-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

Well, i still disagree with your interpretation as tothe coralation between enoch and genesis

Apologies - I shouldn't have used the word "obviously". To me it appears as obvious, but yes, there is still some debate about that.

Paradox · 02-20-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

No, we KNOW its not angels as angels are sexless (Matthew 22:29-30), and that an angel could do no wrong, if they did they would become fallen angels. Fallen angels can take any shape or appearance they please. Fallen angels can ALSO explain the "super humans" that came to be.

I disagree. The verse in Matthew just refers to marriage I believe. It doesn't necessarily follow that they are sexless. It only implies that heaven operates by different rules. Besides, it's that act of giving up their heavenly bodies to take on human form (see Jude I think) that causes the angels to become fallen angels (that's when they were locked up in Tartarus according to Peter). Also, there's a referrence in the tale of Soddom that implies it's possible for humans and angels to have sexual relations.

Anyway, this is a bit of a digression I think. Not sure how we moved from the trinity.

Derec · 02-20-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

Those refer to human people, i dont think thats what Spitfire was refering to!

What this proves is that concept of "son of God" is pretty ambiguous and in no way unique to Jesus.

sunsettommy · 02-21-2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nygreenguy

Many believe the trinity doctrine was made up at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. Well, many think thats wher/ideae the idea came from for christianity. However, many other cultures have a 3 sided "godhead" figure as well.

Triads were very common in pagan theology. India had the Brahman,Siva, Vishnu. Egyptian had Osiris, Isis, and Horus. And as we know, christianity has often adopted pagan beliefs. (sort of like evolution and common ancestry)

We also find in the bible and in the origonal wordings when God, or Yahweh is spoken of, it is in a completly singular form of "one" with no plural modifiers. If there were such a godhead, it should have been in a plural form.

The Bible also explicitly says Jesus was Gods BEGOTTEN son, meaning CREATED through procreation. So, this made jesus A god, but not THE God. The bible goes on to show MANY MANY examples of how the trinity is not a bible based belief. If anything, the origins seem to be pagan.

Very good post.

I have yet to see that the Holy spirit is called god.

Jesus has been called god and so has the father.

The holy spirit is defined as a wind or breath.That seems to do away with a person.

Father and son are person descriptions.The Holy Spirit is not that way.

I see at best a duality god.

John chapter 17 verses 1-26 has Jesus calling his father the ONLY TRUE GOD.He then goes on to say that he brought the glory to the father and now it is time for the father to glorify him for his work on earth.

Nowhere in that chapter does he call the holy spirit god or glorify it.

Hmm......

sunsettommy · 02-21-2006, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

Pretty weak. And there are far more verses that claim that God and Jesus are different (one is greater than the other and etc.)

Both Jesus and apostle paul says that the father is greater than Jesus.

That seems to eliminate another Christian religion error in saying that the father and son are equal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.