They say God’s holy angels in heaven took on human nature and had babies with women.
No, I suggest those sons of God were men who called themselves by the name of God and who served God, but became attracted to the girls of the land of Nod.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?
- Thread starter WalterandDebbie
- Start date
No, I suggest those sons of God were men who called themselves by the name of God and who served God, but became attracted to the girls of the land of Nod.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
So? They overstepped their damn boundaries, and they got punished for that, Jude 1:6.
The word angels means messengers. The context determines whether they are God’s holy angels in heaven or men.
Jde 1:6 - And the angels(messengers)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.
Those men who served God would be the messengers of God to all people. However, they were not to leave their own place in Eden and take for themselves the women of the land of Nod because it would corrupt them. But they didn’t listen and God got PO’d and decided to wipe them all out and send them to the prison house of the grave.
In the great abyss of a watery grave. To wait for judgment.
I'm not sure how this addresses your equivocation. We are talking about believers in this thread, which you implied by your first use of "God's people." Then, for some reason, you brought the Jewish people into it, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.
Well, there you go. Now you're doing the very thing I have been doing.
No, I'm not. I was using your own argument to show that it's wrong.
One, whichever, are believers, the other are unbelievers. That is also what Matt 10:34 is speaking of--those family members who choose to follow Christ will be hated even by their own family members. It's the division between believers and unbelievers.
Not relevant. It's conflict between believers and unbelievers, between true teachers and false teachers, between true teaching and false teaching, between truth and lies.
Taking one verse out of context will almost never get you the right answer.
It has nothing to do with the discussion and you're once again fallaciously begging the question. You're beginning with the premise that what a person believes about Jesus doesn't matter (the 'unnecessary barrier of "Trinitarianism"'), that it isn't necessary for salvation, that a person can believe whatever they want about Jesus and be saved, and then concluding that what a person believes about Jesus doesn't matter (Trinitarianism isn't "the key of heaven"). You're presuming the very thing you're trying to prove.
You're ignoring the fact that whether or not one believes Jesus is truly man and truly God, is a big part of what differentiates a believer from an unbeliever, "us" from "them." We can forget the Trinity if you like, but the deity of Jesus is central, and also happens to imply the Trinity.
This has nothing to do with the discussion. Please keep it on topic.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Jewish people are the original God's people, they were the original and still are, we the church are an extension grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel, that's what "God's people" means. You specifically asked "can a person not believe in the Trinity, or at the least deny the deity of Jesus, and be considered one of "God's people" in post 603, I responded with a Torah portion which directly answered this question, regarding a disobedient and unbelieving people, and that was for all Israel, not just the Jews. So be honest and don't falsely accuse me of "equivocating", unless you're into replacement theology.
No sir, I'm doing the opposite of what you're doing, you're support tribalism, I oppose it. I believe the false teachers you're referring to are the LGBTQ supporters, antisemites, New Age gurus, climate change advocates, etc., not a fellow brother who happens to not conform to your theological view. It is appalling that you identify “non Trinitarians” as your enemies and chaffs among the wheat instead of those real infiltrators.
Yes you are.
The kind of division I've been talking about is the one in 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and 3:1:4, that's a division among believers, within the church, not a division between "believers and unbelievers." Neither Paul, Apollos or Peter was a false teacher, yet the Corinthians formed their own identity groups around these different personalities and pit against each other, that's what's been going on here, and you keep pretending it's something else.
Between truth and lies? Or between your truth and everybody else's? All of these are false dichotomies, nobody owns the whole truth, only God does. Your black and white view is highly flawed and immature. You keep asking "who Jesus is," and yet the gospel books themselves are just a tiny fragment of all the "truths" of Jesus, says the bible itself. So what about the rest? The only thing not relevant is your dismissive attitude.
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. (Jn.21:25)
Last edited:
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Says you who took Matt. 10:34 out of context first. That was about a family dispute, you use it to justify a theological dispute, and you put so called "non-trinitarians" in the same category of unbelievers condemned to hell.
Why are you falsely accusing me of doubting Jesus's deity, while for the record I've been defending that in front of some other members in this thread and other threads with similar topics? And how on earth does the deity of Jesus imply "trinity"? Speaking of Trinity, I've been asking how the Holy Spirit is a "distinct person" co-equal with God and Jesus instead of an impersonal power of God and virtual presence of Jesus, and yet nobody has given me a legit answer.
How is that off-topic? You are the one who asked, quote, "This is very much about who Jesus is. "Who do you say that I am?"" not me. All I can tell you is that Jesus is neither a Nicolaitan, hypocrite - or trinitarian.
Yes, An Angel of the Lord. I do believe God's Holy Spirit was there as well not the Son. So, in that sense the person of the Father by His Spirit. The Angel standing in the presence of God. Holy ground.
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.
Gods promises are still in place but as Jesus pointed out to those who opposed Him if God was their Father they would love Him as God was the one who sent Him. And elsewhere He stated, "those who belong to God hear what God says" and stated the reason they didn't believe was "that they didn't belong to God."
Those who God, not man, calls His children. The praise that comes from God not man.
"children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
This promise is unchangeable and will be fulfilled on the day the Father has set by His own authority.
Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I would reason that if the descendants of those first believers "remained" in the Faith they would most likely be known in this day and age as Christain's as Jesus is called Christ. They are hidden in the body of Christ. Only God knows who they are but the same Spirit is given to all believers and "whoever" calls on the Lord will be saved.
You first stated: 'A thread with a title of "trinitarian vs non-trinitarian" is wrong at the beginning when it artificially divides God's people into two camps.'
I asked: 'The entire point is, can a person not believe in the Trinity, or at the least deny the deity of Jesus, and be considered one of "God's people"?'
You responded: "Jewish people as a whole don’t believe in Trinity or the deity of Jesus, except the messianics whom I align with. What does God say about them? Are they still God’s people?"
I pointed out: 'Now you’re equivocating on the meaning of “God’s people.” Your initial use of it was in regards to believers.'
You responded: "If a believer is adopted as Abraham’s seed under the new covenant, then this applies to them as well as to the Jews."
So, you are the one who first used the phrase "God's people," and in a way that clearly implies that you are talking only about Christians. That is the way I used it because that is how context works. Then, for no apparent reason, you bring up the Jewish people, questioning whether they are "still God's people." But, that has nothing to do with how you first used it and nothing to do with the discussion. I don't know if you purposely equivocated or threw it in as a red herring, but you really need to learn to just follow the train of thought in the discussion and stick to that.
To be honest, then, you did equivocate, as I originally stated and have made clear above.
No, you did exactly what I have been doing.
You stated: "It’s not just focused on flesh as a polemic against Docetism, but also GOD in the flesh, so any doctrine or teaching such as Runningman’s that denies Jesus’s deity is obviously false, that sufficiently separates the true from the false, at least among the five you listed."
You have just created the very same "division" you accuse me of creating, or at least supporting. I have been arguing this whole time for the truth that Jesus is truly God and truly man, and that that is the main dividing line between believers and unbelievers. You blast me for it and now state the same.
Again, you're fallaciously begging the question. You're presuming that someone who denies the deity of Jesus is actually "a fellow brother," and that despite you having just stated that denying Jesus is God in the flesh is a false teaching. You're also ignoring the very argument you made about teachings that deny the deity of Jesus.
Prove it.
Yes, exactly. I pointed that out many posts ago and that is why it is not at all relevant to this discussion.
You're beginning with the premise that a person can believe Jesus isn't God in human flesh and be a believer and then concluding that they're believers. That's begging the question. In doing so, you're also contradicting your earlier argument that denying Jesus is God in the flesh is a false teaching.
Again, you're contradicting your earlier argument that denying Jesus is God in the flesh is a false teaching.
Prove it. I asked you to once before and you purposely avoided doing so.
Of course, and I have never stated otherwise.
What black and white view, the one that the Church has held since the beginning? The one you agreed with? It seems that you don't believe in absolute truth or that we can know it, despite your claim to know it. Is that a correct assessment? Have you given into the error of relativism?
In the context of the discussion, which is something you don't seem to understand, and in the context of Scripture, which is sufficient, we know all we need to know about Jesus--who he is, what he has done, and why it matters. That means we know enough to be able to tell a false Jesus from the true Jesus.
The rest of what, 'all the "truths" of Jesus'? Are you suggesting there are other sources of truth about Jesus? Where are all these other supposed truths?
I have only dismissed that which is not relevant to the discussion.
You said that "the gospel books themselves are just a tiny fragment of all the "truths" of Jesus, says the bible itself,' and then post this verse. Which I fully agree with. But, did you read the verse? Do you see the particular statement "if they were written one by one"? How does that fit with your question, "So what about the rest?"
Since we are not discussing the man Job, nor Genesis 6, please explain why you don't believe the term "sons of God" refers to angels, as Jesus said.
Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36
Also notice that the place where the sons of God and Satan came to was not on earth, as the LORD asked Satan where he came from?
Satan answered... “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Job 1:6-7
Finally, this passage in Job refers to the sons of God as well - during a time associated with the LORD laying the foundations of the earth, which was before mankind.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Well Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7
JLB
- The passage says "The" Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses.
- The passage says Moses was afraid to look upon God.
JLB
Let's look at the context. Do you really think that when Jesus said "For I have come to set a man against his father," he meant that he came to start some sort of family disputes? You need to ask yourself, "Why did Jesus come?". Here is the context:
Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (ESV)
Notice verses 33-34 and 37-39? Jesus is very clearly talking about belief in him and following him. Verses 34-36, then, are stating that when one becomes a follower of Jesus, his or her "enemies will be those of his [or her] own household." That absolutely is a theological dispute--it's about whether one accepts and follows Christ or rejects him.
Where, exactly, did I accuse you of doubting Jesus's deity? I have not done so.
Maybe you haven't asked a Trinitarian. But, since you asked, here is an answer.
First, if Jesus is truly also deity, we have a "binity," at a minimum, because he is not the Father.
Second, Jesus said "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever" (Joh 14:16, ESV). The "Helper" is the Holy Spirit, who is “another Helper.” That implies both that Jesus is the first “Helper” and that the Holy Spirit is one who is like him but distinct from him, which implies personhood. That is the plain reading of the text. For example, if I'm at someone's house and have a piece of cake for dessert, which I eat, and then am asked if I want another piece, I fully expect to get a different piece of the same cake, unless some further qualification is made.
And, what is a "Helper"? When we look at the Greek, it is the word parakletos, which means "helper, counselor, comforter, advocate;" all of which either are or can be actions of person agency. The meaning of advocate is important since persons advocate on behalf of other persons; "its" cannot advocate for anyone or anything.
Parakletos is used only five times in the NT. In addition to John 14:16, we have these three:
Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (ESV)
Joh 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me," (ESV)
Joh 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you."
Joh 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; (ESV)
Pay close attention to the actions of this other Helper: teaches; brings things to remembrance; testifies; convicts. These are actions of personal agency, not an "it." And, Jesus says it is for their advantage that he leaves and sends this Advocate. How is it, then, that having an "it" would be to their advantage? Could a chair, rock, or impersonal power do any of these things or be of an advantage when Jesus left?
In the fifth instance, John uses parakletos here, for "advocate":
1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)
Jesus is said, by John, to be an advocate. It is not insignificant, then, that he records Jesus saying that he will send "another parakletos." Jesus was the first parakletos, and remains so, but in John’s gospel he was returning to the Father and the disciples still needed much help and guidance.
Third, regarding the Holy Spirit, he:
Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7
Listens: John 16:13
Speaks: John 16:13-15; Acts 1:16, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7; Rom 8:26-27; 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; John 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: John 16:13; Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29
Can be blasphemed: Matt 12:31-32
Convicts: John 16:8-11
These are all actions of personal agency. And on it goes. It all points to the Spirit being a person and also being truly God, in the same way Jesus is truly God. Being deity then, it can only mean they are all the one God and are coequal and coeternal.
Personal testimonies are not the topic of this thread.
I thought we were discussing Job. Job was a man who served God. He offered sacrifices to God. And the place he did was a place considered to be where the presence of God was. Just as the Tabernacle and altars.
As ones who served God they would go by His name and refer to themselves as sons of God.
The adversary would also come among them, as the tares joining themselves among the wheat.
The adversary was asked from where he came. He said he was wandering the earth.
This compares with the sons of God of Gen 6. Who joined up with the wanderers and married their woman, bringing the flood.
The adversary was not a son of God but a wanderer from the way of the Lord.
That eliminates the sons of God as God’s holy angels in heaven.
You have me mixed up with someone else.
You claimed that the term "sons of God" in the Old Testament did not refer to angels.
So I gave so Old Testament verses that show us that "sons of God" was a term used for angels.
Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36
Also notice that the place where the sons of God and Satan came to was not on earth, as the LORD asked Satan where he came from?
Satan answered... “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. And the LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
So Satan answered the LORD and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
Job 1:6-7
Finally, this passage in Job refers to the sons of God as well - during a time associated with the LORD laying the foundations of the earth, which was before mankind.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Well Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4-7
But the only true God, the Father, no mortal man has seen, nor can see, else they’d be consumed on the spot.
Do you think that the Word could have been seen or manifested in the OT ?
The Word relates to the gospel message. Word is something spoken. The philosopher’s like Plato and Socrates had different ideas. But I don’t follow their teaching as some do.
In the beginning God spoke.
The things He spoke were to be for signs. Paul speaks of “Let there be Light” as a sign of the glorious gospel of truth.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Jesus was a Jew, all twelve disciples were Jews, Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. In fact, while Christianity is declining among the gentiles, as religious belief and church attendance are at historic low among Gen Z, it has been burgeoning in Israel and many Jewish communities in other countries. Therefore I wasn’t equivocating at all, Jewish people are not only God’s people, but the future of God’s people!
“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” Someone who denies the deity of Jesus is still a fellow brother or sister as long as they testify of God’s miraculous work.
You first. What question did I “beg”?
While I pointed out that’s exactly what’s happening in this discussion, that’s the very nature of the discussion, we’ve formed different identity groups around different doctrines, and you assume other people who don’t conform to your doctrine are nonbelievers, so how is it irrelevant?
That question was UNEQUIVOCALLY answered with Lev. 26:44-45. You think it’s a red herring because you’re influenced by replacement theology, that the gentile church, specifically the white Europeans have replaced Israel, Jews can’t be Christians.
No I’m not. Believers are deceived all the time, Jesus warned that even the elect may be deceived by rampant false teachings, that doesn’t make them unbelievers.
The only argument I’m contradicting is yours.
You claimed it’s “between truth and lies”, so I ask you what Pilate asked Jesus - “what is truth?” Is the gospel of John truer than the synoptic gospels or vice versa? Why are there two versions of his genealogy and more two accounts of his resurrection, some details even appear to be contradictory? In your black and white thinking, it’s “truth vs lies”, so one must be true while other must be false, right? That’s why I meant by telling you that only God himself has the WHOLE truth, for he alone is omniscient, whatever truth you think you have is partial truth, other people’s partial truths which is not same as yours are not necessarily lies.