Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[stunnedbygrace]

sons of God means men of a certain bloodline that would branch off and be uncorrupted to bring forth Jesus from (the Branch and Shoot the prophets spoke of, how about that! The branching off, a branch from a family tree, the branch of the bloodline) and so they weren’t supposed to mate with another human, branching bloodline that the angels (now imprisoned) taught/tricked men to mingle their seed with, committing sexual sin with who they weren’t supposed to. I think they taught them more than just to do that sin because those children were TALL! But that’s another topic. (Think along the line of the sin of balaam, who taught the king how to trick the Israelites to commit sexual sin). It was cains “marked” bloodline the men weren’t supposed to mingle with the daughters of. Cain was marked so no one from the chosen bloodline WOULD mate with his line.

Do you think all, or even part of this, could be shown from scripture?

 

[Philip James]

sons of God means men (from before Seth) of a certain bloodline that would branch off and be uncorrupted to bring forth Jesus in and so they weren’t supposed to mate with another human, branching bloodline that the angels (now imprisoned) taught/tricked men to mingle their seed with who weren’t supposed to. I think they taught them more than just to do that sin because those children were TALL! But that’s another topic. (Think along the line of the sin of balaam, who taught the king how to trick the Israelites to commit sexual sin). It was cains “marked” bloodline the men weren’t supposed to mingle with the daughters of. Cain was marked so no one from the chosen bloodline WOULD mate with his line.

Do you think all, or even part of this, could be shown from scripture?

All bloodlines but Noah's were extinguished. so any mingling of any pre flood bloodlines is immaterial to us today.

And no, I don't think 'sons of God' refers to any particular bloodline either pre or post flood. Further, God is quite capable of creating a body for Himself free of any stain and thus having some kinda of 'pure' bloodline as a requirement for Jesus is a non-starter.

So, no, this can't be shown from scripture without reading a preconceived idea into the text imo.

Pax et Bonum

 

[stunnedbygrace]

All bloodlines but Noah's were extinguished. so any mingling of any pre flood bloodlines is immaterial to us today.

Correct. Only Noah’s bloodline survived the flood. And he came from a pre flood bloodline so I don’t think it’s immaterial. And Jesus’ bloodline is recited by two apostles and, of the two, the doctor, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought it was material that the line dates back to preflood.
I was wrong about something though, and need to change it In the op. It was through Seth. That was a ridiculous mistake, based on a preconceived notion I had in my mind from a hideously bad teaching. If I drew it out for you, you would get a huge laugh at how dumb I can be!

 

[Philip James]

And Jesus’ bloodline is recited by two apostles and, of the two, the doctor, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought it was material that the line dates back to preflood.

hello stunned,

One demonstrates that Jesus is indeed 'the son of David' the other that He is indeed the 'son of man'.

I suggest contemplating these titles of Jesus, and their implications would yield far more fruit for one's soul than trying to identify pre flood bloodlines..

Pax et Bonum

 

[quietthinker]

I doubt whether 'pure' physical lineage has to do with the Messiah. Consider Ruth a Moabitess.....right out of the ball park as far as physical lineage goes......and there are others.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

hello stunned,

One demonstrates that Jesus is indeed 'the son of David' the other that He is indeed the 'son of man'.

I suggest contemplating these titles of Jesus, and their implications would yield far more fruit for one's soul than trying to identify pre flood bloodlines..

Pax et Bonum

If you were in my head with the idea of “marks,” “marked” and “markings,” you might understand why I’m being taken this way. Then again, if you were in my head, you might just run screaming.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I doubt whether 'pure' physical lineage has to do with the Messiah.

Really? I have thought it had a lot to do with Jesus. He came from the lineage of the only bloodline left on earth who wasn’t part of: And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth.
His was the only bloodline uncorrupted through its generations.

Consider Ruth a Moabitess.....right out of the ball park as far as physical lineage goes......and there are others.

Do you mean because she was from Moab?
I feel a kinship with her because God adopted me too.
Abraham was from Ur. They had…was it 4? gods. An argument could be made that it’s even further out of the ballpark than being from Moab!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

And, incidentally, well…maybe its for later conversation, but it was a king of Moab who hired Balaam to try to figure out a way to get God to curse Israel.
He was afraid of them. They were infamous and feared by that point. Their God had drowned Pharoah and they were winning every war. And maybe…he even also had a desire to get the land back that Israel had taken from the previous king of Moab. Anyway, he (the king) had someone stir his heart to find some sin to entice or trick them so God would curse them as He had cursed the corrupted line and swept them away. I think it’s because that someone was STILL trying to mess up Jesus coming. That someone wanted to get God angry again about sexual sin since he had seen His anger was of biblical proportions the first time he used that tactic. Satan was trying again since, the first time, the line he wanted gone survived and the line he wanted to rule through was wiped out. It’s a tactic of kings to kill anyone who might challenge their throne. A tactic straight from Satan.

Otherwise, why was it sexual sin that they settled on working at? They could have picked another sin. Well, they did, eating food offered to idols too. But It’s because satan was shooting for that explosive anger again from God.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

hello stunned,

One demonstrates that Jesus is indeed 'the son of David' the other that He is indeed the 'son of man'.

I suggest contemplating these titles of Jesus, and their implications would yield far more fruit for one's soul than trying to identify pre flood bloodlines..

Pax et Bonum

But I forgot to say, that might make a good thread…you would have to guide me in it though, because absolutely nothing comes to me in thinking about that. But you see something I don’t I think since it has given you gain.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Anyway, conversation and challenge (but not mean, moonpie throwing challenge) might help me to work out if it fits with the whole of scripture. Because others will see things I don’t and scriptures I might not, and be able to pick up where I don’t see I might have something wrong. (Like my earlier monumental mistake.) I heard it from another man and I’m doing the berean thing with his teaching, which was sparse, to see if it’s as right as it sounds to me. You both have already helped with your thoughts. Three bereans are better than one.

And, incidentally, I see some things I haven’t articulated yet about the mark on Cain, the mark in the end times and…yeah, that’s for later. But I dimly see some things.

 

[quietthinker]

Really? I have thought it had a lot to do with Jesus. He came from the lineage of the only man left on earth who wasn’t part of: And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth.
He was the only one perfect in his generations.

Do you mean because she was from Moab?
I feel a kinship with her because God adopted me too.
Abraham was from Ur. They had…was it 4? gods. An argument could be made that it’s even further out of the ballpark than being from Moab!

ahhhh, ball parks! If we are talking humanity as a whole we can trace the linage all the way back to Adam.
However, if we are talking about the descendants of Jacob aka Israel, there are breaks in the line, Rahab being one of them.

I'm glad you feel a kinship with Ruth and I guess Rahab as well cuz I feel a kinship with Adam and the scaly wags which are deemed men of faith like Sampson.

 

[keithr]

Really? I have thought it had a lot to do with Jesus. He came from the lineage of the only man left on earth who wasn’t part of: And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth.
He was the only one perfect in his generations.

You're making assumptions. It does not say that Noah was the ONLY person who had been uncorrupted by the cross breeding by the sons of God (fallen angels); it just says that he was perfect (without blemish) in his generations (genealogy), and that he walked with God. If you want to make assumptions, I would suggest that Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's three sons were also perfect in their generations.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You're making assumptions. It does not say that Noah was the ONLY person who had been uncorrupted by the cross breeding by the sons of God (fallen angels); it just says that he was perfect (without blemish) in his generations (genealogy), and that he walked with God. If you want to make assumptions, I would suggest that Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's three sons were also perfect in their generations.

Correct, I should have included the others so no one could become confused by my post and think Noah was the only uncorrupted flesh on the ark. I do believe when Noah found favor with God and had not corrupted his way, it extended to his wife and children.
I do not think angels physically breed in sex. I’m pretty convinced they don’t have reproductive capabilities and appendages. No, I will not have an argument with you over whether angels have penises. If you want to have that argument it won’t be with me!

 

[keithr]

I do not think angels physically breed in sex. I’m pretty convinced they don’t have reproductive capabilities and appendages. No, I will not have an argument with you over whether angels have penises. If you want to have that argument it won’t be with me!

The angels took on human form in order to breed with humans:

Genesis 6:2-4 (WEB):

(2) God’s sons saw that men’s daughters were beautiful, and they took any that they wanted for themselves as wives.​

(3) Yahweh said, “My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years.”​

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

As it says in Jude 1:6 (KJV):

(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.​

The Greek word that is translated as habitation is oiketerion, which is the same Greek word that Paul uses in 2 Corinthians 5 when he talks about the change from our human body to an immortal spirit body. In fact they are the only two places in the Bible that the word is used.

2 Corinthians 5 (WEB):

(1) For we know that if the earthly house of our tent [i.e. our human body] is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens.​

(2) For most certainly in this we groan, longing to be clothed with our habitation [oiketerion] which is from heaven;​

(3) if so be that being clothed we will not be found naked.​

(4) For indeed we who are in this tent do groan, being burdened; not that we desire to be unclothed, but that we desire to be clothed, that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.​

(5) Now he who made us for this very thing is God, who also gave to us the down payment of the Spirit.​

(6) Therefore we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord;​

(7) for we walk by faith, not by sight.​

(8) We are courageous, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord.​

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The angels took on human form in order to breed with humans:

Sort of like a Ken doll who was Barbies boyfriend? or with true anatomical correctness even in the parts hidden under clothing ?
Did those fallen angels create the human bodies for themselves or is it God who gave them anatomically correct human bodies to inhabit so they could do what you say they did?

Angels can appear as humans to men if they want to but I think it’s more like a stage set or a cloaking of their fearsome ness to human eyes rather than an anatomically correct human body that they zapped into existence.

What you say is even more far out than what I’ve said! And You just stated that I make a lot of assumptions?

 

[keithr]

Sort of like a Ken doll who was Barbies boyfriend? or with true anatomical correctness even in the parts hidden under clothing ?
Did those fallen angels create the human bodies for themselves or is it God who gave them anatomically correct human bodies to inhabit so they could do what you say they did?

Angels can appear as humans to men if they want to but I think it’s more like a stage set or a cloaking of their fearsome ness to human eyes rather than an anatomically correct human body that they zapped into existence.

What you say is even more far out than what I’ve said! And You just stated that I make a lot of assumptions?

Angels can take on perfect human form, so that we can't tell them apart from normal people. As Pauls said, Hebrews 13:2 (WEB):

(2) Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for in doing so, some have entertained angels without knowing it.​

God allowed the angels to take on human form, but they sinned by their lust for women ("God’s sons saw that men’s daughters were beautiful, and they took any that they wanted for themselves as wives"). Peter compares their sin and punishment to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, 2 Peter 2:4 (WEB):

(4) For if God didn’t spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved for judgment;​

(5) and didn’t spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others, a preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood on the world of the ungodly;​

(6) and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, having made them an example to those who would live in an ungodly way;​

(7) and delivered righteous Lot, who was very distressed by the lustful life of the wicked​

(8) (for that righteous man dwelling among them was tormented in his righteous soul from day to day with seeing and hearing lawless deeds):​

(9) the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment;​

(10) but chiefly those who walk after the flesh in the lust of defilement, and despise authority. ...​

 

[stunnedbygrace]

We disagree that angels mated with humans. And if you had heard it taught the other way first, which has less assumptions in it, the teaching you hold to would be the one that seemed crazy to you.

 

[keithr]

We disagree that angels mated with humans.

So what do you think the expression "came in to " means? As in Genesis 6:4 (WEB):

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

which resulted in the angels having children with the women (who they took as wives, and no man could stop the angels from taking those women), and those offspring became mighty men of renown.

Consider the same expression in Genesis 38:18, when Judah has sexual intercourse with a woman he thought was a prostitute, but in fact it was Tamar, his daughter-in-law:

(18) He said, “What pledge will I give you?” She said, “Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” He gave them to her, and came in to her, and she conceived by him.​

 

[stunnedbygrace]

So what do you think the expression "came in to " means? As in Genesis 6:4 (WEB):

(4) The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God’s sons came in to men’s daughters and had children with them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.​

The nephilim were on earth in those days, when Gods sons had sex (came in to their tents and had sex) with men’s daughters. To what Angel has God said, you are My Son? Angels are not sons. Sons are begotten, born, not created.
There is nothing there that makes me assume nephilim (fallen angels) are Gods sons.
It is the teaching/doctrine of men that makes that assumption and once it is in your mind and you have swallowed it, you make the assumption too.

It says, when temporarily taking out for just a second what parts might confuse my mind as to what is being said:
The nephilim were on earth in those days, when Gods sons came in to men’s daughters.
Even as to just basic reading comprehension, that is not saying what men have said it does.

 

[David in NJ]

sons of God means men of a certain bloodline that would branch off and be uncorrupted to bring forth Jesus from (the Branch and Shoot the prophets spoke of, how about that! The branching off, a branch from a family tree, the branch of the bloodline) and so they weren’t supposed to mate with another human, branching bloodline that the angels (now imprisoned) taught/tricked men to mingle their seed with, committing sexual sin with who they weren’t supposed to. I think they taught them more than just to do that sin because those children were TALL! But that’s another topic. (Think along the line of the sin of balaam, who taught the king how to trick the Israelites to commit sexual sin). It was cains “marked” bloodline the men weren’t supposed to mingle with the daughters of. Cain was marked so no one from the chosen bloodline WOULD mate with his line.

Do you think all, or even part of this, could be shown from scripture?

The term "sons of God" used in Genesis is referring to angels.
This has been made clear from Scripture for us to know = Genesis, Job, Jude, 2 Peter, Luke