Outer darkness

[Davy]

Matthew 3:9
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

God can raise up stones as people! Everything therefore must have a spirit and this spirit must be able to take on different forms.

Though I do not believe that everything is God, but rather that everything is within God. God is the summation of all that is, but it is not so that everything within the summation is the summation.

If God did not have dominion over and presence within all, then God would not be omnipresent and omniscient. Is there something outside of God's reach? There cannot logically be so if God is all-powerful.

You sure you are a Christian? Your thinking is according to paganism.

The idea of Jesus speaking of raising up stones to be children of Abraham is a SYMBOLIC METPHOR. He didn't say He was going to do that. He was simply pointed to how haughty those blind Pharisees were about His Salvation, because they thought only themselves (i.e., the Jews) knew about God's promises. And the majority of the peoples in Judea at that also though the same time, not understanding how Salvation would go to the Gentiles also.

You really need to learn about the idea of metaphor, analogy, and allegory, because those are normal parts of speech in all... languages. Thus The Bible uses it a lot too.

 

[Adam]

"Symbolic" is not synonymous with "meaningless". The rocks can be raised into sons of Abraham. This is a symbol indeed, it means that any matter can be given life and even faith through transmutation by God.

Luke 19
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Once again, another reference to this idea. There is no such thing as something that is dead matter, everything has the spirit of God in it. This is the very definition of omnipresence. If God is not omnipresent then this violates the very concept of God.

 

[quietthinker]

Good morning Mathew.
I currently lean towards those spirits/demons/principalities being the spirits of nephilim. It’s the only thing I’ve yet seen make sense since those who left their first estate are in chains. But, He may show me something I haven’t seen yet that will change my thinking on it.

That would make those angels who had relations with women able to have passed eternal existence to their offspring, meaning they were created eternal and brought forth from their kind (eternal) whereas humans are not created eternal but are brought forth from their kind (fallen, non eternal beings) who need to be born again of the Holy Spirit in order to live forever.

It also seems to make sense to me how nephilim could still be on earth after the flood. Or…at least it begins to start to…come together…

Thats where I currently am in understanding.

Soooo, angels have penises and produce sperm? what in the heavens for? Would it imply there are female angels with vagina's, breasts and uteruses? Does it mean they procreate? ...hmmmm, baby bad angels and baby good angels? We can stretch this indefinitely......even as far as Cupid.

Being careful how we hear will save us from pitfalls and useless imaginations from which many 'colourful' errors are born.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Soooo, angels have penises and produce sperm? what in the heavens for? Would it imply there are female angels with vagina's, breasts and uteruses? Does it mean they procreate? ...hmmmm, baby bad angels and baby good angels? We can stretch this indefinitely......even as far as Cupid.

Being careful how we hear will save us from pitfalls and useless imaginations from which many 'colourful' errors are born.

Being careful to thoughtfully read more than one post in a thread makes laborious repetitions unnecessary.
Our conversation addressed that further on.

 

[quietthinker]

...and I would like to add, the expression 'chains of darkness', what do we imagine that to be?........is it the counterpart of fire and brimstone ie, burning sulfur?
I think it is prudent to understand the colourful language of the Hebrews; their idioms and how they used them.

 

[quietthinker]

Being careful to thoughtfully read more than one post in a thread makes laborious repetitions unnecessary.
Our conversation addressed that further on.

It's true, I didn't read all the posts....my bad. So what are the conclusions?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

It's true, I didn't read all the posts....my bad. So what are the conclusions?

Post # 26
no conclusions though. Thoughts. Discussion.

 

[quietthinker]

mmm…I’m not sure it WAS sex…it was SOME kind of relation or interaction though. Some sort of…”dark magic”? for lack of a better term, that created huge hybrid beings. It’s not so outlandish really, when you consider that even mere men have now figured out how to cause virgins to give birth apart from sexual relations…

the assumption is that the expressions 'sons of God' means angels and 'sons of men' means humans.
Adam is mentioned as being a Son of God, Luke 3:38.
....also, the genealogy of Adam by-passes Cain and Abel and jumps straight to Seth in both Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38.

What am I saying here? I am saying that the lineage recorded has missed some entries (children) in favour of those who were believers .....in other words, those who were deemed 'Sons of God' in this case.
Why is this of interest? because it shifts the common understanding of how 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of Men' are interpreted.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

the assumption is that the expressions 'sons of God' means angels and 'sons of men' means humans.
Adam is mentioned as being a Son of God, Luke 3:38.
....also, the genealogy of Adam by-passes Cain and Abel and jumps straight to Seth in both Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38.

What am I saying here? I am saying that the lineage recorded has missed some entries (children) in favour of those who were believers .....in other words, those who were deemed 'Sons of God' in this case.
Why is this of interest? because it shifts the common understanding of how 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of Men' are interpreted.

1. Adam was created in Gods image. (Not born, but created.) He literally CANT be called a son of man.

2. “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.”
My take on that is Seth was born in Adams fallen image. A son of man, not a son of God.

3. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
Do you see the problem this verse runs into with what you’ve said?

Those are my thoughts.

 

[quietthinker]

1. Adam was created in Gods image. (Not born, but created.) He literally CANT be called a son of man.

2. “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.”
My take on that is Seth was born in Adams fallen image. A son of man, not a son of God.

3. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
Do you see the problem this verse runs into with what you’ve said?

Those are my thoughts.

sbg said in point No 2. “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.”
My take on that is Seth was born in Adams fallen image. A son of man, not a son of God.

I am saying, then why did they (the writer Moses) miss Cain and Able in the genealogy? I'd say it was because Seth in his repentance is identified with Adam ...indicated in Genesis 4:26 'To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

In other words, Seth was a 'good' guy; a man of repentance and faith.....as was Adam.

Consider this; Hebrews 11 outlines those of faith; included is Samson, yet the record tells us he was a bit of a scoundrel, murdering and stealing and getting revenge.

I propose that the context that scripture pursues when it calls certain 'the Sons of God' is reserved for those of faith.....as Hebrews 11 outlines. We can consider King David who is called a man of blood and subsequently was not allowed to build the Temple ...yet God calls him 'a man after my own heart'

Let's reflect on these anomalies and apparent contradictions and hear what is being communicated.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You haven’t made sense to me.sorry.

 

[Jay Ross]

Jesus speaking in Parables.

Matt 8:10-13: - 10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you." And his servant was healed that same hour.

NKJV​

Matt 22:11-13: - 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

NKJV​

Matt 25:29-30: - 29 'For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

NKJV​

These re the three references to the "Outer Darkness."

In the first passage Jesus was about the Israelites as being the Sons of "God's Kingdom" and that they because of their unbelief will be cast into the Outer Darkness.

In the second passage, God commands that the man without the wedding Garment be thrown into the outer darkness. The man was not able to discern the difference between him and the other guests at the wedding feast. He was not cloaked with a wedding garment because of his lack of a meaningful relationship with God.

In the third passage, Jesus was describing, in a parable, how Satan goes away to be locked up in the Bottomless pit for a long period of time, and when Satan returned, he approached his three servants, two of which had advanced Satan's influence over the peoples of the earth while the third servant who was also righteous was deemed by Satan to be a wicked servant because he refused to oppress his fellow neighbours living around him and as such he did not use the talent he was given to bring oppression upon the peoples of the earth around him. He challenged Satan that he had no right to the harvest as he had not prepared the field, sown the seed or watered and tended the wheat as it grew, to which Satan readily agreed with his "wicked servant," and commanded his other servants to cast the "wicked servant" into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. By this act Satan was trying to act like God. By excluding his Wicked Servant from his presence, Satan is hoping that the light that the Wicked Servant shone upon Satan's dominion will not be seen because in Satan's opinion he has banished God's Light to the outer darkness with respect to his light.

The Outer Darkness is where God's light is not allowed to shine.

Shalom

The outer darkness is where God's light is completely absorbed by Satan's darkness.

Satan in trying to emulate God is attempting to claim that He is the light in this world, denying that this is God's possession and not his.

Those who inhabit the darkness will be judged to be unrighteous

 

[quietthinker]

You haven’t made sense to me.sorry.

no problems sbg. If you could tell me where or how you don't see the dots joining in what I've said, I'll be happy to sort it out as best I can.

 

[Enoch111]

Why is this of interest? because it shifts the common understanding of how 'Sons of God' and 'Sons of Men' are interpreted.

In the OT "sons of God" always refers to direct creations of God -- angelic beings. That is also why Adam -- the first human -- is also called a "son of God" in the genealogy of Christ. However, in the NT angels are never called "sons of God" since that term is reserved strictly for the children of God -- those who have been "born of God" through the New Birth. They have been born from above, born of the Spirit, born again.

In Genesis 6 "sons of God" (evil angels) are contrasted with "daughters of men". Hence their progeny was ABNORMAL -- "there were giants (Nephilim) in those days". These evil angels also corrupted humanity and brought on the divine judgment of the Flood. Therefore they are now chained in darkness in Tartarus (wrongly called "hell" in the KJB). They are awaiting their final judgment, which means being cast into the Lake of Fire (eternal Hell, called "gehenna" in the NT).

 

[stunnedbygrace]

no problems sbg. If you could tell me where or how you don't see the dots joining in what I've said, I'll be happy to sort it out as best I can.

Man, I don’t know. First of all, you ask why Abel isn’t included in Christ’s geneology. I have no idea why you ask that. Abel didn’t have a son before he was murdered maybe…? And if he didn’t have the son the lineage continued from up to Jesus, why WOULD he be included? I mean, how am I supposed to answer you? And Cain? Because he isn’t the son the lineage was continued in to Jesus? I mean…how could the lineage continue on to Jesus through 3 different sons of one father? You’re not making sense…if you have two sons, and they each have a son, how would both sons - oh my gosh…I cannot explain to you why the entire family tree was not layed out. You really cant see why?

It wasn’t a meticulously exhaustive family tree? It was tracing the lineage of ONE MAN - Jesus. It was following one BRANCH of the tree…
gosh sakes, what is going on here. You are not thinking things through. You’re just…

gaaah, you’re baffling to me!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

If you happen to have a brother, and you are tracing your own sons lineage backwards, would you throw your brother in there? How did your brother continue the lineage of YOUR son? No. You would say, my son is Fred. Fred’s father is me. My father was Carl. Carl’s father was Pete. Etc.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Or maybe, since Cain murdered his own brother, they just didn’t include him in the genealogy because…Adam said, you are no longer my son, I disown you! You are no longer welcome in this house! Your name will never be even mentioned in this house ever again!

 

[quietthinker]

In the OT "sons of God" always refers to direct creations of God -- angelic beings. That is also why Adam -- the first human -- is also called a "son of God" in the genealogy of Christ. However, in the NT angels are never called "sons of God" since that term is reserved strictly for the children of God -- those who have been "born of God" through the New Birth. They have been born from above, born of the Spirit, born again.

In Genesis 6 "sons of God" (evil angels) are contrasted with "daughters of men". Hence their progeny was ABNORMAL -- "there were giants (Nephilim) in those days". These evil angels also corrupted humanity and brought on the divine judgment of the Flood. Therefore they are now chained in darkness in Tartarus (wrongly called "hell" in the KJB). They are awaiting their final judgment, which means being cast into the Lake of Fire (eternal Hell, called "gehenna" in the NT).

Adam is called the Son of God.....or who do you think whose son he is?

 

[quietthinker]

Man, I don’t know. First of all, you ask why Abel isn’t included in Christ’s geneology. I have no idea why you ask that. Abel didn’t have a son before he was murdered maybe…? And if he didn’t have the son the lineage continued from up to Jesus, why WOULD he be included? I mean, how am I supposed to answer you? And Cain? Because he isn’t the son the lineage was continued in to Jesus? I mean…how could the lineage continue on to Jesus through 3 different sons of one father? You’re not making sense…if you have two sons, and they each have a son, how would both sons - oh my gosh…I cannot explain to you why the entire family tree was not layed out. You really cant see why?

It wasn’t a meticulously exhaustive family tree? It was tracing the lineage of ONE MAN - Jesus. It was following one BRANCH of the tree…
gosh sakes, what is going on here. You are not thinking things through. You’re just…

gaaah, you’re baffling to me!

My point is that the expression 'Sons of God' ...'Sons of the Devil aka 'sons of men' is used for more than just the angels. Here are examples (highlighted)
To apply the expression 'Sons of God ....daughters of men' from the reference in Genesis to mean evil angels bonked with pretty women is a misunderstanding.....and a primitive one at that.

'Matthew 5:43-45 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44[o]But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and prayfor those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Here is also a contrast in identification re 'the sons of the devil'. It does not mean they were the literal progeny of the devil or evil angels having relationships with women.

John 8:43-44
The father whose sons you are is the Devil; and you desire to do what gives him pleasure. *He* was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand firm in the truth--for there is no truth in him. Whenever he utters his lie, he utters it out of his own store; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.

Be mindful ...and careful of eisegesis!

 

[Enoch111]

Adam is called the Son of God.....or who do you think whose son he is?

Because Adam was a DIRECT CREATION of God, he is called "the son of God": Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) Please note that "the son" is in italics throughout, which means that those words are not in the Greek text but inserted to help us understand. So the Greek says "Adam of God". And every son is simply "of" the father. So "son of" is definitely helpful in this chapter.