Paul's Thorn In The Flesh=Not a Sickness but a Messenger of Satan to buffet me.

[JesusIsFaithful]

Paul also said PLAINLY "we establish the law" so why aren't you and the rest of those professing Christianity in church on the Sabbath and keeping the Ten Commandments instead of keeping a man-made replacement "day of rest" for which the Papacy takes full credit and responsibility but which the Bible refers to PLAINLY as a "day of work" (Exodus 20:8-11 KJV) - the first day of the week ?

Jesus has risen the first day of the week. That's why.

The churches in Acts did not hold church services on the sabbath day when that was when they were doing missionary outreach in Jewish synagogues.

Paul had written to the church at Corinth an order he has given to all the churches in how they were to set aside a portion from the bounty collected for the support of missionaries in the field so that there would be no special separate collection for even when Paul comes.

1 Corinthians 16:1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Jesus explained to us why His disciples were guiltless for profaning the sabbath day.. because He was with them in Matthew 12:1-7 Jesus gave to examples of O.T. saints profaning the sabbath but they were blameless because they were in the Temple. So because Jesus Christ is in us and our bodies is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, we are guiltless for profaning the sabbath day because Jesus Christ in us is able to make us stand. That is why He is Lord of the Sabbath day and not the sabbath day lord over Him.

Matthew 12:1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes, but as in the case of "demons/women sex to produce giants" although "sons of God" is just as appropriately a reference to God-fearing humans as it is to angelic beings, Christians today for some reason seem unreasonably drawn to exotic, exciting, wild and weird interpretations of Scripture.

Phoneman, as Whiston said in the footnotes of his translation of Josephus, "This notion, that the fallen angels were in some sense [almost without variation, literally] the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity." You will find this belief throughout pre-NT era Judaism, as well as early Christianity up until the time of Jerome (Josephus, Antiquities 73, Wisdom 14:6, Sirach 16:7, Jubilees 5:1-2, 7:17-20, Baruch 3:26-28, 3 Maccabees 2:4, Justin Martyr, Second Apology, Ch 5, Recognitions of Clement, Ch 29, Athenagorus, A Plea For The Christians, Ch 24, Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, Part 3, VII, Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Ch 15, numerous others).

If every available source prior to the NT and afterwards up until the 5th century AD held to this belief, why should this interpretation be considered "wild and weird" and a "twisting scripture"?

As for your argument that the expression "Sons of God" was "just as appropriately a reference to God-fearing humans," this only became true after the New Testament was written. In the OT this exact expression was consistently used only in reference to angels (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7; Daniel 3:28).

Probably because they reject the solid, well established plausibility of Protestant Historicism

Plausibility? You know, that term can be used as a vail for what should more rightly be called faithlessness, which often accompanies much of Protestantism unfortunately. Do you denounce the belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in operation today? I ask because this is often yet another doctrine that rests its case on "well established plausibility," when in reality the real source behind it is lukewarm Christianity.

in favor of Jesuit Futurism or Preterism

Why are you assuming I'm a Jesuit Futurist or Preterist? Do I think the Antichrist will be a Pope? No. But how does that automatically make me a Jesuit or a Catholic or a Preterist?

the practice seems to spill over into other areas of Scripture like the "giants"

Do you believe the Bible was being literal when it spoke of giants, or no?

Blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Hidden.

 

[Helen]

why aren't you and the rest of those professing Christianity in church on the Sabbath and keeping the Ten Commandments instead of keeping a man-made replacement "day of rest" for which the Papacy takes full credit and responsibility but which the Bible refers to PLAINLY as a "day of work" (Exodus 20:8-11 KJV) - the first day of the week ?

What rubbish you write!!
You know nothing about me. And I doubt you know much about "The rest of those professing Christianity" either! Who died and made you "all wisdom"??
But, if you want to know...ASK, don't make up stupid things about people that you know nothing about, you make yourself look ridiculous right here in public!!
1) I am IN Church, and I am IN CHURCH 'on the Sabbath' because I am part of the Living Church and Body of Christ.
3) and..as Christ Himself IS our Sabbath rest...I do NOT keep the Sabbath as some do, just once a week , but 24/7

I would have thought that if you read your bible at all you would already know that truth. But obviously not.

If I chose to go 'to' a gathering of saints...the place is not "the Church"
The Church are the people that attend the gathering.
I would have thought you would have known that too....if you read your bible.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Has anyone heard of Hebrew idioms? A "thorn in the flesh" is a common idiom, the same as our idiom "pain in the neck," as in my mother-in-law is a "pain in the neck," or some other body part. LOL

Here is how it is used in Scripture. Judges 2:1Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ” 4 So it was, when the Angel of the Lord spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.

So, what groups of people were like messengers of Satan to buffet Paul's ministry? I can think of two. Judaizers and Gnostics

 

[Hidden In Him]

Has anyone heard of Hebrew idioms? A "thorn in the flesh" is a common idiom, the same as our idiom "pain in the neck," as in my mother-in-law is a "pain in the neck," or some other body part. LOL

Here is how it is used in Scripture. Judges 2:1Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. 2 And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? 3 Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ” 4 So it was, when the Angel of the Lord spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept.

So, what groups of people were like messengers of Satan to buffet Paul's ministry? I can think of two. Judaizers and Gnostics

I still take the idiom as referring to that which was causing him literal pain in the flesh through persecution, since that is the context before he begins the discourse in Chapter 12. In that light, I'd say the Judaizers were the big problem, since the Jews in general were the ones through whom Paul stated Satan was operating (1 Thessalonians 2:14-18).

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I still take the idiom as referring to that which was causing him literal pain in the flesh through persecution, since that is the context before he begins the discourse in Chapter 12. In that light, I'd say the Judaizers were the big problem, since those are the ones through whom Paul stated Satan was operating (1 Thessalonians 2:14-18).

I don't. I take it as an expression. Any real pain is secondary. Paul received a lot of revelation that could really puff up his pride which is mentioned in the passage. But there was always someone around to disagree or mock his doctrines. We've both experienced the same thing on the forums. Some of them cause me pain.

 

[Hidden In Him]

We've both experienced the same thing on the forums.

Yes, we have, LoL. I experienced it on this thread as I recall. *chuckling*

Paul received a lot of revelation that could really puff up his pride which is mentioned in the passage.

Ok, now about this, if you'd like to engage with me on it, I'd like to ask what would be your answer to a question I was posing to Old Hermit. Are you interested? Or were you more just wanting to share your interpretation? Doesn't matter to me, so it's up to you.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Yes, we have, LoL. I experienced it on this thread as I recall. *chuckling*


Ok, now about this, if you'd like to engage with me on it, I'd like to ask what would be your answer to a question I was posing to Old Hermit. Are you interested? Or were you more just wanting to share your interpretation? Doesn't matter to me, so it's up to you.

There is always a situation behind an idiom. And they can be different situations that cause us to use the idiom. So if you want to let the cat out of the bag, you can tell me what you said to hermit. See what I did there? I used an idiom, but you may not even own a cat, nor do I.

 

[Hidden In Him]

There is always a situation behind an idiom. And they can be different situations that cause us to use the idiom. So if you want to let the cat out of the bag, you can tell me what you said to hermit. See what I did there? I used an idiom, but you may not even own a cat, nor do I.

LoL. I presently own two, and at the moment one of them is eating his crunches at my feet.
Ok, let me find it. Respond whenever you like. I may need to get some sleep.

Btw, I agree. There are some out there who cause me a lot of pain, too. I suppose if we posted a thread on "Who's your biggest thorn in the flesh?" we'd get a lot of action out of it, LoL (possibly a few riots).

 

[Hidden In Him]

So if you want to let the cat out of the bag, you can tell me what you said to hermit.

Ok, starting from Post #22:

Do you interpret, "that I not be exalted" to be Satan's purpose in sending it, or simply God's purpose in allowing it?

You'll have to humor me. Old Hermit wasn't wildly interested, but it has relevance.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

LoL. I presently own two, and at the moment one of them is eating his crunches at my feet.
Ok, let me find it. Respond whenever you like. I may need to get some sleep.

Btw, I agree. There are some out there who cause me a lot of pain, too. I suppose if we posted a thread on "Who's your biggest thorn in the flesh?" we'd get a lot of action out of it, LoL (possibly a few riots).

The point I am making about an idiom, it doesn't have to be literal to the situation. A real thorn. Real pain. A real demon. They are just people or a situation that is frustrating to Paul. His life would be easier if God would just take them out of his way.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Ok, starting from Post #22:


You'll have to humor me. Old Hermit wasn't wildly interested, but it has relevance.

Yikes, #22! Okay, I'll read all those posts tomorrow.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yikes, #22! Okay, I'll read all those posts tomorrow.

Sounds good! See you then, and welcome again. Very glad to have you here.

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus has risen the first day of the week. That's why.

The churches in Acts did not hold church services on the sabbath day when that was when they were doing missionary outreach in Jewish synagogues. Acts 13 records there were non-Jews who approached Paul and wanted to hear him preach again the following Sabbath, so the idea that there were only reaching out to Jews is not Biblical...and when they made their request to see him again next Sabbath, he didn't accuse them of "falling from grace" and "under the law" like preachers do today - he told them to continue in grace! And then they all met the next Sabbath, not Sunday.

Paul had written to the church at Corinth an order he has given to all the churches in how they were to set aside a portion from the bounty collected for the support of missionaries in the field so that there would be no special separate collection for even when Paul comes.

1 Corinthians 16:1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Jesus explained to us why His disciples were guiltless for profaning the sabbath day.. because He was with them in Matthew 12:1-7 Jesus gave to examples of O.T. saints profaning the sabbath but they were blameless because they were in the Temple. So because Jesus Christ is in us and our bodies is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, we are guiltless for profaning the sabbath day because Jesus Christ in us is able to make us stand. That is why He is Lord of the Sabbath day and not the sabbath day lord over Him.

Matthew 12:1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Yes, Sunday is observed in honor of the resurrection, but it's purely by tradition, not a directive in Scripture. Jesus had a lot to say about the "vain" worship of tradition and "commandments of men" in Matthew 15.

You're statement about "synagogue missionary work" is not factual. There are zero Sunday morning services recorded in the Bible. Acts 20 records a "first day of the week" gathering which was actually a Saturday night, post-Sabbath gathering, when the first day of the week began after the Sabbath sun had set, and this meeting continued well into midnight, after which the dawn came and Paul left for Troas and did not stick around for the non-existent "Sunday morning service" which everyone wants so desperately to be there, but just isn't there. The chapter is there to record the miracle of a dead man revived, not a change of Sabbath to Sunday.

Besides, even if Sunday observance did take place after Jesus died, it was one day too late to be included in the New Covenant - because Paul plainly says in Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16 that while a "testator" lives, his testament, or covenant, can be altered as much as he wants, but when the "testator" dies, the covenant becomes confirmed and unchangeable. The only way Sunday observance could have been included in the New Covenant as a replacement for the seventh day Sabbath is that the change be made BEFORE the "Testator" Jesus died, just as Communion, Baptism, etc., was established as part of the New Covenant before He died.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman, as Whiston said in the footnotes of his translation of Josephus, "This notion, that the fallen angels were in some sense [almost without variation, literally] the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity." You will find this belief throughout pre-NT era Judaism, as well as early Christianity up until the time of Jerome (Josephus, Antiquities 73, Wisdom 14:6, Sirach 16:7, Jubilees 5:1-2, 7:17-20, Baruch 3:26-28, 3 Maccabees 2:4, Justin Martyr, Second Apology, Ch 5, Recognitions of Clement, Ch 29, Athenagorus, A Plea For The Christians, Ch 24, Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, Part 3, VII, Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Ch 15, numerous others).

If every available source prior to the NT and afterwards up until the 5th century AD held to this belief, why should this interpretation be considered "wild and weird" and a "twisting scripture"?

As for your argument that the expression "Sons of God" was "just as appropriately a reference to God-fearing humans," this only became true after the New Testament was written. In the OT this exact expression was consistently used only in reference to angels (Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7; Daniel 3:28).


Plausibility? You know, that term can be used as a vail for what should more rightly be called faithlessness, which often accompanies much of Protestantism unfortunately. Do you denounce the belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in operation today? I ask because this is often yet another doctrine that rests its case on "well established plausibility," when in reality the real source behind it is lukewarm Christianity.


Why are you assuming I'm a Jesuit Futurist or Preterist? Do I think the Antichrist will be a Pope? No. But how does that automatically make me a Jesuit or a Catholic or a Preterist?


Do you believe the Bible was being literal when it spoke of giants, or no?

Blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord,
Hidden.

Dispensationalism is a poor substitute for Biblical exegesis, friend. Not "every available source" prior to the 5th century agrees with you, because the Gospel writer plainly refers to Adam as the "son of God", and when the Bible comes into conflict with church commentators, I always stick with Scripture - surely Adam's posterity are also candidates for the approbation "sons of God" every bit as much as he, wouldn't you agree? Insisting that "only the OT refers to angels" when talking about the "sons of God", and then by this "proving" Genesis does not apply to men is circular reasoning. Also, the Apocrypha is hardly a trustworthy collection of "authoritative" work upon which to base an opinion, although the historicity is acknowledged.

Plausibility isn't a "veil" for anything - it deals with whether a thing does or does not reside within the realm of possibility. I say it is more than plausible to suggest the "sons of God" are humans and this claim requires no further proof than that which is plainly evidenced in Scripture, while your claim angels have semen and can fertilize a woman rests totally on speculation with zero evidence for these two claims.

You've got to be kidding when you mention "Protestantism" and "faithlessness" in the same sentence, right? Does your knowledge of church history not teach you that Protestants by the MILLIONS yielded their lives to satanically minded papists rather than embrace the "Roman dunghill of decretals"? Are you not aware that the most common offense that drew forth the death penalty was refusing to acknowledge that the Eucharistic wafer was "divine flesh"? No, friend, Protestantism of today may be an impotent, floundering mass of saccharine sentimentalism, but Protestants like Cramner, Ridley, and Latimer were giants of the faith.

There are really only 3 schools of eschatological thought: Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, and Protestant Historicism - by rejecting Historicism, what else are yo left with but Jesuit ideas to follow?

I'm sure that the giants were just that - really big humans, but not by mythological angel/female amalgamation. Adam was a giant, Seth was, Eve was, etc. The Bible says "there were giants on the land in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came into ......" which means the giants existed before the "sons" and "daughters" got together, right? Says they existed then and after then also when the sons and daughters got together. My guess is you've probably never read the passage in this way, but nevertheless, that's what is says, friend.

 

[Phoneman777]

What rubbish you write!!
You know nothing about me. And I doubt you know much about "The rest of those professing Christianity" either! Who died and made you "all wisdom"??
But, if you want to know...ASK, don't make up stupid things about people that you know nothing about, you make yourself look ridiculous right here in public!!
1) I am IN Church, and I am IN CHURCH 'on the Sabbath' because I am part of the Living Church and Body of Christ.
3) and..as Christ Himself IS our Sabbath rest...I do NOT keep the Sabbath as some do, just once a week , but 24/7

I would have thought that if you read your bible at all you would already know that truth. But obviously not.

If I chose to go 'to' a gathering of saints...the place is not "the Church"
The Church are the people that attend the gathering.
I would have thought you would have known that too....if you read your bible.

No need to get so emotional. You said Paul was "clear" when he referred to the "messenger of Satan". I think it's equally "clear" that Christians are to observe God's designated day of rest rather than a man-made day and is why I asked you about the Sabbath. As I said, no need to get worked up here.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Dispensationalism is a poor substitute for Biblical exegesis, friend.

You categorize people too much. I'm not a Dispensationalist.

Not "every available source" prior to the 5th century agrees with you

Yes, they do.

because the Gospel writer plainly refers to Adam as the "son of God"

And the same post-NT sources I cited likewise referred to believers as sons of God. But they equally maintained the notion that "the sons of God" referred to in Genesis were ANGELS, NOT MEN.

Plausibility isn't a "veil" for anything... claim angels have semen and can fertilize a woman rests totally on speculation with zero evidence for these two claims.

If it isn't a veil for faithlessness (and I sincerely hope it is not), do you hold out the possibility of believing it if it can be proven plausible?

You've got to be kidding when you mention "Protestantism" and "faithlessness" in the same sentence, right?

Nope. I've found Baptists in particular to be some of the most faithless Christians on the planet when it comes to supernatural things. Not all of them mind you, and I certainly have no problems with Baptists - I used to be one, and they are at least strongly devoted to the word. But faithlessness is more rife within conservative Christian circles sometimes than anywhere else. They pride themselves on strictly "going by the Book," yet frequently interpret through a lens of unbelief.

Does your knowledge of church history not teach you that Protestants by the MILLIONS yielded their lives to satanically minded papists rather than embrace the "Roman dunghill of decretals"?

Ok, here you go again. Phoneman, this stuff comes out of your mouth every day. I've read your posts. How do you reconcile this sort of language spoken in regard to people who believe in the same Savior, the same God, and the same Holy Spirit? In many cases I don't agree with their doctrines either. But I don't go running around night and day telling them how much their leaders are "satanically-minded" and embrace a "dunghill of decretals," whatever that means (And don't tell me. If I wanted to know, I would have looked it up already). You walk in a spirit that is not loving much of the time, and it is not becoming of you.

Protestants like Cramner, Ridley, and Latimer were giants of the faith.

I have no problem with regarding famous Protestants from the past who died for their convictions. But the church has since moved on from the 16th century, Phoneman. Are they burning you at the stake today? Seems to me you are the one "burning" them most days, not the other way around, LoL. I do believe Revelations describes a time when Catholicism, as the leader of virtually the entire denominational world, will return to killing the saints and prophets, but that time is NOT yet, and most Catholics I know are just doing their best to Love and serve God as best they know how. You, meanwhile, come off as someone with an axe to grind continually; an axe that half the time you sound like you wouldn't mind using. No offense. I'm just telling you how you come off. Often.

There are really only 3 schools of eschatological thought: Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, and Protestant Historicism - by rejecting Historicism, what else are yo left with but Jesuit ideas to follow?

Ok, you really need to cut this out. You OVERSIMPLIFY in order to categorize, and then condemn. Cut it out. You act as though no one earth has ever had a thought outside of these three possibilities. I take you as smarter than this, so try using an argument that doesn't make you sound... like you have a bad case of tunnel vision, and an obsession with the concerns of 16th century Protestantism. We're in the 21st century now.

Adam was a giant, Seth was, Eve was, etc.

Ok, as a man of the scriptures, where on earth did you get that from?

The Bible says "there were giants on the land in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came into ......" which means the giants existed before the "sons" and "daughters" got together, right?

No, LoL. "In those days" is a reference to the days of Noah, Phoneman. Read the context. "And also after that" is a reference to the days after the flood, where scripture records there were giants in the promised land.

My guess is you've probably never read the passage in this way, but nevertheless, that's what is says, friend.

No, I haven't, and I certainly don't mind different interpretations being presented to me. I'm not afraid to buck orthodoxy and tradition if I think there is a genuine case from scripture. I just don't think that's the case in this instance.

Phoneman, again, I have nothing against you personally. You seem to be fighting for a cause you believe in. But you are far more the traditionalist than you think. And in your zeal to defend the truth as you see it, you are not as open to new interpretations as you should be. You champion reformation theology, yet those who did so six hundred years ago were doing so as a result of receiving revelation concerning what the Spirit of God was revealing to the churches at that time. He has been revealing a lot more since then.

Blessings, and I mean you no harm, so don't take offense simply because I disagree with your positions. I'm hoping you will at least consider that there is another point of view.

 

[Phoneman777]

What rubbish you write!!
You know nothing about me. And I doubt you know much about "The rest of those professing Christianity" either! Who died and made you "all wisdom"??
But, if you want to know...ASK, don't make up stupid things about people that you know nothing about, you make yourself look ridiculous right here in public!!
1) I am IN Church, and I am IN CHURCH 'on the Sabbath' because I am part of the Living Church and Body of Christ.
3) and..as Christ Himself IS our Sabbath rest...I do NOT keep the Sabbath as some do, just once a week , but 24/7

I would have thought that if you read your bible at all you would already know that truth. But obviously not.

If I chose to go 'to' a gathering of saints...the place is not "the Church"
The Church are the people that attend the gathering.
I would have thought you would have known that too....if you read your bible.

If you asked me to "keep" the fire going in your backyard firepit while you leave for the day and I get there to throw another log on and find it cold and damp, how can I "keep" it lit, since you never lit it in the first place?

Likewise, you nor I can "keep" the rest of the week holy because God never made it holy. He commands you and I to BE HOLY everyday, just as He has always commanded His people in all times. While you and I are commanded to be holy, neither you nor I can "keep" the "rest of the week" holy, because God never made those days holy - He made only one day holy, and commands us to keep it holy by resting and not working on that day.

You, like most who profess to follow the Bible should open to Hebrews 4:9-10 where you all derive the "resting in Christ" argument and read where it says that those who are resting in Jesus will rest like God rested at the end of Creation week - on the 7th day Sabbath and refraining from work. So I ask, is that what you do in accordance with the Ten Commandments?

 

[Phoneman777]

You categorize people too much. I'm not a Dispensationalist.

I never categorized you as anything - I disagreed with your use of dispensationalism.

(Hidden In Him claims OT authorities unanimously agree that "sons of God" in the OT refers only to angels)

Is English you first language? I plainly demonstrated that Dr. Luke plainly refers to Adam as "the son of God" - irrefutable, undeniable, self-evident proof that the term "son of God" is applies to an Old Testament figure - the first OT figure. Your argument is invalid.

And the same post-NT sources I cited likewise referred to believers as sons of God. But they equally maintained the notion that "the sons of God" referred to in Genesis were ANGELS, NOT MEN.

Really, if Luke refers to Adam as "son of God" - and by doing so has established that OT figures are legitimately referred to as "son of God" - why do you not admit your error and stop trying to create a dichotomy between Luke and Moses?

If it isn't a veil for faithlessness (and I sincerely hope it is not), do you hold out the possibility of believing it if it can be proven plausible?

It's NOT able to be proven plausible, for there's no Scriptural evidence that angels have sex with anything. Yours is a continuous uphill battle against all that which suggests they do not in order to establish that they can.

Nope. I've found Baptists in particular to be some of the most faithless Christians on the planet when it comes to supernatural things. Not all of them mind you, and I certainly have no problems with Baptists - I used to be one, and they are at least strongly devoted to the word. But faithlessness is more rife within conservative Christian circles sometimes than anywhere else. They pride themselves on strictly "going by the Book," yet frequently interpret through a lens of unbelief.

I think you'll agree that "faith" includes the idea of "being faithful", right? But faithful to who or what? To Jesus and His Word. So, throw out whatever measuring rod you employ to judge others' faithfulness and stick to what the Bible uses: God's Word and His Law. A person demonstrates his faith by his works, according to James.

Ok, here you go again. Phoneman, this stuff comes out of your mouth every day. I've read your posts. How do you reconcile this sort of language spoken in regard to people who believe in the same Savior, the same God, and the same Holy Spirit? In many cases I don't agree with their doctrines either. But I don't go running around night and day telling them how much their leaders are "satanically-minded" and embrace a "dunghill of decretals," whatever that means (And don't tell me. If I wanted to know, I would have looked it up already). You walk in a spirit that is not loving much of the time, and it is not becoming of you.

This is so typical of liberal Christendom. The criticism sounds harsh so the critic must be a hater, right? Well, Jesus called a bunch of Jews devil children - will you criticize Him, too?
It's not insulting to refer to people who are "satanically minded" - it means they have been deceived by Satan and believe his lies. If people like you would stop with the hypocritical selective outrage and unrighteous indignation and join the rest of us in helping to expose the darkness, perhaps some of these dear ones might find their way into the glorious light. BTW, "Roman Catholic dunghill of decretals" is how Martin Luther referred to them, and your ignorance of this sadly reveals how little you know about the Protestant Reformation.

I have no problem with regarding famous Protestants from the past who died for their convictions. But the church has since moved on from the 16th century, Phoneman. Are they burning you at the stake today? Seems to me you are the one "burning" them most days, not the other way around, LoL. I do believe Revelations describes a time when Catholicism, as the leader of virtually the entire denominational world, will return to killing the saints and prophets, but that time is NOT yet, and most Catholics I know are just doing their best to Love and serve God as best they know how. You, meanwhile, come off as someone with an axe to grind continually; an axe that half the time you sound like you wouldn't mind using. No offense. I'm just telling you how you come off. Often.

Please, enough with the constant personal criticism already. Liberals always resort to this when they are losing a debate and it seems that this is the case here. Of course I have an ax to grind - Christianity is in crisis and the solution is not more Biblical distortions (like your "angels have sex with women" ideas) but TRUTH based on solid Biblical exegesis, which I by the grace of God strive to present.

Ok, you really need to cut this out. You OVERSIMPLIFY in order to categorize, and then condemn. Cut it out. You act as though no one earth has ever had a thought outside of these three possibilities. I take you as smarter than this, so try using an argument that doesn't make you sound... like you have a bad case of tunnel vision, and an obsession with the concerns of 16th century Protestantism. We're in the 21st century now.

Your tunnel vision is REALLY on display here. Try and wrap you mind around this, please...If you lay all the various eschatological idea on the floor, and arrange them by how much they agree with each other, you are left with only THREE major schools of thought: Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, or Protestant Historicism.

1) Preterism - end time prophecy was fulfilled in the first century with a "Nero" Antichrist.
2) Futurism - most prophecy is yet to be fulfilled but will be soon with a "last seven years of tribulation Antichrist".
3) Historicism - God has no blind spots, therefore, prophecy parallels history which reveals a Papal Antichrist system.

Ok, as a man of the scriptures, where on earth did you get that from?

I say that with the same degree of incredulity when I read about your "sexy time angels" too. The Bible plainly states that giants existed before your "sexy time angels" got busy, and that the giants that arose after the "sons" got together with the "daughters" were not a new phenomenon, but a continuation of that which already existed. Please re-read Genesis 6:4 KJV

"In those days" is a reference to the days of Noah, Phoneman. Read the context. "And also after that" is a reference to the days after the flood, where scripture records there were giants in the promised land.

I'll read the context if you'll stop reading with extreme subjectivity:

"There were giants in the earth in those days (Noah's day); and also after that (after Noah's day - after the giants were already existing in the earth), 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."

Therefore, to attribute the existence of giants to "angel/female" amalgamation when Scripture plainly states that giants existed in the land before the time when you claim the angels got their freak on is subjectivity on steroids, friend.

Phoneman, again, I have nothing against you personally. You seem to be fighting for a cause you believe in. But you are far more the traditionalist than you think. And in your zeal to defend the truth as you see it, you are not as open to new interpretations as you should be. You champion reformation theology, yet those who did so six hundred years ago were doing so as a result of receiving revelation concerning what the Spirit of God was revealing to the churches at that time. He has been revealing a lot more since then.

Neither do I have ought against you, but please spare me that which you denounce: characterization and categorizing. I'm no rebel without a cause - I've backed up every spiritual proposition with Scripture.

It is my experience that among the most absurd claims made by Christians is similar to what you suggested: that we are to regard the exegesis and hermenuetics of past Protestant giants of the faith who ate, slept, breathed, and died for the Word of God as "inadequate" while we in the church today who are so completely distracted with every stripe and type of sensory stimulation, idolatrous entertainment, and hardcore pornography - where according to many polls Christian men hold the Bible in one hand and masturbate to the most extreme filth with the other - that we can't even find the time to pray...and yet we are somehow "more enlightened", "better equipped", and "are able to hear more clearly the Holy Spirit"??? You can travel to Europe and snap a picture in John Wesley's house where his floor board are WORN DOWN in the spot where he prayed. Have you read Wesley's commentary on Revelation and understood why he and countless others believed Historicism? But, we're to regard the wisdom of modern preachers over theirs, right?

Blessings, and I mean you no harm, so don't take offense simply because I disagree with your positions. I'm hoping you will at least consider that there is another point of view.

Let's be clear - I am fully acquainted with many of the popular but erroneous beliefs in churches today - I used to believe them! It is not I who requires a more open mind - it is those who fight against the idea of a Papal Antichrist but have never studied all the elements of Historicism that are the bigots. Alas, most people are too afraid to find out they might be wrong. Blessings to you, as well.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Is English you first language?

Ok, at this point in reading a post I quit reading. By what verses do you defend insulting people this way? Or is insinuating that they can't read English not an insult in your book?