The true sin committed in Eden

[Rach1370]

I looked for your quoted term "sons of Satan" in my KJV and couldn't find it. You might be using a different bible version but you won't say.

Perhaps you were referencing 1Jn 3:12?

1Jn 3:12 only references one son of Satan. Can you show me the other verses?

Thank you in advance.

Actually I was making a reference, not a direct quote, but there are verses to support it. I use ESV by the way.

[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
(John 8:44 ESV)

[8] Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
(1 John 3:8 ESV)

[9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
(1 John 3:9-10 ESV)

And of course the reference you had, 1 John 3:12.
And there are many passages that call us the children of God...below is only one...

[3:1] See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
(1 John 3:1 ESV)

The very big problem I have with saying that Cain is Satan's actual child, is that it almost give Cain a reason for what he did....couldn't help it, it was obviously in his genes. It takes away his and our own culpability of our sin natures. We are responsible for our own sins, we cannot lay it at anyone elses feet.

From G1537 and G538; to seduce wholly: - beguile, deceive.

To beguile, decieve. Even if we could believe that the author meant 'beguile' to mean sex, we cannot ignore the other, more likely meanings....which you appear to be doing. I went and looked it with Strong's myself, and this is what I found....



Original Word: ἐξαπατάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: exapataó
Phonetic Spelling: (ex-ap-at-ah'-o)
Short Definition: I deceive thoroughly
Definition: I deceive thoroughly.

to seduce wholly, deceive
1818 eksapatáō (from 1537ek, "wholly out/from," intensifying 538 /apatáō, "deceive") – properly, thoroughly deceived ("hood-winked"), describing someone taken in, and enslaved by, Satan (sin, darkness).

1818 /eksapatáō ("deceived into illusion") emphasizes the end-impact of deception – i.e. missing true reality because "biting on the bait that brings the hook!"

[As an intensified form of 538 (apatáō), 1818 (eksapatáō) means, "thoroughly taken in – biting the bait that hides the hook!"]




There is absolutely no doubt that the word means "to be decieved". You cannot even pretend to think that in this context 'to seduce' means sex....it simply means that Eve was thoroughly persuaded. Even looking up these definitions we can see what they mean...


"Beguile": to influence by trickery, flattery...to mislead, delude.

"Seduce": to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt.

In fact, when one looks up 'seduce' in the dictionary, the only 'sexual' definition is the second out of four...all the other definitions talk of deception.

The other point is that the Bible is always, always clear when people are having sex or engaging in sexual sin! Not too long ago it was considered crass and racy! So why would we think that if Eve's sin was having sex with Satan....and let's face it, that would have been a doozy of a sin, that the Bible wouldn't just go ahead and tell us???

 

[the stranger]

Well, the question about angels being only male is one I've revisited. In the Bible there are no female angels - but I reminded myself I need to be careful when I use an absence of something in the Bible as a negative proof.

As far as angels being tempted - well I think that question is a fairly clear yes from the Bible. Satan himself being the case in point. Although the temptation was not sexual, it was a desire for God's throne. In theory, that is a temptation that Satan would have wrestled with in his heart. We know this to be the case when dealing with sin which we've all experienced - the temptation never really goes away. Satan was not tempted at one single instances by God's power and His throne.

First HammerStone, I want to thank you for going through my questions. I appreciate it. Secondly, I agree with this response in full. Certainly concerning temptation, angels do go through such, but sexual temptation, now that really consist of a whole new question.

Well, go back to the fallen state of the world. Again, look at Satan, he certainly held lust and he had pride.

I feel like the reminder of your thoughts can be addressed in a summation with one last point.

I think we'll agree that nothing happens apart from the will of Father. We know from Scripture (and logic) that it does not place evil within God's will, but that God's will comes about regardless of evil. We also know from Scripture than angels are very powerful. They have the bodies to hold up before God, can run messages (the meaning of their name) between us and God, they can fight, they can oversee things (Daniel), and other various attributes. What's curious to me is that they're often depicted and inspiring fear where they appear (Daniel, etc.), but there are instances where they appear (Acts) as a man or two men who seem pretty normal. I can't speculate on what specific "abilities or powers" the angels have, but what I've listed alone places them in the supernatural realm.

For the most part, again I agree. However, the same question comes up, when relating to angels, is it in the scriptures to define temptation (or lust) as sexual? Of course, it is true that angels taken human forms many times (perhaps many more than we know) but was this more like the way Jesus was when appearing to over 500 people? He could eat, and walk, but also go through locked doors and appear and disappear at will. We know that God is Spirit, just like the angels, so what is fully entailed when taking on human form? Did they have the possibility to have sex in that condition? This is just one of those things the bible does not mention, except the debated verse in Genesis 6. Either way, again however, other than the scripture just mentioned, I only read of the upright angels taking on human form for Gods mission, and I can find no exception.

Quote

If this is correct, out side of the story in debate ( Genesis 6:1-3 ) is there any other scripture given that states angels took human form outside of it being the direct will of God?


Not that I am aware of, but again Lucifer fought/fights against God and his angels.

True my friend and brother, but in what shape or form? As far as I know, this does not take shape in human form, but as you said, things unsaid does not mean things untrue.

Quote

One last thing. Would God make it possible for angels to have sex, including Lucifer, if He did not permit them to marry, which is the only way sex is Godly? If so, again, it would seem unjust for a God to make angel beings lust if it is something God would never allow in any circumstances.


I don't see an issue with this and here's why. Even in our fallen, struggling state, we are told that God's first. In the angels case, they don't have flesh by nature and they directly serve the will of God. Of course more will be expected from them. For this, I think of Hebrews 2:7 and Psalm 8:5. The implication is that angels are higher than us. Recall the lessons of the Bible - the parable of the talents and elsewhere. To whom much is given, much is expected.

Now I guess where angels and the resurrected righteous rank concerning each other could be another debate, but to be honest, it doesn't concern me. However, this is what comes to my mind. Tell me whether you agree or disagree. Sex (over all, and not in every case, of course) is the driving force of temptation in this world? The, perhaps, #1 temptation that helps destroy the world as we know it. (at least as it relates to morals)? If so, if angels are tempted by fleshly lust, at any time that could only be when they take the shape of a human, it would seem to me, if sex has that much control on us humans (including many Christians) that certainly the sin of deception, pride, and wanting control would not have been the driving force behind 1/3 of the angels following Satan. Another crazy question, though, if angels only have lust while on earth while taking on human form, than I would assume they had no lust prier to the world being created? If so, will lust follow in the new world, after the old passes away?



Well, thank you again HammerStone for explaining some of your thoughts on the issue. It is much appreciated.

God bless