21 April 2008

Angel sex, giants, and and an 8-fold reduction in the human life span (all in four verses)

Don't you just love how action-packed the Bible is? I do.

Take Genesis 6:1-4, for example. Here are the first two verses:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Genesis 6:1-2

How's that for a great story, eh? The sons of God had sex with the daughters of men.

But who were the sons of God, you ask?

Well, it beats the hell out of me. Christians often call Jesus the son of God, but he wouldn't have been one of the guys having sex here, would he? I doubt it. It was probably a bunch of perverted angels. At least that's what most believers seem to think.

Okay, so angels came down and had sex with women. Why would that matter to anyone?

Because that is why God decided to reduce the human lifespan from 900+ to 120 years. The reason no one is older than Edna Parker (who turned 115 yesterday), is that those damned angels had sex with women. At least that's what God seems to say in the very next verse:

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3

So God reduced the human life span by a factor of 8 because angels had sex with women. (Or because all men are flesh. But that doesn't seem likely -- even for a half-crazed God.)

Oh, there are a couple other things to tell you about: giants and "men of renown". Here's what the Bible has to say.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, 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. Genesis 6:4

I don't know whether the "mighty men of renown" were giants or what. But I just thought I'd throw that in, since it was just thrown into the Bible.

55 comments:

Jason said...

Steve,

Who do you think the sons of God were?

Steve Wells said...

I don't think they existed, Jason. They are part of a story that no one should take seriously.

Jason said...

Whether or not they existed isn't what I'm asking. I'm wondering who you think the sons of God were?

Steve Wells said...

How can I tell you who they were if I don't think they existed at all?

It's like asking me, How tall are Santa's elves?

Dave said...

The elves really exist and are about 3 feet tall. Prove me wrong.

Jason said...

Steve,

Actually, it's like asking if Santa has elves or goats.

Nonetheless, are saying there's no information whatsoever in Scripture that would lead anyone to conclude who exactly the sons of God are? Because it would appear you're choosing to take it on faith that the sons of God are angels. I'm interested in why you support this particular idea, and not, for example, the idea that the sons of God are anything else.

Aquaria said...

Uh.... Reading comprehension 101, Jason:

But who were the sons of God, you ask?

Well, it beats the hell out of me.
Christians often call Jesus the son of God, but he wouldn't have been one of the guys having sex here, would he? I doubt it. It was probably a bunch of perverted angels. At least that's what most believers seem to think.


I would say that would answer your question, but you're a creationist. It has to be explained to you. S L O W L Y:

Steve is not saying he thinks that angels are these "sons of God." He's saying believers say it. He provides a link to demonstrate the point.

Do you see that now?

Jason said...

Aquaria,

I'm interested in why Steve supports the idea that the sons of God are angels. I'm wondering if it's because "most believers" told him so or if he came to this conclusion on his own.

Because if it "really beats the hell" out of him, I'm confused as to why he's defending the idea the sons of God and the daughters of men are "two very different groups".

Steve Wells said...

Jason,

I'm not "defending the idea that the sons of God and the daughters of men are two different groups." I don't think I ever even suggested that, did I?

I said that the men that had daughters and the sons of God who had sex with the daughters seem like two very different groups to me. One group sounds like ordinary men; the other group (sons of God) sounds like something entirely different.

I know what men are, but I'm not familiar with sons of God. You see, sons of God are a lot like Santa's elves: nonexistent.

But the guy who made up the story probably believed in them and he probably thought they were angels. But probably is the best I can do here, Jason.

I'll let you believers argue about true nature and identity of the mysterious and nonexistent sons of God.

v_quixotic said...

I suppose one really needs a working knowledge of Hebrew, and access to the original texts, and a good understanding of the social context in which the texts were written to be sure... However, it seems reasonable that if sons of God and 'men' are one in the same, the same term would have been used... you know, to avoid confusion.

Apart from Jesus, are sons of God mentioned anywhere else?

Jason said...

And why do you believe the writer 'probably' thought they were angels, Steve? Is it because that's what most Christians told you to believe?

The problem is you're saying you're non-committal and neutral about the identity of these "sons" and don't really care either way, yet you're claiming the writer "probably" thought they were angels. What's going on?

Jason said...

v_quixotic,

Scripturally, "sons of God" can refer to angels, as is the case in Job 38:7, the only time it used this way.

In the rest of the cases, "sons of God" is an expression about human worshippers of God. See Hosea 1:10, John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:14-16, 1 John 3:1-2.

To further support this point, the "sons of God" cannot be angels since angels "do not marry" (Mat 12:25).

Anon said...

This site, http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html, discusses three options.

1. "Sons of God" refers to fallen angels who lived on earth and married human women. The Nephilim are giants of extra-human strength who were the offspring of these marriages.
2. "Sons of God" refers to descendents of Seth, who were godly men who sinned by marrying descendents [sic] of Cain, who would have been pagans. The Nephilim were simply "heroes", not giants, and may or may not have been the offspring of the mixed marriages.
3. "Sons of God" is better translated as "kings" or "sons of nobles" and "Nephilim" is best translated as "princes" or "great men." That is, the "sons of God" were royalty or aristocrats who were generally immoral and married common women, possibly against their will or despite their already being married.


I think an argument presented for the 3rd is the most interesting. It mentions that

The Hebrew word in the phrase "sons of God" is Elohim

My understanding is "Elohim" is problematic for translators and biblical scholars. There are many words used for God in the Hebrew version: El, Elohim, Yahweh, etc.

The link I cited doesn't take the next logical step here, but it's possible that "sons of God" is trying to make at least in part a distinction between the various gods of the Bible.

I looked for other discussion and verses with Elohim in it, and Job 1:6 may shed some light here: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

According to this site: http://www.yrm.org/sons_of_elohim.htm, if we use the actual words for God that the original uses, we come up with:

"Now there was a day when the sons of Elohim came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan came also among them."

It seems pretty clear here to me that Elohim and Yahweh are referring to two separate entities. Satan here seems to be a third being (God is Satan may be argued for some verses, but not this one).

So from these verses in Genesis 6 and Job 1 we appear to have at least five distinct beings (I'll leave out the giants from Genesis 6, since it's unclear what if any relationship they have to the others):

1) Elohim (creator of the universe in Genesis 1)
2) Sons of Elohim, referred to in Genesis 6 as marrying the daughters of men
3) Daughters of men, whom the sons of Elohim are marrying in Genesis 6
4) Yahweh, a separate being that the sons of Elohim present themselves to in Job 1
5) Satan, whom Yahweh converses with about Job

This doesn't clarify who the sons of Elohim are, but it would appear to show who they aren't

1) They're not Elohim, they're the sons of Elohim
2) They're not the daughters of men, since they marry the daughters of men.
3) They're not Yahweh, since they go to present themselves to Yahweh.
4) They're not the sons of Yahweh, otherwise it would just say "Yahweh's (or his) sons"
5) They're not Satan, since Satan was with Yahweh and the sons of Elohim

So they can be any number of things: angels, deities, demigods, etc.

It wouldn't make sense for the sons of Elohim to simply be men (like Adam), because then why would it be a bad thing for the daughters of men to marry the sons of Elohim? Why would God decide to limit man's days to 120 because men were marrying women? Doesn't follow.

So the Bible doesn't appear to tell us who the sons of God are, but they are the sons of Elohim. After that, it looks to be difficult to say exactly what they are, just what they're not.

But for me, I find it interesting that the Genesis 6 verses about the sons of God seem to make clear, through the book of Job, that Yahweh and Elohim are not the same being. I wasn't taught this in Sunday School, maybe because it's so hard to figure out what on Earth (or in heaven) the Bible is trying to say.

Sorry for the long post, it would be helpful if the Bible just came out and told us things!

(Note: I deleted my previous post because I accidentally referred to Job 6:1, when it's actually Job 1:6)

Aquaria said...

Jason:

More reading comprehension: "Many" does not equal "all." Now would you admit that there are "many" believers of the Yahweh fantasy who believe the sons of God equal angels? Or do we need to post links/sources until we reach a number that constitutes "many?" How many is many?

From my investigation of the issue, it's not one Christian. Or just a few. It's a whole heckuva lot of them. Thousands of them. Maybe even millions. Enough that it seems to be accepted doctrine by "many" believers. It's not some fringe notion in Christianity, and you are either ignorant or mendacious to imply that it's not a common Christian belief.

So stop nit-picking that Steve used only one link and not each of the thousands he could have included. You know he had no need to link to every single one of them--and that the page would be nothing but one long page of links if he had.

It also doesn't matter what Steve thinks about what the sons of God are supposed to be. It's like asking someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus if he wears red underwear or white, or if elves are shorter than four feet (or is it three???). What do YOU think they are, since you're obviously a Yahweh fantasist?

Jason said...

Anon said: So they can be any number of things: angels, deities, demigods, etc.

They can't be angels since angels neither sin nor marry.

It wouldn't make sense for the sons of Elohim to simply be men (like Adam), because then why would it be a bad thing for the daughters of men to marry the sons of Elohim?

"Sons of God" are most often human worshippers of God. Therefore, it's no stretch to view these men as the righteous line of Seth (Gen 5 for context), marrying into the wicked line of men.

Why would God decide to limit man's days to 120 because men were marrying women? Doesn't follow.

Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.

Jason said...

Aquaria,

If you're comfortable taking it on faith that the Christian majority is always right, even though you hold Christianity to be wrong, so be it.

It also doesn't matter what Steve thinks about what the sons of God are supposed to be.

It matters to me. Steve says there seems to be two different "types" of people. It's fair for me to enquire how he came to this conclusion. Either he doesn't know or he does know from his own research or someone else told him this is what he should believe.

What do YOU think they are, since you're obviously a Yahweh fantasist?

Already answered. Please read my previous posts.

emodude1971 said...

Jason said: Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.

Wow Jason. Are you actually making a case for child sacrifice with that statement?

Jason said...

Nope.

McGuire said...

Why not? The less time people have, the less the time it gives them to screw things up.

So abortion is, in a roundabout sense, good then... right?

& where do Jeanne Calment & others fit into the whole 120yr age limit?

Jason said...

Mcguire,

Relevance?

McGuire said...

You tell me, they're you're words :) I'm merely making logical implications.

If, as you say, God reduced life span so we could "screw up less", then abortion is just a man-made extension to Gods work...

Jason said...

Sorry, I'm not sure what the logical implications are. We're talking about Genesis 6 and you're getting into abortion. I don't see the fit.

emodude1971 said...

If you don't explain things to Jason in excruciating detail so he can dismiss it in a couple of words, he won't give you any real response at all, so I'll try.

BTW - Steve, sorry for the slight threadjacking here.

Jason, let's take myself for example. I'm 37 years old, and I was probably a Christian up until 30. Looking at the BIG picture in terms of your dogma, would it not have been better for me to either have been killed as a child, or died before 30, then to reach the point I'm at now? I'll never be a christian again, and thus I'm likely to suffer some form of eternal punishment (which you of course debate about anyway). At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?

Jason said...

A more detailed explanation was all I was asking for. Thank you for providing it.

Looking at the BIG picture in terms of your dogma, would it not have been better for me to either have been killed as a child, or died before 30, then to reach the point I'm at now?

Er, I don't see how.

I'll never be a christian again, and thus I'm likely to suffer some form of eternal punishment (which you of course debate about anyway).

Psa 31:17 "...but let the wicked be put to shame
and lie silent in the grave." :)

At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?

So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?

Anon said...

Jason: "Sons of God" are most often human worshippers of God. Therefore, it's no stretch to view these men as the righteous line of Seth (Gen 5 for context), marrying into the wicked line of men.

Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)

emodude1971: At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?

Jason: So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?

I don't think that's what emodude1971 was saying, Jason. He was just following your logic from earlier (that the less we live, the less time we have to screw things up).

I personally feel though that if God really existed, and he was a good being, then he should just come out and tell us he's up there watching over us. He wouldn't expect us to figure out he exists from some thousands-of-years-old unclear, contradictory text.

If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.

Jason said...

Anon said: Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)

As previously stated, the “sons of God” are most often human worshippers of God.

I don't think that's what emodude1971 was saying, Jason. He was just following your logic from earlier (that the less we live, the less time we have to screw things up).

I understand that and I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the scenario. I fail to see the logic or rationale in stating a mother is better off killing her child if the child won’t ultimately be given eternal happiness.

If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.

Bizarre.

Anon said...

Anon said: Why would Satan accompany the righteous line of Seth to go see Yahweh to discuss Job? (Job 1:6)

Jason said: As previously stated, the “sons of God” are most often human worshippers of God.

This doesn't answer the question, so I'll restate it (with a different emphasis to make my point clearer): Why would human worshipers of God go with Satan to see Yahweh about discussing Job? Wouldn't this upset God that Satan is leading around his worshippers? It's clear that Satan ≠ God here, unless you think God accompanied God's worshippers to go see God.

Anon said: If God exists and there is a Heaven, given his track record (flood, mass killing of Egyptians, etc. etc.) maybe we'd be better off dead in the ground than right next door to him.

Jason: Bizarre.

God reportedly does a lot of things that frankly scare me. Look at what he put Job through, just because Satan double-dared him to. And Job was a man who was "perfect and upright" (Job 1:1), so just imagine what God might do to imperfect old me.

Jason said...

Anon said: Why would human worshipers of God go with Satan to see Yahweh about discussing Job? Wouldn't this upset God that Satan is leading around his worshippers?

Firstly, who's Satan in Job 1? Secondly, the human worshippers didn't meet with God to discuss Job. Thirdly, the text doesn't say this 'Satan' person "led" God's worshippers.

God reportedly does a lot of things that frankly scare me. Look at what he put Job through, just because Satan double-dared him to. And Job was a man who was "perfect and upright" (Job 1:1), so just imagine what God might do to imperfect old me.

I don't see how this justifies killing yourself or your child.

emodude1971 said...

I asked you to look at the BIG picture Jason, which you either refuse to or can't do.

You say you can't see how it would've been better for me to die before 30 as a christian than to reach the point I'm at now (whether by natural causes or my own mother killing me). And in your very next response you post Psa 31:17 - let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave. Are you truly unable to see the hypocrisy in your responses? Look at the BIG picture!

And then finally, you say: So if you won't ever enjoy eternal happiness, you'd prefer not to be alive at all...? A tad dramatic, don't you think?

First off, I never said I'd prefer to be dead than alive. Second, and again, the BIG picture here was whether it would've been better for me to have died already; which I believe I've answered for you above.

Jason said...

emodude said: You say you can't see how it would've been better for me to die before 30 as a christian than to reach the point I'm at now (whether by natural causes or my own mother killing me). And in your very next response you post Psa 31:17 - let the wicked be put to shame and lie silent in the grave. Are you truly unable to see the hypocrisy in your responses? Look at the BIG picture!

The BIG picture is that you will live out the rest of your life, as will everyone else, believers and non-believers. You will die and go to the grave, as will everyone else, believers and non-believers. When Christ returns, there will be a resurrection and a judgment of believers and non-believers.

Ending your life before 30 as a Christian gains or spares you nothing. Living after 30 as an unbeliever gains or spares you nothing. The only way this would be untrue is if a Christian is somehow guaranteed salvation simply because he's a "Christian". Unfortunately, things don't work this way.

First off, I never said I'd prefer to be dead than alive.

You said: “At any rate, I won't enjoy 'eternal happiness'. So...by this example, if my mother had killed me as a child, would this not have been a better alternative?”

Since you don’t think you’ll enjoy eternal happiness, you’re claiming it would have been a better alternative if your mother had killed you as a child. Once again, I fail to see the logic or the rationale of this position.

emodude1971 said...

Jason,

Your play on words to avoid answering questions grows tiring.

Jason said: Ending your life before 30 as a Christian gains or spares you nothing. Living after 30 as an unbeliever gains or spares you nothing. The only way this would be untrue is if a Christian is somehow guaranteed salvation simply because he's a "Christian". Unfortunately, things don't work this way.

Fine - let's define me being a Christian as a person who believes in Jesus as my savior with all my heart and soul and thus will likely receive salvation.

Now answer the question with this definition in mind.

Jason said: Since you don’t think you’ll enjoy eternal happiness, you’re claiming it would have been a better alternative if your mother had killed you as a child. Once again, I fail to see the logic or the rationale of this position.

Again, on the premise that I have now doomed myself to some form of eternal unhappiness, then you can't see the rationale for dying early? You said yourself, god lowered the age limit to give people less time to screw up! How can you NOT see the rationale to what I'm arguing for?

Jason said...

Fine - let's define me being a Christian as a person who believes in Jesus as my savior with all my heart and soul and thus will likely receive salvation.

You misunderstand the concept salvation. No one can say they will “likely" receive salvation. It’s is something that is given out of God’s mercy and God’s mercy alone.

Again, on the premise that I have now doomed myself to some form of eternal unhappiness, then you can't see the rationale for dying early?

Absolutely not. Since a Christian is constantly sinning and failing, there’s no one point in his life where he can say, “Okay, I’ve just earned salvation, now, someone kill me before I turn into an unbeliever.” That’s ridiculous.

You said yourself, god lowered the age limit to give people less time to screw up! How can you NOT see the rationale to what I'm arguing for?

Because you’re trying to argue something you clearly misunderstand.

emodude1971 said...

Jason, you are clearly so much wiser than me that you're going to have to clarify something for me. Can you please explain how my position - that for any chance of christian salvation I would've been better off dying as a child or before I became an atheist, differs from your statement that god decreased our life span so that we don't have as much time to screw up? Because as you say I clearly am trying to argue something I don't understand, so you're going to have to explain it more thoroughly for me.

Jason said...

E,

There's no need to be sarcastic.

You stated it would have been better for your mother to kill you as a child as if this would have somehow 'improved your odds' of salvation. Scripturally, there's no support for this, so let's ignore this particular comment.

Secondly, I now understand where you're coming from. You were confusing me with your "better alternative" phrase and assumption of salvation arguments. Sorry for taking so long to get here :)

Anyhow, back on topic. The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is still no, it wouldn't have been better if you died before you turned 30 because under Christ, no one is past redemption as long as they remain alive. If you had died, it wouldn't have been better, it just 'would have been'.

The 'better' part only works if you died tomorrow without repenting. In this case, you'd have had a better shot at salvation during your Christian years then dying in unbelief.

Hope that answers your question.

Anon said...

Jason said:Firstly, who's Satan in Job 1?

Why don't you tell me? I am able to determine logically that he's obviously not God. But the Bible doesn't tell us.

By the way, I don't know why you are having me and others define everything in the Bible when you're the one who believes it. Shouldn't the burden fall on you to correct me or inform me if I'm off track on something?

Secondly, the human worshippers didn't meet with God to discuss Job. Thirdly, the text doesn't say this 'Satan' person "led" God's worshippers.

You are correct that it doesn't say that Satan led them there.

Job 1:6, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."

Since God subsequently appears to ignore the sons of God and addresses himself only to Satan, it left me with the impression that Satan was leading. So Satan came with the sons of God (whoever they may be), and God talked to Satan (whoever he may be).

I don't see how this justifies killing yourself or your child.

I never said anything about killing my child or killing myself, just not wanting to spend eternity with God.

Jason said...

Anon: Why don't you tell me? I am able to determine logically that he's obviously not God. But the Bible doesn't tell us.

I happily agree. The Bible doesn’t tell us.

By the way, I don't know why you are having me and others define everything in the Bible when you're the one who believes it. Shouldn't the burden fall on you to correct me or inform me if I'm off track on something?

No, since I’m not the one making assertions about who these various groups of people are. If someone says the “sons of God” are angels, the burden of proof is on the person making this claim to prove their point.

So Satan came with the sons of God (whoever they may be), and God talked to Satan (whoever he may be).

That’s right.

I never said anything about killing my child or killing myself, just not wanting to spend eternity with God.

My original comment on this matter was directed to Emodude.

emodude1971 said...

Thanks for your reply Jason. And sorry I resorted to sarcasm, but our failure to come to an understanding was getting frustrating.

But now that we've gotten there, I've got another question. I'm going to assume you're not a big proponent of 'God's Plan', but perhaps we can agree that god is at least omniscient enough to have understood what was going to happen in my life, and that I was going to become an atheist. In that respect, why didn't god arrange my death before I became an atheist? People die at early ages all the time, for various reasons, and from Christians you'll often hear 'Well, god has a plan for everyone'. Why did god plan for me to become an atheist, and perhaps doom another generation of children (my kids are being raised atheist), instead of killing me while I still had a chance with him?

Jason said...

In that respect, why didn't god arrange my death before I became an atheist?

Because you made a voluntary decision to become an atheist. As far as God is concerned, you knew the laws and commandments but decided to go the other way regardless. It's no different then anyone who has gone before you who decided to do something contrary to God's law. God allows it to happen because we have freewill.

Why did god plan for me to become an atheist, and perhaps doom another generation of children (my kids are being raised atheist), instead of killing me while I still had a chance with him?

I’m not sure anyone can say God “planned” for you to become an atheist. I don’t see how anyone could make that kind of call other then God Himself. Regardless though, since it was your decision to become an atheist and it’s your decision now to raise your children this way, you’re the one ‘dooming’ (to use your word) your children. We’re all responsible for how we raise our children – from a religious perspective, it’s no different.

emodude1971 said...

Jason said: God allows it to happen because we have freewill.

This whole concept is extremely debatable as you well know. What about people who did die young, as Christians, but may possibly have grown up to be atheists? Does god take that into account when judging them? Or what about people who don't know your god, and live in an area where they'll never hear the good word? Where's their freewill?

At this point, we're basically boiled down to the omniscience vs freewill debate, which is not going to get solved here. I think you know my opinion: if there's an omniscient god, then freewill is an illusion.

As far as God's Plan is concerned, I'm sure you're aware that many Christians would disagree with you regarding this, in that they believe God does have a plan, and it's being played out right now. If this is true, then the scenarios I have laid out cause extreme paradoxes.

Jason said...

What about people who did die young, as Christians, but may possibly have grown up to be atheists? Does god take that into account when judging them?

We’re not told what He takes into account. All we know is that salvation is given out of mercy, not from something we’ve specifically done (Romans 9:16).

Or what about people who don't know your god, and live in an area where they'll never hear the good word? Where's their freewill?

Whether or not someone has heard the gospel doesn’t remove their freewill. And how they will ultimately be judged, again, we’re not told.

As far as God's Plan is concerned, I'm sure you're aware that many Christians would disagree with you regarding this, in that they believe God does have a plan, and it's being played out right now. If this is true, then the scenarios I have laid out cause extreme paradoxes.

God’s ultimate plan, that is preparing the world for Christ’s return, is being realized every day. The role we play as individuals in this is completely unknown.

emodude1971 said...

Jason said: God’s ultimate plan, that is preparing the world for Christ’s return, is being realized every day.

Don't hold your breath on that one. Considering all of Jesus' followers expected it to be during their lifetime, because of numerous statements from Jesus such as this:

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

That didn't happen, now did it?

Here's one of my favorite articles on what a nut-job Jesus was as well.

As well as Steve's collection about when the end is supposed to come.

Not to mention that I've debated with several preterist apologists as well who, unlike you, don't think Jesus will ever return. Well, which is it?

I'm thinking our Sun is gonna burn out before anyone sees Jesus again.

Jason said...

That didn't happen, now did it?

The generation Jesus is referring to in Luke 21:32 is the same one he alludes to in his parable in the verses prior. When whatever generation sees the things he mentions come to pass, that same generation won’t pass away until all those things are fulfilled.

emodude1971 said...

Jason said:The generation Jesus is referring to in Luke 21:32 is the same one he alludes to in his parable in the verses prior. When whatever generation sees the things he mentions come to pass, that same generation won’t pass away until all those things are fulfilled

That's a really weak argument, and as I mentioned, clearly not one embraced by a preterist.

Jason said...

Whether or not it's embraced by a preterist doesn't make it right or wrong.

Nonetheless, I don't see what makes it a weak argument. The "generation" Christ refers to can, and does, refer to the group of people he mentions in his parable in the verses immediately prior.

emodude1971 said...

And whether or not you believe it doesn't make it right either. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for god to send his son to lecture to a bunch of people about the second coming who are never gonna witness it, nor anyone for 2000+ years, now does it? Must be some more of his 'mysterious ways'.

Jason said...

And whether or not you believe it doesn't make it right either.

I haven't said it does. I'm saying whether or not this view is embraced by a preterist is irrelevant.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for god to send his son to lecture to a bunch of people about the second coming who are never gonna witness it...

You forget that many of Christ's words also had a clear future application, words that were applicable to a much later generation then that of the disciples. Consider that the entire book of Revelation was given as a prophecy of things that wouldn't occur until after the disciples had died.

sconnor said...

God sure did a shitty job of trying to get his convoluted ideas across. So many people, sects, and denominations have so many varying views and interpretations, but little Jason Christian's interpretation is the one and only truth -- he's got his shit down pat. God surely blessed him with a gift of wisdom, that far and away exceeds...at least, the ninth grade. Everybody listen to little Jason Christian -- he's got it all figured out, hallelujah, praise the lord -- glory!

--S.

Aquaria said...

Jason:

You still don't get it. Just because you, as a Christian, don't believe something doesn't mean that other Christians don't. You're not all of Christianity. The point is that numerous Christians do believe that the "sons of God" were angels. Just because you don't think that doesn't negate that fact. And don't try to pull the "true" Christians number. You're not the one who will determine who is or isn't a true Christian. According to your fairytale book, only one entity will decide that. So stop acting like you're the ultimate authority on Christianity. You're not.

It matters to me. Steve says there seems to be two different "types" of people. It's fair for me to enquire how he came to this conclusion. Either he doesn't know or he does know from his own research or someone else told him this is what he should believe.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to Google "sons of God angels", and find thousands of sites--exclusively Christian sites, no less--that make various claims, especially about the sons of God = angels. If you're too lazy to type that into Google, that's your problem. Period. And don't resort to the "true" Christian nonsense again in regards to the sites claiming this. I'm sure the Koinonia House or Rational Christianity people sincerely believe they are Christians. Or any of the other thousands of people behind the sites that make such claims.

That "not a true Christian" argument is one of the most arrogant, bigoted things someone can say. That kind of thinking has gotten people killed.

Jason said...

Aquaria,

There's no need to get so defensive. I've made no reference whatsoever to "true Christianity" so just relax. I've simply been asking WHY the atheists here believe that the Christians who claim the sons of God are angels are right, when the evidence clearly suggests they're not. You shouldn't care either way but if you're going to argue about it when you've got no reason to, then I'll argue back.

I've given you ample evidence why the sons of God aren't angels - either respond to it with other Biblical references or say nothing.

Jonathan said...

I haven't had time to read all the comments to see if someone's suggested the same.. but just for fun - humor yourself and read into this story with myths and legends in mind. It offers an interesting potential origin to the old Myths and Pantheons. It would explain mythical beings like Hercules.

ramonxna said...

Sons of God may well be a metaphor to describe something not easily described. From one point of view, angel visits happen only to the feeble minded. It could be though that intellectual "strength" cuts us off from perceiving certain things outside of the boundaries of healthy cognition.

Chokula99 said...

My point of view is agnostic since I'm an agnostic christian I can tell you the problem with the story is that, the core of traditional christians believe that those sons of God are actually Angels, based on the Preachers whom at the same time based their Ideas on a book called the book of Enoch which at the same time The church don't recognize as a Holy book, but it doesn't stop the modern preachers to base themselves in to it to manage the most renoun and accepted interpretation of that scripture. what happens is; if you tell them that they are basing their interpretation on a book thats being banned by church itself. they will deny that, and if you tell them then that since that interpretation belongs to an unholy book then the scripture should be taken as the sons of God where Demi-gods who came down to earth to have children with women and those children where Demi-gods themselves. which supports the demigod-mythology. they will slap you in the head screaming ''Herecy!!. so its pretty much messed up. and contradictory.

Chokula99 said...

another thing I want to point out. not to be rude, is that Steve which is an Atheist: I do understand your an Atheist and thats cool but you killed the flow of the disscution by insisting you don't believe in thr bible regardless the question Jason made about another subject we already know you dont believe in the bible since you stated from starters you are an atheist, and it reminds me a Jahova witness friend of mine from school who didn't believe in elves so he stated nummerous times during an argument about the movie Lord of the Rings he didn't believe in Elves because he was a Jahova Witness over and over.it kills the flow... another thing I want to add that Santas Elves are freaking 2/half fit tall no higher than that.

Chokula99 said...

Aquaria is Right I have the right to call my self a christian even if the Vatican and the Pope itself say I don't. I consider myself an Agnostic Animist Christian. so there.

Kamagra UK said...

Wow, nice post,there are many person searching about that now they will find enough resources by your post