Angels

The texts of Jude 1:1-25 have a special chiastic structure (an unbreakable (John 10:35) parallelism in and of themselves, as a for instance, compare:


[1]


[2]


[3]


Also a comparison is to be made with the parallel texts of 2 Peter 2:1-22 and its own chiasm. Only two brief comparisons will be made at this time. The full comparison between the two Epistles may be seen in the Appendix 1 – The Epistles of Peter & Jude compared.

For instance, compare 2 Peter 2:10 with Jude 1:8:


[1]


[2]


[3]


For instance, compare:


[1]


[2]


[3]

[4]



Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

Notice that each verse is a completely separate event,


etc, but only tied to Judgment, and none of which mention Noah or the Flood and its events.


Notice of Jude 1:8:


Therefore Jude's Chiasm reveals that the words "defile the flesh" [vs 8 C2] have nothing to do with and are not applied to the Angel passage and those who "kept not their first estate" and having "left their habitation" [vs 6 B1] , but rather refers directly to the passage dealing with Men of "Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them" who "gave themselves over to fornication" and "going after strange flesh" [vs 7 C1].

[XX] Appendix 1 – The Epistles of Peter & Jude compared. The following is a re-structured (for the forums, as the original is in a Table, and I apologize for having to re-present it this way, looks better in the Table) comparison of the texts of 1 & 2 Peter with Jude.

... continued ...

... continued ...

... to be continued ...

This is just the start. I can present more indepth tomorrow, as needful, and truly begin this study. Honest questions are fine, as those I do not mind.

I will deny your interpretation of Jude 7..

The Angels never multiplied with each other.. Because there is no Bible scripture identifying female Angels .. All Angels in scripture are Male.. The Angels that left their first estate did not have Angel offspring with human woman.. Their offspring where hybrids..

Jude 1: KJV
6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Satan was an Angel that sinned.. Therefore stating that:: """angels have unfallen nature, unfallen flesh (as per Hebrews 2:16), while man-kind upon this earth have sinful (fallen) flesh nature""" Makes absolutely no sense Angels clearly sinned because they where put into chains awaiting the day of judgement.. Also in the Book of Revelation it reveals that satan and his angels will fight a war in heaven against Michael and his angels::

Revelation 12: KJV
7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, {8} And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. {9} And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

So it is obvious that Angels can sin and have sinned and will sin and they shall be cast into the eternal lake of fire for their rebellion against the will of God..

What do you think makes more sense here; a simple explanation for a simple verse, or; an exhaustive collaboration of excerpts not yet written to explain a single phrase, “the sons of the gods saw the daughters of men, that they were fair and took them as wives and laid with them producing offspring, the men of renown.”? Moses, if he did author Genesis, was educated in Egypt. He was aware of their orogin’s stories also. I’m certain those teachings were considered while he wrote to the Israelites, a tribe of nomadic shepherds. They weren’t scholars expecting to bridge the gaps as you did. When talking to children with limited understanding, when they ask complicated questions, you simplify the complex answers.

Just as you made a choice to believe what you believe, you interpret the rest to match your belief. It is no different then everyone else. The difference is that historically, and futuristically, the Bible makes perfect sense when you read it literally, not metaphorically. Many of the words have been translated and taught with confirmation bias and conjecture. Utilizing modern sciences and research the scriptures are better understood. God is better understood. Modern interpretation is clearly misunderstood. You are wasting your time with lengthy explanation here. There are no students at CC only teachers. No debate haa ever crowned a victor. People only believe what they choose to believe. Just as I have learned not to waste time, so should you. It’s frustrating.

Something about ever learning never coming to truth comes to mind... Ah the hubris that us unlearned peasants are so blessed to be fed by such a one.

So you admit that you are so bothered by the fact that fallen angels mated with human women producing hybrid beings that wherever you go you break out some sort of doctoral thesis to prove to yourself, cause certainly very few are reading your diatribe, that human beings mated with other human beings to produce Giant humans. Ignoring or twisting passages of Scripture that clearly state otherwise.

Brevity is a virtue. Something we should all strive for, especially outside of academia.

Now on to the questions I posed.

1. Are the Sons of God fallen angels or Seth's children?
The ONLY other times the Hebrew term used in Genesis 6 is used is in Job clearly referring to Angels.

Short. Simple. Not to mention Jude tells us explicitly they ARE Angels.

2. If it is not as Jude says, the sexual sin of going after strange flesh that the angels are being held in Tarturus until the final judgement, what sin ARE they being held for?

Your "Chiasms" fall apart because of the definition of the word "habitations". They did leave their governing office office or their "estate", but they ALSO left their Heavenly bodies, or "habitations". I already showed you how that word is only used one other time to describe OUR Heavenly body we will receive.

Word: oikhthrion
Pronounce: oy-kay-tay'-ree-on
Strongs Number: G3613
Orig: neuter of a presumed derivative of 3611 (equivalent to 3612); a residence (literally or figuratively):--habitation, house. G3611
Use: TDNT-5:155,674 Noun Neuter
Heb Strong:

1. 1) a dwelling place, habitation
   1a) of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit

And Jude DEFINITELY relates the going after strange flesh in a sexual manner the men of Sodom committed (homosexuality) with the strange flesh in a sexual manner the fallen angels went after (Human beings).

So again you err in saying the only reason the angels are being held in Tartarus is for leaving their "estate".

Tartarus is where ONLY the fallen angels are held, not human beings.

my eyelashes are long, that's what i get for being angelic.

"Sons of God"

Let us begin by quoting the two texts in Genesis 6 concerning the "sons of God", in their immediate context:


So, the question that is commonly asked by many [Christians and non-Christians alike]:

"Who are the "Sons of God" of Genesis 6:2,4?"

It would at first seem that there is no immediate nearby answer in the text, and so, a vast majority of people immediately leave the safety of the nearby context, looking elsewhere [generally along the lines of the apocryphal so-called "1 Book of Enoch", or other texts torn from their context and timeframe and patch-worked together], and come to the premature and hazardous conclusion that the "sons of God" (in Genesis 6:2,4) are "angels" [ie. the 'created beings of the Heavenly Host'; whether they be 'heavenly obedient angels' or 'rebellious angels that were cast out', called devils/demons/Baals, etc].

Those who come to such conclusions, drawing upon their sandy foundation, further conclude that these so-called "sons of God/angels" (as they now posit) intermixed, interbred, and/or, worse yet, forced themselves upon helpless "human" women - the "daughters of men", thus bringing about "demon-spawned super human-hybrids" [an unholy physical amalgamation of "angel/devil and mankind"] whom they then declare are the "giants" ["Nephilim", etc.], "mighty men which [were] of old" and "men of renown".

This is a rather rash, and even dangerously anti-thetical to the Gospel itself, conclusion, without a much further and deeper consideration of the texts themselves, and for those who already hold that view, please allow for some time to cover the texts most thoroughly.

Those who continue to promote that view despite what will be shown here, then do not fully consider the ramifications of their conclusion and what it would mean to the Gospel itself and end-time events. It actually destroys the Gospel.

So, a word of advice is that we not cling tightly to "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) which uses in evidence not only apocryphal materials with alternative agendas and anti-scriptural doctrines, and let us also not force the remaining scriptures to say that which they do not, but rather let the Word of God explain itself, line upon line (Ezekiel 28:10,13; Genesis 40:8).

There are some who tend to overly force the scriptures, more specifically, the three similar verses of scripture in the Book of Job [being Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7] out of it's immediate context and very often rejecting or bypassing every other word on the matter. Let us take some time upon these verses as well, even among so many others.

As will be revealed, it is quite unnecessary and extremely destructive to the Word of God to force those texts to say that which they do not say. Doing so will reveal some rather bizarre, errant ideologies and aberrant theologies – for instance:


However, before considering the immediate context, let us look and see why the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 cannot be referring to the "Holy Angels" of the LORD [those 2/3 who had remained loyal]:

These Angels (the loyal "angels" [they of the created heavenly host], like Gabriel ("that stand in the presence of God" Luke 1:19)) keep the Commandments of God and hearken to His voice did not leave their "first estate" (Jude 1:6), their arch-office positions, as did those who rebelled; 'the cast-out angels' [Satan and his ilk] [Jude 1:6] and therefore the passages cannot be referring to them in the least:


The term "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 also cannot be referring to any of the "rebellious" cast-out angels [those 1/3 who rebelled with Satan/Lucifer] either, for nowhere in all of scripture, are they ever said to be able to procreate, generate; and neither are "fruitful" (Genesis 1:28, 9:1), or able to "bring forth abundantly" (Genesis 9:7), nor are able to "multiply" (Genesis 1:28, 9:1), neither have any "seed" (Genesis 1:11,12,29, 3:15, 4:25) to bring forth "fruit" (Genesis 1:11,12,29, 30:2), since angels are not made of "earthly" (2 Corinthians 5:1), that is to say, "terrestrial" (1 Corinthians 15:40) materials, but instead of "celestial" or Heavenly (not of this earth) (1 Corinthians 15:40) ones. If someone says otherwise, the burden of proof now lies with them, and they need to produce the exact and specific texts (in the mouth of two or three witnesses) that are explicit, otherwise they have lost their position before it even began, no matter how many other words come out of their mouths (which is nothing but the fallacy of "smoke screen").

Let's begin with a few points:

[2] Nowhere is it stated in Scripture (KJB), even once, that any of 'the angelic hosts' can "be fruitful", reproduce, "bring forth abundantly" or "multiply", have "seed", bare or yield "fruit", "beget"; "increase", have "children", or even have "loins" to so much as "pisseth against the wall" with, even though it is said in multiple places for this world's earthly, "terestrial", creatures ("upon the earth", "in the earth", "therein", etc):

and many other such texts.


There are literally hundreds dealing with "men" (mankind) of this "earth".

There is not even one, not even a single solitary one for any of the angelic celestial hosts in like manner.

The only way to refute the statement is to produce the text in the mouth of two or three witnesses. This has never been done, and cannot be done.

Sons of God are christian men mixing up with non christian worldly men it was the first time they mixed up Cain people with Abel people. Unequal yoke they were that spiritual they made giant people i guess God always was trying to divide them. This is what i believe because i believe God does not confuse some people who believe that about angels may have an apostolic root to it. It took me this long to realize. Must be even a theology or root of some kind. Sorry.

On to question 3.... GIANTS!


Genesis 6
4 There were [b]GIANTS on the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTERWARD, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.


There are many references to giants, AND NOT JUST REALLY TALL 7ft. HUMANS. I'll just talk about a few.

Amos 2:
9 “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them,
Whose height was like the height of the cedars,
And he was as strong as the oaks;
Yet I destroyed his fruit above
And his roots beneath.

Cedar trees grow to at least 35 to 50 feet. This passage is God Himself speaking. Is God a Liar?

Here is mention of a "smaller" Giant of at least 14 or 15 Feet.

Deuteronomy 3:11 “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the [b]giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.

He would be bigger than 2 Shaquille O'neals standing on their shoulders!! Shaq is 7ft 1 inch.

Numbers 13:33 There we saw the [h]giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like[i] grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

I'm 6ft tall. If I saw 7ft people, I wouldn't describe myself as a grasshopper in their sight. In fact, MOST humans in recorded history that have been taller than 7.5 ft have many heath problems and their height is generally regarded as a genetic defect.


So these Giants are of pure human DNA? Ridiculous!!!

Matthew 24: 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

How utterly Ironic that our friend would mention the Liger and it's unnatural large size!!!!

The Liger is the result of Genetic engineering. It is NOT a natural animal. The exact same sin, genetically messing with God's creation that the angels did when they mated with human women, we are beginning to engage in. We have introduced human DNA into pigs and other animals. This is a HUGE sign that the Lord will not tarry too much longer.