₦airaland Forum

buzugee: lets put it like this. you Goshen, are here a lot trying to spread the message of God. you are a messenger of God. you were appointed to do what you are doing here on nairaland ( proverbs 20 vs 24 A man's goings are of the LORD; how then can man understand his way? ). so you are an angel. you Goshen are an angel. its as simple as that. just read the gen 6 vs 2-4. its the same thing. the sons of God will be the children of those still loyal to God while the sons and daughters of man will be the children of the dissenter which will be the children of cain. cain was now a vagabond of the earth and his descendants. they are the dissenters. rejected by God. so they are the sons of man. those still aligned with the purpose and mission of God will be the sons of God. TECHNICALLY BOTH FACTIONS ARE HUMAN BEINGS. this is why they can have sex with each other. its like my son having sex with logicboys daughter. logicboys heathen daughter will be the daughter of man while my son will be the sons of God.
ANGEL simply means MESSENGER OF GOD.

Gat you bro. Funny though However, the people believed the sons of God in Gen. 6:2-4 were fallen angels. That is what we are treating and looking at. I don't also believe they are fallen angels in the context of Gen.6:2-4 but children of God who pervert themselves as you mentioned in your example (perfect example though) because the sons of God in that context don't carry the nature of the daughters of men meaning the sons of God in that context are people of God who carry the nature of God in them because they now know God.

Because if they were fallen angels that mate with daughters of men to produce "giants", and after that was the flood, then were did another "giants" came from during the accounts of the spies sent to spy the Canaan Land? If they were fallen angels that produced giants, and the flood wiped them out, there will be no more mention of giants anymore in the account of the spies.

SailorXY: u'll make more sense in the joke section

Please stop abusing people. ALL you have to do is prove your point from the word of God that women wearing trouser commit sin. Okay.

@ haibe,

"When you build a new house, you must build a railing around the edge of its flat roof. That way you will not be considered guilty of murder if someone falls from the roof. Deut 22:8

"You must not plant any other crop between the rows of your vineyard. If you do, you are forbidden to use either the grapes from the vineyard or the other crop. (9)

"You must not wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together. (11)

"You must put four tassels on the hem of the cloak with which you cover yourself—on the front, back, and sides. (12)

"Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, 'When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.' Then the woman's father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. Her father must say to them, 'I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her. He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, "I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders. The elders must then take the man and punish him. They must also fine him 100 pieces of silver, which he must pay to the woman's father because he publicly accused a virgin of Israel of shameful conduct. The woman will then remain the man's wife, and he may never divorce her. (13-19)

"But suppose the man's accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin. The woman must be taken to the door of her father's home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents' home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. Deut 22:20-21

"Suppose a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such a case, the father and mother must take the son to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. The parents must say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of his town must stone him to death. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you, and [size=20pt]all[/size] [size=20pt]Israel[/size] will hear about it and be afraid. Deut 21:18-21

WHICH OF THESE LAWS DO YOU PRACTICE AND FOLLOW? AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THAT THE CONTEXT IS "ALL ISRAEL" OR "IN ISRAEL". You don't have to agree with me on this topic BUT I have shown you too much enough prove that those laws are ONLY for the Jews.

haibe: You see where you are getting it wrong. Because God gave his laws to the isrealites doesn't mean the commandments is meant for them only, of course one nation has to be priviledged to be the one to receive the law from God. Because Jesus did not live in nigeria doesn't mean his commandments are not to be obeyed by Nigerians, he is the God of all flesh and his law is universal. So if we were able to obey the law by our power, you think God will regulate only israel? And leave other gentiles to regulate themselves? Please if God doesn't like something, he doesn't . Whether Jew or Gentile, it is still an abomination to him.

Okay, let me once and for all show you from the same context of Deut 22:5 that, those laws were ONLY GIVEN TO ISRAEL. Take a look at this:

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, [both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil [size=20pt]from Israel[/size]. Deut 22:22 Kjv.

SailorXY: it hurts me to say this, but you are a very confused being... are you in that congregation that permits masturbation? hair perming? you sound very much like one... interpreting the scriptures based on your own understanding SMH

lolz. Check my profile and threads. I have stood against mastubation in this forum. I have stood against ungodliness in the body of Christ and many more. I guess you am mistaken for someone else and if not, I take your comments as it is. You are entitled to your own opinion but you have not proved anything I said wrong, just passing judgment.

@ nyameke and buzugee,

Kind of missed a point. I didn't consider the appearance of "angels" in a physical form. Okay. I will re-visit that aspect and see the context. Thanks. However, the context of Gen.6:2-4 about the sons of God, what is angels or children of God because I understand that men had began to call upon the name of God before Gen 6.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD. Gen 4:26 Kjv

Also, I will re-visit the issue of is there a means whereby angels (of God) will have to manifest physically due to a "special" assignment because the angels (if they are, in Gen.6:2-4) won't be of the Lord definitely or what you think?

Interesting! @ buzugee.

JeSoul: Ptolomeus,
I hid your first 'comment' as its inappropriate in the spirit of this thread. I know you meant no offense brother .

Goshen,
I admire your patience & humility more than anything. And I thank you for taking the time to respond to the issues scripturally, me I no fit lol, matters like these just prick me the wrong way.

Thank you my sister. One thing I don't like among my Christian people is that, a forum like this should be an avenue where we come and scrutinize our denominational teachings if they were right or wrong and also test all spirits but we have people coming to dump their denominational teachings on the body of Christ and call it sound doctrines. I don't accept a teaching because my church teach it but I prove it from the word and see if it's not a tradition of men. Many things/teachings are going on in the body of Christ.

haibe: Ceremonial what? What is the difference between a moral law and a ceremonial law and what makes deut 22:5 a caremonial law?

I have explain the difference up there and am not repeating that sir. If you are to follow women not wearing trouser, kindly read the whole of that Deut 22 and also follow other ceremonial laws or ordinances therein.

haibe: Goshen when Gog says something is an abomination to him, what stops it from being an abomination to him in the context of deut 22:5?

You still not getting it that Deut 22:5 is NOT for the church. There are other ceremonial laws in that Deut 22, do you also follow them? If it is/was an abomination, that is/was to Jews NOT to the church/Gentiles. This is the simple point or truth you don't want to agree with.

haibe: @Goshen when Jesus tells his disciples to love their neighbours as their self, does he want only christians to love their neighbour as their selves?

lolz. Do you know that Salvation is not originally for the Gentiles but we were ENGRAFTED into the covenant and not limited to a nation only called nation of Israel. I have argued here many times that Matthew to John, the OT was still in effect and even it Jesus said it or not. it is instinctive that we don't hate. Besides, love is all over the NT.

haibe: Who is acting with the spirit of OT here, simple question, is it a sin and we said yes since its an abomination to God, time doesn't change Gods commandment for you to obey.

If you are not acting in the spirit of the OT, and you call it a sin, then you should know and understand that was based on the OT ceremonial laws and never a single verse in the NT repeat such a thing for Christians. This is the reason I said you are acting in the spirit of the OT.

haibe: Am not saying you should condemn your dad but will you support him if he starts wearing skirts?
And are you saying the ALL there refers to the jews only?

See, if within the context of the word of God my dad wear skirts and it is not wrong from the NT where I belong, then I dont see anything wrong in that especially when it concerns wearing it to worship centre.

The context of that "ALL" is for the Jews only because they are the ones that law was given to. I can show you many instances in the Bible as to how a context is used. For instance, if we are in a worship centre and the pastor say ALL should stand, Are you telling me that me that listen to that message on the tape or watch the video will also stand up?

buzugee: nothing to decode there my brother. its a simple explanashaun. Frosbel has pretty much covered all bases unless of course you are just looking for backing scriptures. 'sons of God' and 'angels' have been mythologically ascribed to heavenly bodies. however in reality they both mean MEN of God. MEN ON A MISSION FROM GOD. not no spirits.

How are angels not spirits?

We are on a mission to prove if the "nephilim" in Gen.6:2-4 are fallen angels from heaven were actually same that mate with human women to produce giants and mixed with daughters of men.

haibe: Lol why are you picking a verse out of a whole chapter of mine, read my post well to understand the point i gave there.
You haven't still understood my posts, that verse says "and all that do so" its an abomination to you and me
Still leave other verses for next time let's finish this one , you haven't still answered my question about you Dad wearing skirts. Am waiting.

So you mean I will condemn my dad if he chose to wear skirts or even gown? I guess you are kidding, lolz. The answer to your "and ALL that do so" is that God who said it to the Jews but left it out to the church or Christians are you wiser than that God?

buzugee: cant believe i am agreeing with the charlatan Frosbel. but yeah what he said is the correct answer.

Hey, be careful....Why call our brother charlatan? .

I don dey expect you and that small pikin called IjawKID make una come decode this myth,lolz

haibe: So if some people don't obey the word of God, what does that have to do with you? (Am not saying am disobeying the word of God), am only showing you that you can't base your obedience to God on men's standard.

Am not basing my obedience or teaching on men's standard. We are teaching bible here and it is simply out of NT teaching that women should not wear trouser. In fact, if most of the moral laws are repeated in the NT, why do we still act on it with the spirit of the OT and the spirit of the law? Why? Huh. I tire for una o

@ haibe,

First, Kindly learn to write in paragraphs.

Second, I "think" (am not passing judgment on you though) you are adding the religious spirit of the law into this matter.

haibe: @Goshen i don't want to draw my attention away from deut 22:5 so i may not answer some of your claims related to some other verses, first of all, [size=20pt]the New Testament clearly
affirms that as Gentile Christians, we don’t
need to bother trying to adapt to the culture
of the Jews. We don’t need to eat what they
eat, and wear what they wear. This verse is
about clothing, so we should note that we don’t
have to try to adopt the clothing and culture
of the Israelites.[/size]

If you agree to this, what then are you arguing about women wearing trouser or this and that. Okay, if you even say women should not wear trouser, how about women kind of trouser abi women are different from men because they have four legs? Is it not same 2 legs abi wetin you dey talk? lolz. Okay, let's put it this way, if it was an abomination in the OT to the Jews, where does it become an abomination in the Gospel abi u forget wetin abomination mean?

As for the women covering head and being silent in the church, Kindly open another thread and let's trash it our sir. I will be glad to fellowship with you on those two subject. Also, Paul didn't say ministers should be PAID, I had opened a thread for this before.

Ptolomeus: Exactly.
I did not seriously answer the thread, it is obvious that the problem is being a woman. Traditional Christians and Jews, humiliate women in every possible way. They are not allowed to speak in worship; them away, and beat them until they have authorized ...
You can seriously answer a question like that?

lolz. I told "haibe" to open a thread about women not speaking in worship places but if he doesn't, I will open it in due season. It's good we trash out this trouser nonsense first. It is obvious the religious spirit is at work. People just read into the scriptures, there is no Christian injunction that women should be silent in churches except they mis-understood Apostle Paul and the other one is women should cover their head. All is being mis-understood but we can trash it by sound teaching.

Ptolomeus: Hi dear friend Goshen.
Believe me, girls like that are the most ugly that exist here ...
A hug!

~ Hug returned~

Image123: you threw away the context of the passage, and the point haibe passed across. his point is AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW, striking on the relevance of the law to apostle Paul and the early Christians.

I didn't throw away any context. The context is "AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW". Then if it is that then you you (Image123) and haibe also follow the content of the law as per that 1 Cor 11? That is the point since the law also say so. Do You?

@ Image123,

I can also see you are cherry picking after I asked to refute your article and also, don't your denomination also preach trouser for women? Are we to say your Bishop is wrong? Are women kept silence in your denomination also AS SAITH THE LAW? Don't women speak in your church? These questions you also need to answer please. You guys are the ones mixing law (old wine) into the new wine skin (Grace). It doesn't work that way. It is also in the ceremonial that women not enter the temple when menstruating, do you practice that? Kill your wayward children, Are you also practicing that? You guys are simply not getting it.

Ptolomeus: I totally agree with you.
I also prefer women WITHOUT pants!

Image123: the guess is that it points to Christ and has been fulfilled by Christ?? don't be tempted to ask how.

See as I dey laugh you,lolz. Are you asking me by style or what? Okay let me tell you how is was fulfilled by Christ.....inshort, ASK and it shall be given to you. Waiting for official asking how Deut 22:5 is fulfilled in Christ should it be a sin for women to wear trouser.

nyameke: No the Nephilliums are not fallen angels but the offspring of fallen angels and females humans. They are superhumans and provide most of the mythological tales of the gods having offspring from human. Your Hercules and etc. Half fallen angels or devils and half human gives you a corrupted mixture of superhuman beings . Not how God intended it.

[size=15pt]Angels cannot reproduce among themselves but they can reproduce with female humans.[/size] They weren’t supposed to but they did so to mix the blood of humans with the seed of angels.
The question is why would they do that ?

The reason is that Lucifer the head of the fallen angels aim was to corrupt the human metaphysical configuration so as to prevent the messiah from being able to be born of a pure human gene. Now again why would lucifer want to do that?

Well the promise of a coming savior was given to Adam and Eve when God spoke to them and said that He will put enmity between Satan and the woman, and between his seed and her seed. Satan’s seed shall crush the woman’s seed but her seed shall crush his head The seed of the woman is a designation for the true humanity of the Messiah.

Lucifers first attempt to prevent the coming of the messiah was to possess the woman's heir Cain and then killing the next in line Abel, but the Devil realised the fulfillment of the coming messiah will not ne in Eve's immediate seed but sometime in the future..

His next plan then was to corrupt the genes of the seed of the woman through the angelic infiltration since the messiah was to be born from pure humanity genes.. But God is not to be mocked and you know what God did.
When the pollution of the human race be are much God destroyed them with The flood and another uncorrupted human race was started which did eventually usher in the Messiah.

I didn't see you quote any scripture to support all what you have said sir. Again, from the highlighted, how was it that angels was able to mate with human women since they are spirit?

Therefore, angels are only servants--spirits sent to care for people who will inherit salvation. Heb 1:14 NLT

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? Niv

frosbel: This is what happens when people refuse to read their bibles.

How biologically possible is it for Angels to mate with humans , 2 totally different species , and give birth to giants ??

Sons of God simply means children of God , most likely from Seth as opposed to the polluted seed of Cain.

Do what the bereans did , read [size=15pt]STUDY[/size] (better than reading) your bible - thank you

[size=20pt]YOU ARE THE MAIN MAN MY DEAREST BROTHER. THUMB UP X1000[/size].

BUT WE NEED TO PROVE IT THOUGH. THAT IS WHAT THIS THREAD IS ALL ABOUT.

haibe: "Let
your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; hut they ore
commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law."
Here the law means, of course,
the first five books of the Bible.
So the same doctrine of the
Pentateuch is the doctrine of
the New Testament, when it
comes to the relationship of men
and women.."

So in your church, women don't speak? Are they kept in silence? Women in your church don't lead praise and worship? Women in your church don't teach in the children church or in sunday school? Women don't make any speech as in announcement or something related? You need to explain this please.

haibe: @Goshen Thanks for your question. We see all over the NT that we are to obey the OT law. Certain laws, yes, have been dropped based on God's revelation.

Did I hear you say "all over the NT that we (Christians) are to obey the law"? and still certain laws have been dropped based on God's revelation. lolz. My brother you make me laugh. Will you also agree that based on God's revelation, trouser wearing does not defile a woman except for the motives. Will you also agree by revelation that trouser wearing by women does not make her unholy because there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Will you also agree by revelation that God cannot adopt same law He guided "one nation" with to guide the church which comprises of "all nations"? Will you also agree by revelation that the Gentiles before they were adopted into the church do not have the law of Moses and were never given to law?

haibe: However, we have plenty of basis to believe that we are to obey the law. We can't be saved by keeping it, but if we are
save then keeping it will be the tendency of our new nature.

1 John says that sin is the transgression of the law.

The issue here is when you read the scriptures, you have to determine from the context what "law" the context is talking about. Take a look at this:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. Romans 3:2 Niv

For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace. Gal.5:4 NLT

haibe: In 1 Cor 9, Paul used the law to justify [size=20pt]pay[/size] for Christian servants. He quoted the text in Deuteronomy about not muzzling the ox that treads out the corn.

Am very sorry about this my brother. You are reading INTO the text of the word of God. Paul didn't say such a thing. This is where I often have issues with believers. Paul was talking about "support" NOT "pay". They are two different things. And then context of that verses states that Paul denied himself from the "suppose" support he should be getting in order not to hinder the preaching of the Gospel. How many of our MoGs will do that? Many have capitalized and distorted that scriptures to charge for the Gospel.

haibe: Regarding Deuteronomy 22:5, it isn't a command for just the nature Israel. It is for everyone. The verse says, "all who do so." And then someone who violates the prohibition is an abomination to God. That means it is a moral law.

Do you know the Bible distinguished between Israel (Jews) and the Gentiles and the Church? Deut 22:5 IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY, IT IS FOR THE JEWS.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 1 Cor.10:32 Kjv

haibe: And finally we have a repeat of this standard in 1 Corinthians 11 with God's support of the cultural distinction of female head coverings.

Here we go again, I had wanted to open a thread for this woman head covering when we started this trouser stuff. See my brother, I keep repeating it, you really have to query most of this your denominational teaching that is wrong. I'm sorry to say this again. Paul is NOT asking women to wear a veil because their hair had being given to them by God as covering. You can open another thread let's discuss that or if you don't, I will open it in due season.

haibe: I believe, in
1 Timothy. Paul relied on the law regularly
and one specific example which comes to
mind is in the middle of 1 Cor 9 when he
quotes a verse from Deuteronomy and
applies it to the right for a minister to be
paid. He quoted it again in 1 Timothy 5,
"Muzzle not the ox that treadeth out the
corn."
Obvious in Deut 22:5 is the morality of it
as seen in the person violating the
prohibition becoming an abomination to
God. This is not a judicial or ceremonial
law. It is not a picture fulfilled in the
reality of Jesus nor is it a law that was
strictly applied to the nation Israel. When
you have the phrase in the OT, "all who do
so," it applies to everybody, Jew and
Gentile. This connects it with created
order.
God still expects the designed distinction
even if the culture purposefully erases it.
And the truth is, trouser-skirt has actually
not been replaced. Still today our culture
understands that the skirt/dress is
female and trousers are male, as seen in the
pictures on some bathroom doors. Now the
culture may violate that standard
repeatedly as we might expect, Christians
are not to do that, or we are living just
like the world. And there should be no
contention from the churches on such a
designed distinction (1 Cor 11:16). Why
would there be a contention? Which there
regularly is when this subject is brought
up. It is a controversial subject due to the
meaning packed into the symbols in the
designed distinctions. They are more than
about "telling the difference," but
supporting God's design, which happens to
put men in authority.
One of the temptations for Christians
since Christianity began was to
accommodate and accede to the world, so
as not to feel the reproach that comes
with obedience to God's Word. The world
loves darkness because its deeds are evil,
so marvel not if it hates you. Deutronomy 22:5 is a moral law, the bible says "all that do so" is am ABOMINATION towards God, i know we all know what an abomination is, when a law like this is broken, it led to ceremonial laws(like cleansing through the blood of the lamb because of the transgression of the moral law. E.g the abomination to God by male wearing what pertains to a female or vise versa and others), i appreciate the fact that Goshen has finally realized that the moral laws are not to be aborted and deutronomy 22:5 is just one of them(Not only the Ten commandments). You can't call deut 22:5 a ceremonial law because its not.
God bless you all.

How did God included Deut. 22:5 into the Ten commandments on mount sinai? How?

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

Look at the nature of All of these moral laws and see how they ALL "REFLECTS" MORALS. How does a woman wearing trouser reflect morals? HOW?

haibe: @Goshen is deut 22:5 not a moral law?

It is NOT a moral law. It is an ordinance which makes it part of the ceremonial abi the thing dey part of ten commandment? How does thou shall not kill and thou shall not wearing trouser correspond? E n f'iku w'oru ni yen (comparing death and sleeping) Are they the same?

Hmmmmm, Interesting @ Pastor Kun. I will wait till you post the rest piece that is relevant to this thread. You will have lots of questions to answer though should in case you believe in the book of Enoch,lolz

^^^
Have you read the book of Enoch? If you have read it, what does it say about this subject?

We (the church) had been taught for long many years that fallen angels who fell from heaven co-habit with human women in Gen.6:2-4 and produced giants in the days of Noah and Jesus said, "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man". Matt. 24:37 Niv.

Are these Nephilims really fallen angels? If they are, did they actually inter-married the human women to produce giants? What do you think?