₦airaland Forum

Gabrielshow24:
Like I said before there's no sufficient data to conclude on this and biblical style only writes on important things, not extras.

Knowing such details is not important to salvation, it just brings clarity. Jesus said there are so many things(heavenly) that he can't tell them(disciples) because even earthly things they have not known. I am typing quickly hence my write-up will feel rushed...bear with me, by evening I should have proper time to address your concerns.

The same questions you posed can be said of men😅. I think Jesus made it clear that all must deny themselves, context in the case is man, I do believe such wisdom is applicable to Angels hence the more reason why the bible highlighted "fallen angels" that went out of their way. Overall, he that hath God has everything and his fulfilled.

Gabrielshow24:
I am not depending on anything fits. Like I have said the bible is not unequivocal on angels. There are just glimpses of them here and there. The verses of "sons of God" have a context that doesn't fit man. The subjects or objects depending on the verse fit heavenly beings. Also, from scriptures angels/heavenly beings are called morning stars. The scriptural data suggests such an inference. Not me, scriptures. I am not making anything fit but rather relying on the bible to explain itself. Even from the tanakh, Jewish commentaries, sons of God were mostly used for angels, Jesus was crucified because he called himself a son of God🤔. Historical context along Jewish style and literature warrants such an interpretation.

Kobojunkie:
Came down to earth? Are you for real? Where? 😩😩😩😩

Also, the term "Sons of God" is never used in the entire book about a blood line; the term, Sons of God, was instead used about men who, through diligence, attained the level of Righteousness set by YHWH.

Additionally, the man Seth was not listed as a "Son of God". Rather, he was born in the likeness of his father, Adam, is what is written in the book.

sonmvayina:
The nephilims where already on earth.

It's talking about the blood line of Adam son Seth. It is about a human relationship.

Angels don't matter with humans, it is not possible, only a male sperm can fertilize a female ovum. You did biology or basic science in school. Why are you suspending that knowledge?

AngelahFlo:
➜In the Bible the Sons of God where specifically referring to Angels.
➜ Though some translations also included the Descendants of Seth
➜I'll stick with the Fallen Angels option cos that's the more fitting here.
➜ However I believe if they were humans, they may have been possessed by these fallen angels.
➜ For me personally I'll stick with the fallen angels taking on human forms to marry the women

AngelahFlo:
➜I get your point but what about the angle of them possessing humans in order to marry this women.
It's not certain if the Nephilims were offspring of the Union between the Sons of God and the women they marry. Whichever it's not stated whether they were already on earth before now or after

Kobojunkie:
1. The following was not your bullsheet response from earlier?....


2. There was no other planet/alien space mentioned in Job 1vs 6 ; your so-called "court of heaven" is not recorded to have taken place on another planet or space outside of the earth.

3. Nonsense! Consult your previous statement You claimed that the references to the foundation and cornerstones of the Earth were, according to you, metaphorical, so how were you able to jump to the conclusion that it was all about the Earth's creation(not even the beginning of creation that is documented in the Book of Genesis)?

Gabrielshow24:
You still haven't made any progress, just dishing out the same redundant "rebuttals".
The "court of heaven" is a reference to your posit that farmers of Uz😅 were filing in and out of God's throne room. You should have understood it's a jab at your statement
The other point you brought up used metaphorical phrases such as "the foundation of the earth" etc,. to connote the creation process of the Earth—God asked Job these questions. The context there is about the creation of the Earth.
If you have any other thing to add, kindly do so. You have conflated two different responses of mine to bring out a sheepish statement.

tctrills:
Don't you see that all you do here is depend on human wisdom and not revealed truths?
Hope you know that angels are not the only heavenly beings? So Job could very easily have been referring to heavenly beings that are not angels.
As for genesis, it could very easily have been talking about human beings so why decide and teach according to canal wisdom.
I repeat again, no verse in the entire bible indicates directly or indirectly that angels are Sons of God. You need lots of scriptural gymnastics and even at that it still doesn't make sense.
In the bible, Son of God is only used in reference to Jesus Christ and Man. It fits much more to conclude that the phase as used in Genesis 6 was talking about man not angels. And yes the use in the phase on Job fits heavenly beings not necessarily angels.

tctrills:
Your first paragraph was very powerful and it has the answer to all these. Let me quote you.

no sufficient data to conclude on this and biblical style only writes on important things, not extras.
This is key. If angels are Sons of God, the bible did not say. No data so why guess? Please apply the wisdom to wrote here.

Gabrielshow24:
I am not guessing. From early Jewish context, men were not sons of God—They were sons of men. The appropriate word was servant etc.

The concept of "sons of God" was only applied to some certain heavenly beings, which could boast of direct inheritance from God.

While in the present church we are known as sons of God through Jesus Christ our Lord but at that time and context—No one was a son of God!

The context warrants such an intrepreation. You are looking at it with an anachronistic view, it's a chronological fallacy on your part. If it didn't apply to angels then it would have applied to gods but the general term heavenly beings, for accuracy is more befitting!

This doesn't change anything related to salvation but only brings clarity, if needed on such topics.

tctrills:
Wrong, Solomon was called the Son of God and God called the entire Israel his children. But no where did he call angels his Sons so there again you are wrong.
Now, let's assume that Sons of God as stated meant only heavenly beings, who decided that they are angels? You or God? My point is, stop making up scripture.
Below are some old testament/ Jewish scripture where God referred to man/men as his son's/ children.

Exodus 4:22–23
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’...”

Deuteronomy 14:1–2
You are the children of the Lord your God. ... For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself.

Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

Isaiah 1:2
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the Lord has spoken: “I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me.”

Psalm 82:6
I said, “You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”

2 Samuel 7:14 (God speaking about Solomon to David)
I will be his father, and he shall be My son

1 Chronicles 28:6 (David recounting God’s words about Solomon)
He said to me, ‘It is your son Solomon who shall build My house and My courts; for I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father.’

Hosea 1:10
... in the place where it was said to them, “You are not My people,” there it shall be said to them, “You are sons of the living God.”

All these verses prove that your theory is false.

tctrills:
you can but other verses put in the lense of these, reveals them to be angels!
Satan is called a morning star🌟, he was mentioned as a cherub🤔. So, yes there's sample information to draw some inference.

Satan was not called a Son of God. I am sure the bible never referred to Satan as an Angel.

Jesus being called Son of God was used by his disciples, the Jewish context never ever expresses anyone as a Son of God! The part in Genesis when the generation of Seth began to seek the Lord and call themselves sons of God is an exception, probably due to Moses' first hand report.
Hence, context wise, those verse don't refer to men especially the one of Job. The verse in Genesis is still debatable.
Wrong again, Solomon was a son of God. Also, if your argument is that the old testament did not call any man a son of God, how come you don't extend the argument to Angels since you know that no where in both the old or the new testament were they called angels?

Heavenly beings in the Jewish context are termed Angels. The Jewish context doesn't have aliens😅, anything Extra terrestrial was classified as an heavenly being. This is expressly stated in the tanakh.

While it's "carnal wisdom" as you called it but it's the only answer the data suggests. The same way trinity was arrived upon by the available data. The historical context, Jewish context, doesn't warrant you imputing Sonship to men. That's why Jesus had to bring it up, by asking a rhetorical question, "how come they were called gods?"
Wrong again. The Jewish text never claimed that all heavenly beings are angels. Please prove your point.
In fact, cherubims in the old testament were never called angels.
The Bible treats cherubim as a distinct order of heavenly beings, not just another word for angels.

This is the major reason Jesus was killed—nothing less, nothing more. If the Jews had been so comfortable with humans bearing sons of God they won't have killed Jesus 🤨.[
You forget that Jesus reminded the Jews of their scriptures that declare men to be sons of God.
Let's read the Jewish scripture together.

John 10:34–36
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Summary
From reading the old and new testament, only man, not angels are referred to as Son of God.
Also there are other heavenly creatures such as Cherubim not only angels.

Gabrielshow24:
Nope, you just buttress my point more! God called them sons, the Jews didn't believe such. From the perspective of God they are his children but Jews do not use that language to address themselves, simple.

tctrills:
You are confusing everything. It is of little importance if the Jews believed or not. My question is, did the writers of the scriptures believe? If the prophets who wrote that man is a child of God believed, then you have no leg to stand on. We can then both understand that the writers of the Old Testament indicated that man is God's son, and neither the Old nor the New Testament talks about angels as God's son. So where did you get that idea? Definitely not from the word of God, or did you just make it up?

tctrills:
You are just appealing to exact word fallacy, cherubims are angels—They are heavenly beings in heaven that cover the Lord's throne, so no matter how you spin it, Satan was an Angel! A cherubim at that!
Boss let us depend on revelation and not your opinion. You are the one spinning things here while I depend 100% on the revealed word. I have given you enough opportunity to present a verse, just one verse where cherubim are called angels or where it was said that Satan was an angel and you failed. Please give me a scriptural reason to believe you and not just your made up opinion.
Here is a list of the different creatures found in heaven.
Angels
Cherubim
Seraphim
Living Creatures: Appearance: Four distinct forms — lion, ox, man, eagle — each with six wings and full of eyes (Revelation 4:6–.
The Twenty-Four Elders


God called them his sons, the same way he called the angels his sons in Job. God calls all his children, sons. The Jews didn't believe in such as I have expressly stated earlier. I didn't forget infact I pointed that out earlier when Jesus showed the absurdities in their thinking when he referred to himself as a Son—Something they were not comfortable with!
Again, you have had the opportunity to show me where God called any angel his son's and you failed. Or do you have a different bible from mine. Please if you have a different bible let me know.
I also showed you verses from the Jewish scripture where God called man his children so when you say that the Jews did not believe that they were the children of God, do we believe you or do we believe the bible? I choose the bible over you sir.

Only God referred to people as his sons in the old testament, mortal men, Jews, do not call themselves sons of God! Simple. No matter how you try this is the simple truth of scripture.
I am wondering the sense you are trying to pass here. Are you saying that God called the Jews his children in their scriptures yet they did not believe him. I don't understand this particular argument. Please throw more light.

Gabrielshow24:
You are still conflating things, the prophets were delivering God's words. The audience and context of the prophets doesn't warrant such but they wrote such by inspiration of the spirit because of what God had in mind for us all. That's why they were messages and prophecies from God. The same messages also contain excerpts that doesn't fit man. The context sons of God(elohim) in the literal sense was used for gods or angels based on the context. The concept of sons of God as used for us is in the metaphorical sense through faith!

Don't get it wrong! There's the literal and there's the metaphorical. Jesus' words claimed the literal. Even the metaphorical was not greatly received as a form of divinity but rather as a connotation of obedience! Nothing more, nothing less.

tctrills:
You are missing the point. It's this simple. Did the bible clearly state that man is the Son of God? Yes, it did in both the Old and New Testaments.
Did the bible ever state or imply that angels are the sons of God? No. Not in the Old nor the New Testaments.
Final deduction: You made up the angels are sons of God theory or you are depending on other books, not the bible. In that case, you need to tell us the books you quote from. Simple.

tctrills:
You still haven’t grasped the full picture. Angels are celestial beings—originally, the term “angel” referred to heavenly or divine messengers who delivered the Lord’s words and carried out His will. Over time, the title was also applied to men, but only in the sense that they acted as messengers.
Yes, angels are celestial beings, but they are not the only beings in heaven. Again, here is the list below.
Angels
Cherubim
Seraphim
Living Creatures: Appearance: Four distinct forms — lion, ox, man, eagle — each with six wings and full of eyes (Revelation 4:6–cool.
The Twenty-Four Elders.
There could be others

It is therefore imperative to understand that every celestial being described in Scripture has a role. Take cherubim, for example: they guarded the Garden of Eden after man’s fall, the Lord is depicted as riding upon a cherub, and they are consistently seen in His immediate presence. Even Jesus, when speaking of the resurrection, said that men will be like the angels in heaven—a categorical statement encompassing cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings.
Jesus said man will be like angels, not like cherubim. His statement in no way encompasses cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings. It is clear enough that he only referred to Angels. No verse refers to cherubim as angels.

Revelation 5:11 proves that angels, living creatures, and the elders are completely different.
"Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.

As for the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures, Scripture does not provide sufficient clarity about their precise identities. What we do know is that there are celestial beings who dwell in heaven—the dwelling place of God—not in some alternate “heavens” as you are trying to imply. The available evidence strongly suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories.
Please provide any evidence that suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories. Revelation 5:11 says you are wrong.
Also read
Revelation 7:11 –
All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God.


This is why your argument commits a categorical fallacy: Lucifer is repeatedly depicted with his angels, yet Scripture also tells us he is a cherub. The term “cherub” carries a distinct role and function in God’s work—thus, Satan is both an angel and one who performs the duties of a cherub.
Lucifer has his angels (messengers), but he was never called an angel of God. At least not in the bible. Again, where is it stated that cherubs are angels? Let's not make things up.

Now to your second point: God calls them His children because they do His will. Scripture makes this clear—all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. My nationality, whether Nigerian or otherwise, is irrelevant; what matters is obedience. Through obedience, I am a son, though not in the sense of sharing God’s divine essence. That privilege comes through Christ, who imputes His righteousness to me so that I might bear His nature.
God called them His children because they are His children, simple and short, and He did not call angels His children.
The words of Paul
Acts 17:28-29 (KJV), where Paul speaks to the Athenians:

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Offspring means children.


Yes, the Jews were called God’s children, but they did not share His nature. Only angels—or “gods” in the sense of being spiritual beings—possessed some form of divine nature, for they are spirits. The Jews understood this well, which is why obedience to God was paramount in the Torah—through obedience, one could attain sonship. Even now, I am a spirit living in flesh; though I have Christ, my earthly nature still awaits the promise that on the last day, I shall be like Him—sharing fully in His nature.
Is it written that angels share the nature of God, or did you make that up also? man, on the other hand, will inherit the nature of God. That is what children do: they inherit traits from their parents.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

tctrills:
You still haven’t grasped the full picture. Angels are celestial beings—originally, the term “angel” referred to heavenly or divine messengers who delivered the Lord’s words and carried out His will. Over time, the title was also applied to men, but only in the sense that they acted as messengers.
Yes, angels are celestial beings, but they are not the only beings in heaven. Again, here is the list below.
Angels
Cherubim
Seraphim
Living Creatures: Appearance: Four distinct forms — lion, ox, man, eagle — each with six wings and full of eyes (Revelation 4:6–cool.
The Twenty-Four Elders.
There could be others

It is therefore imperative to understand that every celestial being described in Scripture has a role. Take cherubim, for example: they guarded the Garden of Eden after man’s fall, the Lord is depicted as riding upon a cherub, and they are consistently seen in His immediate presence. Even Jesus, when speaking of the resurrection, said that men will be like the angels in heaven—a categorical statement encompassing cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings.
Jesus said man will be like angels, not like cherubim. His statement in no way encompasses cherubim, seraphim, and all other heavenly beings. It is clear enough that he only referred to Angels. No verse refers to cherubim as angels.

Revelation 5:11 proves that angels, living creatures, and the elders are completely different.
"Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.

As for the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures, Scripture does not provide sufficient clarity about their precise identities. What we do know is that there are celestial beings who dwell in heaven—the dwelling place of God—not in some alternate “heavens” as you are trying to imply. The available evidence strongly suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories.
Please provide any evidence that suggests that “angels” is a broad, generic term for all celestial beings in God’s dwelling, though they exist in different orders and categories. Revelation 5:11 says you are wrong.
Also read
Revelation 7:11 –
All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God.


This is why your argument commits a categorical fallacy: Lucifer is repeatedly depicted with his angels, yet Scripture also tells us he is a cherub. The term “cherub” carries a distinct role and function in God’s work—thus, Satan is both an angel and one who performs the duties of a cherub.
Lucifer has his angels (messengers), but he was never called an angel of God. At least not in the bible. Again, where is it stated that cherubs are angels? Let's not make things up.

Now to your second point: God calls them His children because they do His will. Scripture makes this clear—all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. My nationality, whether Nigerian or otherwise, is irrelevant; what matters is obedience. Through obedience, I am a son, though not in the sense of sharing God’s divine essence. That privilege comes through Christ, who imputes His righteousness to me so that I might bear His nature.
God called them His children because they are His children, simple and short, and He did not call angels His children.
The words of Paul
Acts 17:28-29 (KJV), where Paul speaks to the Athenians:

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Offspring means children.


Yes, the Jews were called God’s children, but they did not share His nature. Only angels—or “gods” in the sense of being spiritual beings—possessed some form of divine nature, for they are spirits. The Jews understood this well, which is why obedience to God was paramount in the Torah—through obedience, one could attain sonship. Even now, I am a spirit living in flesh; though I have Christ, my earthly nature still awaits the promise that on the last day, I shall be like Him—sharing fully in His nature.
Is it written that angels share the nature of God, or did you make that up also? man, on the other hand, will inherit the nature of God. That is what children do: they inherit traits from their parents.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

judewrites:
📖 Genesis 6
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
¹ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

² That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.


The 'sons of God' in this scripture was a reference to a special set of 200 angels who presented themselves to God's service (Job 1: 6)

God appointed these angels known as the watchers to carefully observe the first race of mankind.

However the angels motivated by Samyaza their leader, betrayed God's trust by taking human wives and fathering giants with them known as the Nephilim.

Not just that, these angels taught mankind forbidden knowledge which provoked iniquity like weaponology, astrology, cosmetology, enchantments, magic, etc.

It was primarily because of the intermingling of these angels that God engulfed the earth with water: their offsprings (the Nephilim) polluted the earth with excessive bloodshed; they consumed animals, humans and eventually even themselves.

📖 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.
— Jude 1:6

Despite desperate pleas for forgiveness, God imprisoned these angels deep underneath the earth in absolute darkness awaiting the white throne judgement. (Revelations 20:11-15)

What initially prompted these angels was their lustful desire for beautiful women.

Today, as a result of looking lustfully at women, (especially through pornography) a lot of men have fallen into all kinds of sexual sin that brings divine judgement.

As a man, you should be careful how you look at a woman (and vice versa) as lust is equivalent to adultery. (Matthew 5:28)

God didn't spare these angels as they willingly chose to disobey Him notwithstanding the consequences. (2 Peter 2:4)

If we continually choose to disobey God especially in sexual misconduct, we might end up as these angels. God forbid 🙏.

The marriage bed was, is and will remain undefiled. (Hebrews 13:4)

(Culled from the book of Enoch)