₦airaland Forum

They are not irrelevant — you’re the one claiming that! They do not, in any way, reinforce your idea that the “sons” in Job 38 were men 😂. That’s a strawman. Our spirits came from God in terms of origin, and in that sense, yes — we can be called sons of God because we share that origination. But by nature, being physical and born of earthly fathers, we are not “sons of God” in essence, but rather sons by adoption — through faith! Do you understand? You keep tying yourself in knots here.
y/our opinion. The bible says all of us are His offspring. Do you know the meaning of offspring?

Whether it’s the Elders or the four living creatures, the point stands — these refer to angelic beings. Every theophany affirms angels surrounding the throne. The later visions simply revealed different classes within that angelic realm. That’s where your reasoning falls apart.
Now you are no longer sure if the verse referred to angels or the elders or some other. you have destroyed your entire doctrine, thanks

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew long before it was translated into Greek — and not by you, mind you — but by Jewish scholars who fully understood their own idioms and symbolism. You don’t. The term Elohim refers to godlike beings, which is why it’s used for God, gods, and angels. The heavenly host is denoted by malaikim — divine messengers who do God’s will. Ezekiel’s vision added the category of cherubim, a progressive revelation built on the already understood malaikim. Later, the concept of seraphim appears, and in John’s vision, Elders and four living creatures — still debated today whether they’re a form of cherubim or not. So yes, they’re in the Bible — which, by the way, is a compilation of the Jewish Torah and the New Testament.
Jesus Christ showed the Jews that they didn't understand the Old Testament. He reminded them that we are children of God. So seeking out the Jews to teach you the Old Testament is an error.
All the earliest Christians were Jews, so they already grasped these concepts. One of them even stated outright that angels delivered the Law to Moses — and he wrote a whole book emphasizing the Son’s supremacy over angels. And they had to give up falls understanding of the scripture. Jesus came to teach them the correct understanding.

And no, I don’t have to “prove” whether the Job passage is literal or figurative — the verse itself justifies the conclusion. The same way, I wouldn’t say Solomon was a son of God by nature when clearly he became one through obedience.
This means nothing, anyone can say the verse says he is right. It means nothing.

I’m not forcing Scripture here — you’re the one dodging it. Or are you seriously suggesting Jesus didn’t know about the Elders and the four living creatures, but chose to compare man to angels by accident? 😂 My brother, your “wisdom” is baffling. Jesus knew full well — but He used the general term “angels,” which His Jewish audience understood as heavenly beings. 🤷 What verse am I dodging. Please tell me and I will address it immediately

And as for “morning stars,” angels are called stars. Whether it’s morning or evening is irrelevant — it’s simply descriptive of their radiance. Every angelic encounter in Scripture involves dazzling brightness — even those in Revelation shone with a glory that dwarfed the sun. I don’t know what more evidence you’re fishing for on “morning stars,” but I suspect you’re just looking for the exact wording so you can nitpick 😂.

No angel is called the morning star. Show me a verse

tctrills:
Next time, copy me so I can respond sooner—I was busy attending to another thread. Now, let’s address your “concerns.”

You’re simply repeating yourself. The Word of God, as the biblical authors expressed it, makes the context clear: as a rule of thumb, those with a direct progeny from God are called sons of God. We, by contrast, are sons of Adam. Sonship can also be imputed through relational works—obedience and faith—as the Scriptures show. Therefore, Fatherhood has contexts that determine proper interpretation. I won’t keep repeating this; I’ve said it countless times, and you persist in turning a blind eye—despite knowing that part of Christian theology includes sonship by adoption. If you disagree, argue with your Bible, not me.
The bible never said those with a direct progeny from God are called sons of God. This is your opinion. Please educate us on angels direct progeny from God using the bible.

It’s you who hold the opinion that sonship is only by direct nature, and that’s totally wrong. I’ve given countless examples—even rhetorical ones—to show that if the Jews were truly comfortable with your version of sonship, Jesus would not have been crucified. You’ve conveniently avoided those analogies.
Its you who decides the literal and non-literal sons. You set the rules, not the scripture.

You’re also the one committing cheap fallacies 😂. You insist the word angel must appear before you believe it’s referring to an angel—that’s your conundrum, not mine. In numerous contexts, the sons of God and the host of heaven are clearly referred to as angels (malaikim). If you argue otherwise, you might as well tear those verses from your Bible and burn the Greek Septuagint that records them—and while you’re at it, erase the Jewish context altogether. That’s the cost of your dogmatism.
You insist that Morning Star = angel without proof. Is Christ also an angel?

The fact is, if man were already a morning star, Jesus wouldn’t need to give man the morning star.

The fact is, angels are not called morning stars nor are we told that they would become that.
As for “pilgrim,” your insistence that it must mean we were sojourners on earth is false in this context. Abraham’s sojourning can easily be called a pilgrimage, and even the present Israelites have yet to receive the full blessings of Abraham. Can you see my point? Your methodology is inconsistent and collapses under scrutiny.
So you have not read the bible. It clearly stated that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Please understand the context earth is our pligrimage.

Genesis 1’s creation account makes it plain—man was created on the sixth day. I don’t need mental gymnastics to assert that man was the last-born of creation. The hosts of heaven existed earlier. Even in Genesis 2, man is formed later—plants had not yet grown—yet Job 38 describes beings rejoicing while God was forming the earth. And you claim these beings were men? 😂 That’s absurd.
Sir, which verse says man was created after the angels? I also asked where the elders were created before man or after man. Are they not part of the Host? Please be honest and provide the verse in Genesis 2 that says man came after the heavenly host. Who says angels were among those in Job 38? It could have been the elders

It’s not absurd because Jesus—who existed before the world began—affirmed such truths. What is absurd is that you, who supposedly had consciousness and “shouted for joy,” can’t seem to recall that glorious moment! That’s why I say your argument has been cheap from the very start.
I can't remember that I ate this day last month, is that absurd, or is your argument just weak?

Quote me, alright.
Wrong! Scripture directly implies this principle for Adam, and the same for Jesus. Things beget after their own kind; hence Adam and Jesus, both directly originated from God, were called “sons of God.” The sons of Seth applied the same simple reasoning: “God made our grandfather Adam, therefore God indirectly made us.” This emphasizes origination, not nature.

Other passages show sonship being imputed through action (faith, obedience). That’s the Bible’s standpoint, not mine. Angels also have direct origination from God — He formed them just as He formed Adam. They have no source apart from Him. You and I, however, have physical origination from our earthly fathers. Our sonship to God is through adoption. Simple.

I don’t set the rules — context determines interpretation. I have no direct progeny from God, even if God made my spirit. Before my earthly life, I had no conscious will or recollection of any praiseful event. My physical origination comes from my father. I have no other conscious life to look back on. That alone destroys your claim — one must be conscious to praise. Jesus remembered His pre-earthly existence with God; He didn’t dismiss it with, “Well, I can’t remember what I ate last month.” Your argument collapses under that weight — because you’re arguing for a pre-conscious life you’ve never been aware of, let alone one where you were a “morning star.”

Lucifer is a morning star, then he must be the same as Jesus.” Do you see the absurdity? That’s the kind of flawed equivalence your reasoning produces.

I’ve read the Bible — it doesn’t teach what you’re asserting. It presents us as seeds awaiting harvest (Matthew 13:24–29, interpreted in vv. 37–38). We were not “travellers,” but God’s seed sown physically, later becoming conscious of our heritage. The context here is physical, not an appeal to some abstract “pilgrim” definition as if we came from some prior land. This is why I’ve told you before — we were kept in God’s storehouses, awaiting the time to be sown.

Finally, I already stated that man was formed in Genesis 2 after his creation in Genesis 1. Your attempt to twist this is almost comedic. Genesis 1 plainly shows man as the last-born of God’s creation; Genesis 2 confirms that plants were not yet in existence because man had not been created to till the ground. When you read both through the lens of Job 38, it’s laughable to claim it was man shouting for joy in heaven. Let alone you can't even remember such event😂!

tctrills:
It is funny, both of you are teaching strange doctrines not found in the bible yet you ask him to show you where in the bible did whatever happen. Please mention one bible verse from Genesis to Revelation where angels are called Sons of God.
Again what gender are angels. Did any of them also sleep with the men? Did they have hormones? How did they acquire a taste for women in particular?
This teaching is very foolish.

Religion na very big scam
John1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

tctrills:
They are not irrelevant — you’re the one claiming that! They do not, in any way, reinforce your idea that the “sons” in Job 38 were men 😂. That’s a strawman. Our spirits came from God in terms of origin, and in that sense, yes — we can be called sons of God because we share that origination. But by nature, being physical and born of earthly fathers, we are not “sons of God” in essence, but rather sons by adoption — through faith! Do you understand? You keep tying yourself in knots here.
y/our opinion. The bible says all of us are His offspring. Do you know the meaning of offspring?

Whether it’s the Elders or the four living creatures, the point stands — these refer to angelic beings. Every theophany affirms angels surrounding the throne. The later visions simply revealed different classes within that angelic realm. That’s where your reasoning falls apart.
Now you are no longer sure if the verse referred to angels or the elders or some other. you have destroyed your entire doctrine, thanks

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew long before it was translated into Greek — and not by you, mind you — but by Jewish scholars who fully understood their own idioms and symbolism. You don’t. The term Elohim refers to godlike beings, which is why it’s used for God, gods, and angels. The heavenly host is denoted by malaikim — divine messengers who do God’s will. Ezekiel’s vision added the category of cherubim, a progressive revelation built on the already understood malaikim. Later, the concept of seraphim appears, and in John’s vision, Elders and four living creatures — still debated today whether they’re a form of cherubim or not. So yes, they’re in the Bible — which, by the way, is a compilation of the Jewish Torah and the New Testament.
Jesus Christ showed the Jews that they didn't understand the Old Testament. He reminded them that we are children of God. So seeking out the Jews to teach you the Old Testament is an error.
All the earliest Christians were Jews, so they already grasped these concepts. One of them even stated outright that angels delivered the Law to Moses — and he wrote a whole book emphasizing the Son’s supremacy over angels. And they had to give up falls understanding of the scripture. Jesus came to teach them the correct understanding.

And no, I don’t have to “prove” whether the Job passage is literal or figurative — the verse itself justifies the conclusion. The same way, I wouldn’t say Solomon was a son of God by nature when clearly he became one through obedience.
This means nothing, anyone can say the verse says he is right. It means nothing.

I’m not forcing Scripture here — you’re the one dodging it. Or are you seriously suggesting Jesus didn’t know about the Elders and the four living creatures, but chose to compare man to angels by accident? 😂 My brother, your “wisdom” is baffling. Jesus knew full well — but He used the general term “angels,” which His Jewish audience understood as heavenly beings. 🤷 What verse am I dodging. Please tell me and I will address it immediately

And as for “morning stars,” angels are called stars. Whether it’s morning or evening is irrelevant — it’s simply descriptive of their radiance. Every angelic encounter in Scripture involves dazzling brightness — even those in Revelation shone with a glory that dwarfed the sun. I don’t know what more evidence you’re fishing for on “morning stars,” but I suspect you’re just looking for the exact wording so you can nitpick 😂.

No angel is called the morning star. Show me a verse

It seems I have to teach you as I would a child, because simple reasoning and logic seem to evade you. Let’s start with the basics: what exactly is your definition of angels? The way you toss the term around makes it meaningless — sometimes you mean heavenly beings, other times not, and occasionally you suggest some subset that excludes elders and the four living creatures

Now, “offspring” in the sense that we originate from God — unless you want to absurdly suggest that God slept with your mother to father you? You know that’s ridiculous. This intellectual dishonesty — switching between literal and metaphorical without any care for context — is exactly the problem. Offspring can mean both literal and metaphorical. Only Jesus and Adam can claim a literal physical origination from God; the rest of us are metaphorical sons of God by adoption. Yes, you could argue our spirits come from God, but our substance is flesh and blood. That fits “offspring by origination.” It’s interpretations like yours — blurring literal and metaphorical at will — that breed confusion and heresy.

I haven’t destroyed my stance because no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and insert “man” into that category, you’ll fail miserably. Your last refuge is categorical classification — suggesting it could be elders — which is pointless because it still fits heavenly beings, and scripture groups such beings under the general term malaikim. Case closed. Argue with your own Bible.

The apostles didn’t “give up” anything — they embraced Christ as Messiah and correctly interpreted that He was the man Jesus, while others rejected Him. They understood the eternal kingdom of God was not of this world, whereas the Jews wanted a political one. Jesus Himself said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law. We are under the law of grace, not the Old Testament’s ceremonial code — but the apostles (Jews themselves) understood the context far better than you, and you won’t out-interpret them. Case closed. Argue with history and your Bible.

You’ve dodged several of my questions, along with multiple verses that dismantle your premise. You’ll happily use inference to defend the Trinity when it’s not explicitly stated, but suddenly demand exact wording when it comes to “sons of God” being angelic beings. Convenient, isn’t it?

An angel in Revelation appeared with a brightness that dwarfed the sun, yet you claim such an angel cannot be a “morning star.” Basic science tells you that only greater stars outshine the sun. “Morning star” is an expression describing the intense brightness of angels — you don’t need an explicit verse to grasp the metaphor. Angels are already called stars, so adding “morning” or “evening” is simply a descriptive flourish. The point is obvious. If you still can’t see it, that’s your willful blindness, not a lack of evidence.
I won’t be repeating myself on this again.

Broveens42:
Religion na very big scam
John1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

Even atheists understand sonship by adoption, brother tctrills—what’s your excuse? 👀

judewrites:
Our physical minds can't fully comprehend spiritual things....

If God's WORD says it happened, who are we to question the Word of God?

You fail to read your story book properly to understand that most times, same entities are used in different characters.. eg Satan, God human, son of God, son of man,angel etc


Carefully study these these passages below :

Acts 5:38&39

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

1Thes 2:18
We wanted to come to you , I and Paul, but Satan stopped us

Math 16:23

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Quote me, alright.
Wrong! Scripture directly implies this principle for Adam, and the same for Jesus. Things beget after their own kind; hence Adam and Jesus, both directly originated from God, were called “sons of God.” The sons of Seth applied the same simple reasoning: “God made our grandfather Adam, therefore God indirectly made us.” This emphasizes origination, not nature.

Again you speak your own words.
Other passages show sonship being imputed through action (faith, obedience). That’s the Bible’s standpoint, not mine. Angels also have direct origination from God — He formed them just as He formed Adam. They have no source apart from Him. You and I, however, have physical origination from our earthly fathers. Our sonship to God is through adoption. Simple.

The House of Israel was His sons, even when they sin.
Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

I don’t set the rules — context determines interpretation. I have no direct progeny from God, even if God made my spirit. Before my earthly life, I had no conscious will or recollection of any praiseful event. My physical origination comes from my father. I have no other conscious life to look back on. That alone destroys your claim — one must be conscious to praise. Jesus remembered His pre-earthly existence with God; He didn’t dismiss it with, “Well, I can’t remember what I ate last month.” Your argument collapses under that weight — because you’re arguing for a pre-conscious life you’ve never been aware of, let alone one where you were a “morning star.
Your point is that you don't remember never happened.


Lucifer is a morning star, then he must be the same as Jesus.” Do you see the absurdity? That’s the kind of flawed equivalence your reasoning produces.
No question about Lucifer except that the bible did not call him an angel. You did. Is Jesus also an angel?

I’ve read the Bible — it doesn’t teach what you’re asserting. It presents us as seeds awaiting harvest (Matthew 13:24–29, interpreted in vv. 37–38). We were not “travellers,” but God’s seed sown physically, later becoming conscious of our heritage. The context here is physical, not an appeal to some abstract “pilgrim” definition as if we came from some prior land. This is why I’ve told you before — we were kept in God’s storehouses, awaiting the time to be sown.
Wrong, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. There is nothing abstract about the Earth not being our origin.

Finally, I already stated that man was formed in Genesis 2 after his creation in Genesis 1. Your attempt to twist this is almost comedic. Genesis 1 plainly shows man as the last-born of God’s creation; Genesis 2 confirms that plants were not yet in existence because man had not been created to till the ground. When you read both through the lens of Job 38, it’s laughable to claim it was man shouting for joy in heaven. Let alone you can't even remember such an event.

Wrong again. Genesis only talks about the physical creation of our bodies. It never talks about how or when our spirits came into existence. We read other passages to learn that
Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) – “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. I was chosen before the foundations of the earth. Y/ou dont choose what doent exist.
1 Peter 2:11 “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts…”
Again shows we are temporary residents here.

Gabrielshow24:
Even atheists understand sonship by adoption, brother tctrills—what’s your excuse? 👀

You are proving that you and atheists. I see.

tctrills:
You are proving that you and atheists. I see.

Eleyi lo far? Nibo lati ja si bayi? 🤕🤷
How I take become atheist? I only made a simple observation! So, what’s your excuse for not understanding sonship by adoption in all your arguments? 😂 You’re clearly turning a blind eye 🤕 just to push your own doctrine 🤨.

Now, “offspring” in the sense that we originate from God — unless you want to absurdly suggest that God slept with your mother to father you? You know that’s ridiculous. This intellectual dishonesty — switching between literal and metaphorical without any care for context — is exactly the problem. Offspring can mean both literal and metaphorical. Only Jesus and Adam can claim a literal physical origination from God; the rest of us are metaphorical sons of God by adoption. Yes, you could argue our spirits come from God, but our substance is flesh and blood. That fits “offspring by origination.” It’s interpretations like yours — blurring literal and metaphorical at will — that breed confusion and heresy.
You agree that our spirits come from him, and He is literally the Father of our spirits. And our spirits were with Him before our life on earth? Then you already agree 90% with me. If all these are true, then why do you feel our spirits are not the morning stars that shouted for Joy? Or don't you agree that our spirits came from Him and He is literally the Father of our spirits?

I haven’t destroyed my stance because no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and insert “man” into that category, you’ll fail miserably. Your last refuge is categorical classification — suggesting it could be elders — which is pointless because it still fits heavenly beings, and scripture groups such beings under the general term malaikim. Case closed. Argue with your own Bible.

So now you agree that Job could be talking about the Elders and not the angels, right? You never had an argument in the first place.

The apostles didn’t “give up” anything — they embraced Christ as Messiah and correctly interpreted that He was the man Jesus, while others rejected Him. They understood the eternal kingdom of God was not of this world, whereas the Jews wanted a political one. Jesus Himself said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law. We are under the law of grace, not the Old Testament’s ceremonial code — but the apostles (Jews themselves) understood the context far better than you, and you won’t out-interpret them. Case closed. Argue with history and your Bible.

The apostles understood the Old Testament better than the Jews.

You’ve dodged several of my questions, along with multiple verses that dismantle your premise. You’ll happily use inference to defend the Trinity when it’s not explicitly stated, but suddenly demand exact wording when it comes to “sons of God” being angelic beings. Convenient, isn’t it?

Please, I am not asking for the exact word. Give me synonyms. Show from the bible, the Morning Star or Son of God means angel. Point to one angel that was called a Son of God. Please, I don't need exact words. Just show where it was indicated that it was the angel's Job spoke about and not the spirit of man or the elders or cherubim.
An angel in Revelation appeared with a brightness that dwarfed the sun, yet you claim such an angel cannot be a “morning star.” Basic science tells you that only greater stars outshine the sun. “Morning star” is an expression describing the intense brightness of angels — you don’t need an explicit verse to grasp the metaphor. Angels are already called stars, so adding “morning” or “evening” is simply a descriptive flourish. The point is obvious. If you still can’t see it, that’s your willful blindness, not a lack of evidence.
Your point is that because He was brighter than the sun, He is the morning star. And now, you don't care if morning is removed because that doesn't go well with your opinion. Star will just do for you.
I dey see you

Gabrielshow24:
Even atheists understand sonship by adoption, brother tctrills—what’s your excuse? 👀

Your question should have been, "why say religion is a scam using the passage ..."

I read that passage to prove that they are all philosophical ideas of humans using same species in different conflicting characters.

To what end?

Modify strategies to prey on poorer people/nations or weaker entities through military might, propagating fake sciences/superstitious beliefs, Doctrines etc



It has worked till date

Gabrielshow24:
Eleyi lo far? Nibo lati ja si bayi? 🤕🤷
How I take become atheist? I only made a simple observation! So, what’s your excuse for not understanding sonship by adoption in all your arguments? 😂 You’re clearly turning a blind eye 🤕 just to push your own doctrine 🤨.

Haba you distracted by quoting an atheist who had the same understanding as you.

tctrills:
Quote me, alright.
Wrong! Scripture directly implies this principle for Adam, and the same for Jesus. Things beget after their own kind; hence Adam and Jesus, both directly originated from God, were called “sons of God.” The sons of Seth applied the same simple reasoning: “God made our grandfather Adam, therefore God indirectly made us.” This emphasizes origination, not nature.

Again you speak your own words.
Other passages show sonship being imputed through action (faith, obedience). That’s the Bible’s standpoint, not mine. Angels also have direct origination from God — He formed them just as He formed Adam. They have no source apart from Him. You and I, however, have physical origination from our earthly fathers. Our sonship to God is through adoption. Simple.

The House of Israel was His sons, even when they sin.
Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

I don’t set the rules — context determines interpretation. I have no direct progeny from God, even if God made my spirit. Before my earthly life, I had no conscious will or recollection of any praiseful event. My physical origination comes from my father. I have no other conscious life to look back on. That alone destroys your claim — one must be conscious to praise. Jesus remembered His pre-earthly existence with God; He didn’t dismiss it with, “Well, I can’t remember what I ate last month.” Your argument collapses under that weight — because you’re arguing for a pre-conscious life you’ve never been aware of, let alone one where you were a “morning star.
Your point is that you don't remember never happened.


Lucifer is a morning star, then he must be the same as Jesus.” Do you see the absurdity? That’s the kind of flawed equivalence your reasoning produces.
No question about Lucifer except that the bible did not call him an angel. You did. Is Jesus also an angel?

I’ve read the Bible — it doesn’t teach what you’re asserting. It presents us as seeds awaiting harvest (Matthew 13:24–29, interpreted in vv. 37–38). We were not “travellers,” but God’s seed sown physically, later becoming conscious of our heritage. The context here is physical, not an appeal to some abstract “pilgrim” definition as if we came from some prior land. This is why I’ve told you before — we were kept in God’s storehouses, awaiting the time to be sown.
Wrong, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. There is nothing abstract about the Earth not being our origin.

Finally, I already stated that man was formed in Genesis 2 after his creation in Genesis 1. Your attempt to twist this is almost comedic. Genesis 1 plainly shows man as the last-born of God’s creation; Genesis 2 confirms that plants were not yet in existence because man had not been created to till the ground. When you read both through the lens of Job 38, it’s laughable to claim it was man shouting for joy in heaven. Let alone you can't even remember such an event.

Wrong again. Genesis only talks about the physical creation of our bodies. It never talks about how or when our spirits came into existence. We read other passages to learn that
Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) – “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. I was chosen before the foundations of the earth. Y/ou dont choose what doent exist.
1 Peter 2:11 “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts…”
Again shows we are temporary residents here.

If I’m speaking my own words, then disprove me from Scripture — not from your imagination.

Now, how does that relate to angels? That’s a tangent and doesn’t address the sonship of angels, nor does it deny it. 🤷

Wrong. The mass forgetfulness — where no one remembered such an event except Jesus — dismantles your doctrine. We didn’t have conscious life before our physical existence.

Wrong again. Genesis 1 speaks of spiritual creation. In Genesis 2, it’s explicitly stated that there was no plant yet — despite plants already being “created” in Genesis 1 —because man had not yet been formed to till the ground. If you insist Genesis 1 is purely physical creation, you’ve just refuted yourself.

You’re committing categorical errors. Just because the relational term “morning star” is applied to both doesn’t mean they’re ontologically identical. That’s the same blunder the JWs made when they claimed Jesus was an angel. The same reasoning you’re using here already answers your question.

“Pilgrims” and “strangers” can simply mean we’re not of this world in conduct, not that we’re extraterrestrial wanderers. 😂 The early church understood this to mean moral and spiritual separation from the world, not some pre-earthly existence. 🤦🏾‍♂️

Also, your line “you can’t choose what doesn’t exist” is wrong. You can envision or foreknow something before it exists. That verse highlights God’s foreknowledge, not our pre-existence. Reading other passages into it doesn’t suddenly make us cosmic nomads — it shows we were intentionally sown into the earth by God’s will, not that we travelled here like migrants.

The only valid sense in which this works is that we have our origin in God — which Scripture plainly states of everything: “For all things were made by Him.” That means everything has its origin in God directly or indirectly. This doesn’t help your case at all — by your logic, hail and snow are also “pilgrims,” since they too “pre-exist” in God’s storehouses. 😂 What exactly is your point?🤨

And that’s why, folks, we read in context — to avoid inventing entire doctrines from mere inferences, as we see happening here. 🤦🏾‍♂️

Grown adults claiming to have gone through 6334 system of education can't understand simple story book....quite shameful


Math 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Get behind me Satan(the person of Peter)

why?
Because he(Peter) is a stumbling block

and?
He does not have in mind the concerns of God(He, Jesus)

What does it infer?
If you have in mind the concerns of me (Jesus/God) you will be addressed as god (see references...ye are gods)

and not as satan

It's all about interest ...

Acts 5:38&39

38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God , you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

1Thes 2:18
We wanted to come to you , I and Paul, but Satan stopped us

Math 16:23

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

judewrites:
Thanks for your contribution.

But the sons of God in Genesis 6 refers to the watchers, a group of angels sent to observe mankind as at that time.

They choose to rebel against God by mixing with women, thus producing giants that were blood thirsty.

However, to this hour, a lot of demonic spirits still have sex with humans and produce Nephilim in the spiritual realm.

These Nephilim sometimes manifest physically as human beings, but there are not normal beings.

A lot of people today are Nephilim in disguise, but wearing human flesh!

True

tctrills:
Now, “offspring” in the sense that we originate from God — unless you want to absurdly suggest that God slept with your mother to father you? You know that’s ridiculous. This intellectual dishonesty — switching between literal and metaphorical without any care for context — is exactly the problem. Offspring can mean both literal and metaphorical. Only Jesus and Adam can claim a literal physical origination from God; the rest of us are metaphorical sons of God by adoption. Yes, you could argue our spirits come from God, but our substance is flesh and blood. That fits “offspring by origination.” It’s interpretations like yours — blurring literal and metaphorical at will — that breed confusion and heresy.
You agree that our spirits come from him, and He is literally the Father of our spirits. And our spirits were with Him before our life on earth? Then you already agree 90% with me. If all these are true, then why do you feel our spirits are not the morning stars that shouted for Joy? Or don't you agree that our spirits came from Him and He is literally the Father of our spirits?

I haven’t destroyed my stance because no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and insert “man” into that category, you’ll fail miserably. Your last refuge is categorical classification — suggesting it could be elders — which is pointless because it still fits heavenly beings, and scripture groups such beings under the general term malaikim. Case closed. Argue with your own Bible.

So now you agree that Job could be talking about the Elders and not the angels, right? You never had an argument in the first place.

The apostles didn’t “give up” anything — they embraced Christ as Messiah and correctly interpreted that He was the man Jesus, while others rejected Him. They understood the eternal kingdom of God was not of this world, whereas the Jews wanted a political one. Jesus Himself said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law. We are under the law of grace, not the Old Testament’s ceremonial code — but the apostles (Jews themselves) understood the context far better than you, and you won’t out-interpret them. Case closed. Argue with history and your Bible.

The apostles understood the Old Testament better than the Jews.

You’ve dodged several of my questions, along with multiple verses that dismantle your premise. You’ll happily use inference to defend the Trinity when it’s not explicitly stated, but suddenly demand exact wording when it comes to “sons of God” being angelic beings. Convenient, isn’t it?

Please, I am not asking for the exact word. Give me synonyms. Show from the bible, the Morning Star or Son of God means angel. Point to one angel that was called a Son of God. Please, I don't need exact words. Just show where it was indicated that it was the angel's Job spoke about and not the spirit of man or the elders or cherubim.
An angel in Revelation appeared with a brightness that dwarfed the sun, yet you claim such an angel cannot be a “morning star.” Basic science tells you that only greater stars outshine the sun. “Morning star” is an expression describing the intense brightness of angels — you don’t need an explicit verse to grasp the metaphor. Angels are already called stars, so adding “morning” or “evening” is simply a descriptive flourish. The point is obvious. If you still can’t see it, that’s your willful blindness, not a lack of evidence.
Your point is that because He was brighter than the sun, He is the morning star. And now, you don't care if morning is removed because that doesn't go well with your opinion. Star will just do for you.
I dey see you

Have I not told you to quote me? If you can’t quote, I won’t respond — simple.

First, you still haven’t defined angels because you know full well that whatever boundary you set will backfire on you. You’re dodging because the moment you commit to a definition, it will collapse under the weight of your own argument. 😂

Second, I have already stated plainly: we have our origin in God — the same way all things do — but that does not mean all things fit the Job 38 scenario. Snow, hail, animals, and mountains also originate from God; are you going to say they were all standing there shouting at creation too? That’s the absurdity of your “origin = presence” reasoning.

Your entire premise is just speculation — and not even a logical one. The Bible is explicit: no human existed before the foundation of the world. You’re trying to smuggle in a doctrine by inference, but the text you claim to stand on doesn’t actually say what you’re making it say. That’s why your whole case is hanging by thin air.

Elders or no elders, malʾākim is a general term for heavenly messengers, which we translate as “angels.” You’re trying to make distinctions where Scripture itself often uses broad categories.

And when it comes to Jesus, you’re mixing categories entirely. You’re treating synonyms and poetic titles as if they demand identical ontology. The base word “star” being applied to both doesn’t mean they’re the same kind of being. By your logic, if Jesus is called the Lion of Judah, He must be a literal cat. Your statements dey muzz me, honestly. 😂

At the end of the day, you’re not proving from Scripture — you’re building a dogma and then forcing the text to bow.

Now, how does that relate to angels? That’s a tangent and doesn’t address the sonship of angels, nor does it deny it.

So you are not sure of the sonship of angels. Your entire doctrine is guesswork.

Wrong. The mass forgetfulness — where no one remembered such an event except Jesus — dismantles your doctrine. We didn’t have conscious life before our physical existence.
If no one can remember the day of their birth that shows you have no point. Now you want to remember an event that happened thousands of years ago, how dishonest.

Wrong again. Genesis 1 speaks of spiritual creation. In Genesis 2, it’s explicitly stated that there was no plant yet — despite plants already being “created” in Genesis 1 —because man had not yet been formed to till the ground. If you insist Genesis 1 is purely physical creation, you’ve just refuted yourself
You are complecating your self with these funny opinion.. So according to you, the physical creation took place in chapter one and the spiritual in chapter 2. Funny.

You’re committing categorical errors. Just because the relational term “morning star” is applied to both doesn’t mean they’re ontologically identical. That’s the same blunder the JWs made when they claimed Jesus was an angel. The same reasoning you’re using here already answers your question.
Explain I don't get your point

“Pilgrims” and “strangers” can simply mean we’re not of this world in conduct, not that we’re extraterrestrial wanderers. 😂 The early church understood this to mean moral and spiritual separation from the world, not some pre-earthly existence.
It can't mean that. It means you don't come from here. Stop forcing it even when it is not making sense.

Also, your line “you can’t choose what doesn’t exist” is wrong. You can envision or foreknow something before it exists. That verse highlights God’s foreknowledge, not our pre-existence. Reading other passages into it doesn’t suddenly make us cosmic nomads — it shows we were intentionally sown into the earth by God’s will, not that we travelled here like migrants.
We were choosen that alone tells that you existed.

The only valid sense in which this works is that we have our origin in God — which Scripture plainly states of everything: “For all things were made by Him.” That means everything has its origin in God directly or indirectly. This doesn’t help your case at all — by your logic, hail and snow are also “pilgrims,” since they too “pre-exist” in God’s storehouses. 😂 What exactly is your point?🤨
Childish, the bible did not say snow is a pilgrim. So it's not my logic, it's the word of God. Being a pilgrim doesn't mean to pre exist. It means to come from somewhere else

tctrills:
Haba you distracted by quoting an atheist who had the same understanding as you.

This is utterly ridiculous. 😂 So by your reasoning, the apostles — along with Jesus Himself — must have had the mind of an atheist, because they preached adoption into God’s family rather than whatever wild doctrine you’ve cooked up. 👀 I’ll gladly follow Jesus’ words over your misplaced eisegesis. 😵‍💫

If what you’re saying were true, then Christ’s death was pointless, because we’d already be sons of God from the start. 😮‍💨 That’s not just error — that’s an antichrist doctrine. 😂 Get thee behind me, Satan!

Every apostle contradicts you, which is probably why you’ve stayed quiet on adoption. 🤨 It’s the most obvious wrecking ball to your theory. It’s high time you learned the difference between originating from God and sharing His nature.

Jesus, the Son of Man, planted us in the garden — but the enemy, Satan, planted weeds. We did not exist in conscious form before the foundation of the world. That’s the plain truth of Scripture.

Or have you crowned yourself as Jesus now? Do you think that because His righteousness is imputed to us, His pre-existence is too? 🤔 Wrong. The context doesn’t allow it, and it’s dangerous to force Scripture into such an outrageous shape.😁

tctrills:
Now, how does that relate to angels? That’s a tangent and doesn’t address the sonship of angels, nor does it deny it.

So you are not sure of the sonship of angels. Your entire doctrine is guesswork.

Wrong. The mass forgetfulness — where no one remembered such an event except Jesus — dismantles your doctrine. We didn’t have conscious life before our physical existence.
If no one can remember the day of their birth that shows you have no point. Now you want to remember an event that happened thousands of years ago, how dishonest.

Wrong again. Genesis 1 speaks of spiritual creation. In Genesis 2, it’s explicitly stated that there was no plant yet — despite plants already being “created” in Genesis 1 —because man had not yet been formed to till the ground. If you insist Genesis 1 is purely physical creation, you’ve just refuted yourself
You are complecating your self with these funny opinion.. So according to you, the physical creation took place in chapter one and the spiritual in chapter 2. Funny.

You’re committing categorical errors. Just because the relational term “morning star” is applied to both doesn’t mean they’re ontologically identical. That’s the same blunder the JWs made when they claimed Jesus was an angel. The same reasoning you’re using here already answers your question.
Explain I don't get your point

“Pilgrims” and “strangers” can simply mean we’re not of this world in conduct, not that we’re extraterrestrial wanderers. 😂 The early church understood this to mean moral and spiritual separation from the world, not some pre-earthly existence.
It can't mean that. It means you don't come from here. Stop forcing it even when it is not making sense.

Also, your line “you can’t choose what doesn’t exist” is wrong. You can envision or foreknow something before it exists. That verse highlights God’s foreknowledge, not our pre-existence. Reading other passages into it doesn’t suddenly make us cosmic nomads — it shows we were intentionally sown into the earth by God’s will, not that we travelled here like migrants.
We were choosen that alone tells that you existed.

The only valid sense in which this works is that we have our origin in God — which Scripture plainly states of everything: “For all things were made by Him.” That means everything has its origin in God directly or indirectly. This doesn’t help your case at all — by your logic, hail and snow are also “pilgrims,” since they too “pre-exist” in God’s storehouses. 😂 What exactly is your point?🤨
Childish, the bible did not say snow is a pilgrim. So it's not my logic, it's the word of God. Being a pilgrim doesn't mean to pre exist. It means to come from somewhere else

This is becoming downright comedic — I honestly wonder what day you were born. 😂 The mental gymnastics you’re pulling to force this doctrine into shape are hilarious. I had to indulge you; you’re firing arsenals that bl.. up in your own face. 🤦🏾‍♂️

Grasping at straws won’t save you. I made it clear — spiritual creation in Gen1. My entire doctrine isn’t guesswork; it’s straight from the gospel. The Scriptures plainly say ‘sons of God.’ You’re the one with the Herculean task of proving, against overwhelming evidence, that you were among those ‘shouting for joy.’ 😂😂😂

I have plenty of verses proving we’re not of this world — the world doesn’t receive us because we’re alien to it. 😂 Even Jesus said, ‘Be wise as serpents and meek as doves.’ 🧐 By your logic, I suppose we were doves before coming to Earth, and now we should act as serpents. Context, my dear — it’s your greatest weakness, and you know it.

🤣 Being chosen doesn’t mean we existed beforehand — that’s just sheepish thinking. It simply highlights God’s omniscience, nothing more, nothing less. I’m not repeating that point again.

And here’s the real kicker: in Job, snow and hail are described as being stored in God’s storehouses before ‘coming here.’ 👀 By your logic, they too are pilgrims — out of this world… literally. 🤣 See? When you throw context out the window, it comes back to bite you. I could list countless other things God is said to store that are obviously of the earth. By your definition, they’re all pre-existent ‘pilgrims’ too.

You’ve hung your whole argument on the word ‘pilgrim’ as if it proves pre-existence, so now you can’t wriggle out of it. I won’t even let you. 😁 This is getting interesting.🤤

This is utterly ridiculous. 😂 So by your reasoning, the apostles — along with Jesus Himself — must have had the mind of an atheist, because they preached adoption into God’s family rather than whatever wild doctrine you’ve cooked up. 👀 I’ll gladly follow Jesus’ words over your misplaced eisegesis.
Do you realize that it was to the unbelieving Greeks that Paul taught that they are the offspring of God? So literally we all are children of God. Now to become Sons of God through the faith means to be spiritually born of God. Born in the spirit or adoption as you stated. Not the other way round.
All men are offsprings of God. He is the Father of our spirits. But it is by faith that we become spiritually born of him.
Hope this makes it clear to you.

tctrills:
This is utterly ridiculous. 😂 So by your reasoning, the apostles — along with Jesus Himself — must have had the mind of an atheist, because they preached adoption into God’s family rather than whatever wild doctrine you’ve cooked up. 👀 I’ll gladly follow Jesus’ words over your misplaced eisegesis.
Do you realize that it was to the unbelieving Greeks that Paul taught that they are the offspring of God? So literally we all are children of God. Now to become Sons of God through the faith means to be spiritually born of God. Born in the spirit or adoption as you stated. Not the other way round.
All men are offsprings of God. He is the Father of our spirits. But it is by faith that we become spiritually born of him.
Hope this makes it clear to you.

🤣🤣🤣 literally? and yet you need another birth, a spiritual birth😂 for that matter... This is hilarious 😅.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The fact that you are born of spirit and not of flesh 👀but I guess you conflated spirit and flesh and swapped them around because you have issues with literal and metaphorical statements 😂.

God will be shh(shaking his head) in heaven 😂. Let me call some people to witness me(in the style of mad max 😂). Dtruthspeaker, SirTee, TenQ, Ken4Christ come and see this😂. It's become really interesting.

We are offspring in spirit but yet we need another spiritual birth 😂 and adoption even though we are already spirits. All your premises render the death of Jesus as useless because according to you we are sons of God already by nature! Which should warrant no need for any spiritual rebirth🤔.

First, you still haven’t defined angels because you know full well that whatever boundary you set will backfire on you. You’re dodging because the moment you commit to a definition, it will collapse under the weight of your own argument.
Oh that's what you think is your big point? Ok let's look for a definition in the bible.
Hebrews 1:14 – “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Not every being in heaven is sent to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation. Example is the cherubim in Eden. Or the elders at Gods presences
I wonder why you think this should be a hard one for me
Second, I have already stated plainly: we have our origin in God — the same way all things do — but that does not mean all things fit the Job 38 scenario. Snow, hail, animals, and mountains also originate from God; are you going to say they were all standing there shouting at creation too? That’s the absurdity of your “origin = presence” reasoning.
The bible never said all things are his offspring. Goats are not his offspring so we are not the same with all things. By your definition, angels also originate from God, the same with all things.

Your entire premise is just speculation — and not even a logical one. The Bible is explicit: no human existed before the foundation of the world. You’re trying to smuggle in a doctrine by inference, but the text you claim to stand on doesn’t actually say what you’re making it say. That’s why your whole case is hanging by thin air.
The bible is explicit, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth chosen before life on earth. You are finding it hard to believe the bible and are looking for new meanings for a straightforward phrase. How would you explain a pilgrim to your son. But because you are not comfortable with the verse, you need to invent new meanings that completely change the concept of strangers and pilgrims on earth.

Elders or no elders, malʾākim is a general term for heavenly messengers, which we translate as “angels.” You’re trying to make distinctions where Scripture itself often uses broad categories.
I gave you the scriptural meaning of angels. Do you have any scripture to even show that the elders are messengers? Angels by the bible definition are not just any messagers They are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? So stop your spiritual gymnastics.


And when it comes to Jesus, you’re mixing categories entirely. You’re treating synonyms and poetic titles as if they demand identical ontology. The base word “star” being applied to both doesn’t mean they’re the same kind of being. By your logic, if Jesus is called the Lion of Judah, He must be a literal cat. Your statements dey muzz me, honestly.
You are confused here. By your definition, Jesus is called the mighty God. I believe you think it is figurative.

At the end of the day, you’re not proving from Scripture — you’re building a dogma and then forcing the text to bow.
You are actually creating your own sets of believe contrary to God's words.

[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=136460420]🤣🤣🤣 literally? and yet you need another birth, a spiritual birth😂 for that matter... This is hilarious 😅.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The fact that you are born of spirit and not of flesh 👀but I guess you conflated spirit and flesh and swapped them around because you have issues with literal and metaphorical statements 😂.

God will be shh(shaking his head) in heaven 😂. Let me call some people to witness me(in the style of mad max 😂). Dtruthspeaker, SirTee, TenQ, Ken4Christ come and see this😂. It's become really interesting.

We are offspring in spirit but yet we need another spiritual birth 😂 and adoption even though we are already spirits. All your premises render the death of Jesus as useless because according to you we are sons of God already by nature! Which should warrant no need for any spiritual rebirth

It is not my words it is God's words you find hilarious. He was the one that taught us to be spiritually born. Read first John.
The spiritual birth comes last. God is the Father of our spirits nit according to the bible, that is not the same as being spiritually born of God. So in literally sense, He is our heavenly Father.
Please contend with his words. I did not write the bible.
Acts 17:28–29 – Paul in Athens

“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.
Malachi 2:10
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Hebrews 12:9 – Father of spirits
“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
God is literally the Father of our spirits. We are literally his offspring.

Ephesians 4:6 – One God and Father of all

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
God is not our figurative Father. He is literally the Father of our spirits.
Being His sons has 2 meanings,
1. He is literally the Father of our spirits and 2. We figuratively are born again or born of God. Not the other way round.

tctrills:
First, you still haven’t defined angels because you know full well that whatever boundary you set will backfire on you. You’re dodging because the moment you commit to a definition, it will collapse under the weight of your own argument.
Oh that's what you think is your big point? Ok let's look for a definition in the bible.
Hebrews 1:14 – “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Not every being in heaven is sent to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation. Example is the cherubim in Eden. Or the elders at Gods presences
I wonder why you think this should be a hard one for me
Second, I have already stated plainly: we have our origin in God — the same way all things do — but that does not mean all things fit the Job 38 scenario. Snow, hail, animals, and mountains also originate from God; are you going to say they were all standing there shouting at creation too? That’s the absurdity of your “origin = presence” reasoning.
The bible never said all things are his offspring. Goats are not his offspring so we are not the same with all things. By your definition, angels also originate from God, the same with all things.

Your entire premise is just speculation — and not even a logical one. The Bible is explicit: no human existed before the foundation of the world. You’re trying to smuggle in a doctrine by inference, but the text you claim to stand on doesn’t actually say what you’re making it say. That’s why your whole case is hanging by thin air.
The bible is explicit, we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth chosen before life on earth. You are finding it hard to believe the bible and are looking for new meanings for a straightforward phrase. How would you explain a pilgrim to your son. But because you are not comfortable with the verse, you need to invent new meanings that completely change the concept of strangers and pilgrims on earth.

Elders or no elders, malʾākim is a general term for heavenly messengers, which we translate as “angels.” You’re trying to make distinctions where Scripture itself often uses broad categories.
I gave you the scriptural meaning of angels. Do you have any scripture to even show that the elders are messengers? Angels by the bible definition are not just any messagers They are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? So stop your spiritual gymnastics.


And when it comes to Jesus, you’re mixing categories entirely. You’re treating synonyms and poetic titles as if they demand identical ontology. The base word “star” being applied to both doesn’t mean they’re the same kind of being. By your logic, if Jesus is called the Lion of Judah, He must be a literal cat. Your statements dey muzz me, honestly.
You are confused here. By your definition, Jesus is called the mighty God. I believe you think it is figurative.

At the end of the day, you’re not proving from Scripture — you’re building a dogma and then forcing the text to bow.
You are actually creating your own sets of believe contrary to God's words.

In the spirit of Madara Uchiha—wake up to reality—scriptural reality, that is 😂. There’s simply not enough data for you to conclude whether or not elders have visited men. You can speculate, sure—I could even say that two of the three men Abraham saw were elders 😂. Anything “fits” when there’s little scriptural backing. Your definition is fine for a relational sense, but it fails ontologically. By that standard, any heavenly being God sends on an errand is technically an angel—unless you want to limit God’s power by claiming He can’t send elders. If He sent His own Son, then trust me, none of them are “off-limits.” That’s primary school reasoning 👀.

All things originated from God. By the metaphoric definition of “offspring,” all things are theoretically His offspring. Two can play that game 😂. The burden is now on you to dismiss this claim—good luck, because I have multiple verses clearly asserting that all things came from God 🤔👀. You’ll have to do better than this if you want to convince me with your “logic.”

The Bible is plain—we didn’t exist before the earth shouting for joy. That’s settled.

And yes, I already answered this. It’s the same problem that gave our brother Janosky a headache until he started defining “spirits of trees” as angels. You seem to be following his path 😁. Angels are simply messengers, by your definition, every heavenly being would qualify—unless, again, you want to limit God’s authority to send them. After all, when God posed the question about opening the seal, all of them were present, yet none were worthy or able to come to earth 🤔. By your reasoning, that makes every single one of them messengers. Argue with your Bible.

And yes, I brought that up to highlight your gross intellectual dishonesty. The context demands it. Now you’re grasping at an unrelated analogy. FYI—Jesus was not a 🐈. “Lion of Judah” is symbolic and widely understood, the same way “Mighty God” is understood. I’ll leave that as homework for you, since you clearly need practice in distinguishing between literal and symbolic interpretation.

tctrills:
[quote author=Gabrielshow24 post=136460420]🤣🤣🤣 literally? and yet you need another birth, a spiritual birth😂 for that matter... This is hilarious 😅.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The fact that you are born of spirit and not of flesh 👀but I guess you conflated spirit and flesh and swapped them around because you have issues with literal and metaphorical statements 😂.

God will be shh(shaking his head) in heaven 😂. Let me call some people to witness me(in the style of mad max 😂). Dtruthspeaker, SirTee, TenQ, Ken4Christ come and see this😂. It's become really interesting.

We are offspring in spirit but yet we need another spiritual birth 😂 and adoption even though we are already spirits. All your premises render the death of Jesus as useless because according to you we are sons of God already by nature! Which should warrant no need for any spiritual rebirth

It is not my words it is God's words you find hilarious. He was the one that taught us to be spiritually born. Read first John.
The spiritual birth comes last. God is the Father of our spirits nit according to the bible, that is not the same as being spiritually born of God. So in literally sense, He is our heavenly Father.
Please contend with his words. I did not write the bible.
Acts 17:28–29 – Paul in Athens

“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.
Malachi 2:10
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Hebrews 12:9 – Father of spirits
“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
God is literally the Father of our spirits. We are literally his offspring.

Ephesians 4:6 – One God and Father of all

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
God is not our figurative Father. He is literally the Father of our spirits.
Being His sons has 2 meanings,
1. He is literally the Father of our spirits and 2. We figuratively are born again or born of God. Not the other way round.

My dear😂, I have answered this earlier. Fatherhood has context. The entire verses you brought forth all buttresses "origination" from God! In the "literal sense", God birthed us because we have our origination in God likewise in the literal sense, you were birthed by your Father.😂

Let me now post all the verses that strongly assert adoption through Christ😁. This way you will see beyond reasonable doubt where your literal sense has failed you. 😂

Direct Mentions of “Adoption” (Huiothesia)

*Romans 8:15 –

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

*Romans 8:23 –

Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Romans 9:4 – (speaks of Israel historically, but shows adoption is a covenant privilege)…who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.

*Galatians 4:4–5 –

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

*Ephesians 1:5 –

Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

These do not always use the word huiothesia, but describe the same reality — becoming God’s children/heirs through Christ.

*John 1:12–13 –

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

*Romans 8:16–17 –

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ…

*1 John 3:1–2 –

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! … Beloved, now we are children of God…

*Galatians 3:26 –

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

*2 Corinthians 6:18 –

I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.

*Hebrews 2:10–11 –

For it was fitting for Him… in bringing many sons to glory… For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.

*Philippians 3:20–21 – (citizenship in heaven and transformation as God’s own)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior… who will transform our lowly body…

*Matthew 5:9 – (Beatitudes – called sons of God)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

*1 Peter 2:9–10 – (from not being God’s people to being His)

…who once were not a people but are now the people of God…

*Hosea 1:10 –

…it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’

*Isaiah 43:6–7 –

Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth…

I don't know whether or not this verses are missing from your own bible but they are not missing from mine!

Gabrielshow24:
In the spirit of Madara Uchiha—wake up to reality—scriptural reality, that is 😂. There’s simply not enough data for you to conclude whether or not elders have visited men. You can speculate, sure—I could even say that two of the three men Abraham saw were elders 😂. Anything “fits” when there’s little scriptural backing. Your definition is fine for a relational sense, but it fails ontologically. By that standard, any heavenly being God sends on an errand is technically an angel—unless you want to limit God’s power by claiming He can’t send elders. If He sent His own Son, then trust me, none of them are “off-limits.” That’s primary school reasoning 👀.

All things originated from God. By the metaphoric definition of “offspring,” all things are theoretically His offspring. Two can play that game 😂. The burden is now on you to dismiss this claim—good luck, because I have multiple verses clearly asserting that all things came from God 🤔👀. You’ll have to do better than this if you want to convince me with your “logic.”

The Bible is plain—we didn’t exist before the earth shouting for joy. That’s settled.

And yes, I already answered this. It’s the same problem that gave our brother Janosky a headache until he started defining “spirits of trees” as angels. You seem to be following his path 😁. Angels are simply messengers, by your definition, every heavenly being would qualify—unless, again, you want to limit God’s authority to send them. After all, when God posed the question about opening the seal, all of them were present, yet none were worthy or able to come to earth 🤔. By your reasoning, that makes every single one of them messengers. Argue with your Bible.

And yes, I brought that up to highlight your gross intellectual dishonesty. The context demands it. Now you’re grasping at an unrelated analogy. FYI—Jesus was not a 🐈. “Lion of Judah” is symbolic and widely understood, the same way “Mighty God” is understood. I’ll leave that as homework for you, since you clearly need practice in distinguishing between literal and symbolic interpretation.

Now you are grabbing straws. I understand you felt felt that the definition of angels was some big deal. When you say that there is not enough data to know if the elders are angels, you are only saying that you don't have enough data to tell what an angel is and what they are not. Let me ask you, do you agree with the definition in the bible? Now by your admiton, you don't know if elders are angels or not, you don't know if cherubim are angels or not. You don't know much about the topic you choose to debate on.
That's why I taught you to stick to the bible and not confuse yourself with fables.
Now you call being God's offspring a game. The bible says all men not all things. Stick to your bible and you will not get confused.
The bible is plain we had a relationship with God before our lives on earth
Angels are not simply messengers , I gave you the complete definition. All you believe falls apart at the complete definition. And not everyone qualifies unless you leave out some parts of the definition. The parts that gives you running stomach .
Lastly, just because you have a twisted knowledge of what is literally and figuratively doesn't make you right. I gave you the example of Jesus Christ being the mighty God to teach you that not everything is figurative. And just because it doesn't support your argument doesn't make it figurative. By your game, all things would end up being figurative when we don't like them

Gabrielshow24:
My dear😂, I have answered this earlier. Fatherhood has context. The entire verses you brought forth all buttresses "origination" from God! In the "literal sense", God birthed us because we have our origination in God likewise in the literal sense, you were birthed by your Father.😂

Let me now post all the verses that strongly assert adoption through Christ😁. This way you will see beyond reasonable doubt where your literal sense has failed you. 😂

Direct Mentions of “Adoption” (Huiothesia)

*Romans 8:15 –

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

*Romans 8:23 –

Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Romans 9:4 – (speaks of Israel historically, but shows adoption is a covenant privilege)…who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises.

*Galatians 4:4–5 –

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

*Ephesians 1:5 –

Having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.

These do not always use the word huiothesia, but describe the same reality — becoming God’s children/heirs through Christ.

*John 1:12–13 –

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

*Romans 8:16–17 –

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ…

*1 John 3:1–2 –

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! … Beloved, now we are children of God…

*Galatians 3:26 –

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

*2 Corinthians 6:18 –

I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.

*Hebrews 2:10–11 –

For it was fitting for Him… in bringing many sons to glory… For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren.

*Philippians 3:20–21 – (citizenship in heaven and transformation as God’s own)

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior… who will transform our lowly body…

*Matthew 5:9 – (Beatitudes – called sons of God)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

*1 Peter 2:9–10 – (from not being God’s people to being His)

…who once were not a people but are now the people of God…

*Hosea 1:10 –

…it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’

*Isaiah 43:6–7 –

Bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth…

I don't know whether or not this verses are missing from your own bible but they are not missing from mine!

You are 100% correct and I already stated it. Being born again or being adopted is figurative. We are literally the Sons of God.
Now let me ask you, where the House of Israel also adopted?
Good you stated that the verses I quoted show our literally sonship to God. Now let me ask, is the verse in Job talking about literal son's or adopted sons?

tctrills:
Now you are grabbing straws. I understand you felt felt that the definition of angels was some big deal. When you say that there is not enough data to know if the elders are angels, you are only saying that you don't have enough data to tell what an angel is and what they are not. Let me ask you, do you agree with the definition in the bible? Now by your admiton, you don't know if elders are angels or not, you don't know if cherubim are angels or not. You don't know much about the topic you choose to debate on.
That's why I taught you to stick to the bible and not confuse yourself with fables.
Now you call being God's offspring a game. The bible says all men not all things. Stick to your bible and you will not get confused.
The bible is plain we had a relationship with God before our lives on earth
Angels are not simply messengers , I gave you the complete definition. All you believe falls apart at the complete definition. And not everyone qualifies unless you leave out some parts of the definition. The parts that gives you running stomach .
Lastly, just because you have a twisted knowledge of what is literally and figuratively doesn't make you right. I gave you the example of Jesus Christ being the mighty God to teach you that not everything is figurative. And just because it doesn't support your argument doesn't make it figurative. By your game, all things would end up being figurative when we don't like them

Nope, I am not the one grabbing straws. You are! There's no data that suggest elders visiting man but there's data in excess of angels visiting man because angels are the general term for heavenly beings. Now, it's you that has to disprove the existential fact that if God could send his Son then he can send any being, including the Elders and Cherubs you so vainly cling unto.

The only way you can bypass this limitation is to limit God himself by asserting that God cannot send his Elders nor the Cherubs on errand😂. I wonder whether or not it was God actually leading the cherubs based on Ezekiel? 🤔 because according to tctrills, God is so impotent that he can't send his elders and cherubs on errands because he believes that since there is no mention then God can't do that. 😁

Your logic is baffling. I used that example from the court room of heaven in revelation. The question was posed to them all, the elders included along with your cherubs (four living creatures) but not one was able to come to earth because none of them met the criteria. Invariably God was sending the recipient an errand to save man— an assignment none of them could take as it is exemplified in scripture!

Once more, you are grasping at complete illogical straws! I will also not allow you renege on your biblical definition of "ministering spirits" —messengers. You have defined it and we are sticking with it😁.

I didn't twist any knowledge, you are the one finding it hard to grasp the difference between literal and metaphorical. That's your conundrum not mine!

tctrills:
You are 100% correct and I already stated it. Being born again or being adopted is figurative. We are literally the Sons of God.
Now let me ask you, where the House of Israel also adopted?
Good you stated that the verses I quoted show our literally sonship to God. Now let me ask, is the verse in Job talking about literal son's or adopted sons?

Read the verses above😂, your answer is there. Indeed, there's no need for Christ since we are all literal sons of God! Once again, Get thee behind me, Satan!

Your doctrine is an antiChrist's doctrine. While yet our spirits originated from God, we are of a physical nature and hence not sons of God in the literal sense!

I bet, by your literal definition—plants too are offspring of God. Also, in the literal sense, dinosaurs are offspring of God because obviously they originated from God. The eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God😂.🤔Thinking now, I also assert that pre-eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God—They have their origination in God.

Your mal-use of "literally" is baffling! May God help you literally see your errors 😂!

[b]Nope, I am not the one grabbing straws. You are! There's no data that suggest elders visiting man but there's data in excess of angels visiting man because angels are the general term for heavenly beings. Now, it's you that has to disprove the existential fact that if God could send his Son then he can send any being, including the Elders and Cherubs you so vainly cling unto.

The only way you can bypass this limitation is to limit God himself by asserting that God cannot send his Elders nor the Cherubs on errand😂. I wonder whether or not it was God actually leading the cherubs based on Ezekiel? 🤔 because according to tctrills, God is so impotent that he can't send his elders and cherubs on errands because he believes that since there is no mention then God can't do that. 😁

Your logic is baffling. I used that example from the court room of heaven in revelation. The question was posed to them all, the elders included along with your cherubs (four living creatures) but not one was able to come to earth because none of them met the criteria. Invariably God was sending the recipient an errand to save man— an assignment none of them could take as it is exemplified in scripture!

Once more, you are grasping at complete illogical straws! I will also not allow you renege on your biblical definition of "ministering spirits" —messengers. You have defined it and we are sticking with it😁.

I didn't twist any knowledge, you are the one finding it hard to grasp the difference between literal and metaphorical. That's your conundrum not mine! [/b]

Let me get your point, you have zero data on elders but you must force out a narrative. ? Why can't you just say I don't know and we move on. Now you are inventing something new that angel is the generic name for everything in heaven. I wouldn't even ask you to show in scripture because you will start bringing up nothingness. Again by definition, cherubim are not angels.
Your next attempt at logic is super disappointing. There is order in the house of God. He has more than enough angels suited to do his task. Just because you need him to send you elders to win an argument wouldn't make him do it. Just because He can doesn't mean He should or He would. Do you get it?
A half truth, half definition could be more dangerous that a complete lie. Try to give a complete definition according to the bible, not my words and your entire argument is over.

Gabrielshow24:
Read the verses above😂, your answer is there. Indeed, there's no need for Christ since we are all literal sons of God! Once again, Get thee behind me, Satan!

Your doctrine is an antiChrist's doctrine. While yet our spirits originated from God, we are of a physical nature and hence not sons of God in the literal sense!

I bet, by your literal definition—plants too are offspring of God. Also, in the literal sense, dinosaurs are offspring of God because obviously they originated from God. The eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God😂.🤔Thinking now, I also assert that pre-eukaryotic cells are literally sons of God—They have their origination in God.

Your mal-use of "literally" is baffling! May God help you literally see your errors 😂!

Lol
Christ came to save the Sons of God and reconcile them to their Father. Oga you are try so hard but the bible is constant. God is the Father of all men.
Solomon was a Son of God, did he not Fall? How about Lucifer.
Just because one is a son of God doesn't mean He can't fall. Stop being dramatic. Make your point without the drama.
As for offspring, the bible only speaks about man, not plants, goats, or angels. When you choose to go beyond what has been revealed to you, you begin to include plants and angels