Re: "It's Superstitious"

by Superjuice Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:58 am

Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
Demons and fallen angels are two different beings.

If you have some scripture that might attempt to flesh this idea out...feel free to post them and I will look at them.

In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.

Truth the Prince of Persia is not looking for a body to possess.

by Candlemass Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:40 am

Huh?

by Guest Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:55 pm

Superjuice wrote:
Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
Demons and fallen angels are two different beings.

If you have some scripture that might attempt to flesh this idea out...feel free to post them and I will look at them.

In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.
Truth the Prince of Persia is not looking for a body to possess.

Not quite sure what you mean here...

...but ok (?)

by d@v!d Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:33 am

Mortal wrote:
Superjuice wrote:Truth the Prince of Persia is not looking for a body to possess.

Not quite sure what you mean here...

...but ok (?)

Daniel 10:13

by Candlemass Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:59 pm

So, is there a point to be made w/this prince?

by Guest Tue Jan 06, 2015 3:51 pm

I know about the "prince of Persia", but I'm not quite sure about the "body to possess" point that was made.

If I understand correctly, I think it is saying that this "prince of Persia" is not waiting to find a human being to climb inside of and wear their flesh body like a costume puppet.

by d@v!d Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:11 pm

The Prince of Persia is analogous to satan or a demon. Haven't you heard?

by Guest Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:42 pm

d@v!d wrote:The Prince of Persia is analogous to satan or a demon. Haven't you heard?

Yes...I stated that I was familiar with the "prince of Persia".

by Candlemass Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:52 pm

Again, any point to this, how does this relate to there being a difference between angels and demons?

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:04 am

Candlemass wrote:Again, any point to this, how does this relate to there being a difference between angels and demons?

Well...Angels (whether fallen or not) can not physically get inside of a human body in order to possess it...

...but evil spirits can because they get inside the mind.

Many believe that satan is waiting for a human body to climb inside of to possess and wear like a human costume when he comes as antichrist.

I'm not sure if that is the point that was being made with the original statement, but I guess that is how it could relate.

by Candlemass Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:20 am

Yea, ok... scratch

by Superjuice Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:08 am

Mortal wrote:
Superjuice wrote:
Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:
Mortal wrote:
Demons and fallen angels are two different beings.

If you have some scripture that might attempt to flesh this idea out...feel free to post them and I will look at them.

In my understanding, demons are evil spirits....not fallen angels.

Angels (whether fallen or not) are spirit beings.

I think there is a big difference between a spirit and a spirit being.
Truth the Prince of Persia is not looking for a body to possess.

Not quite sure what you mean here...

...but ok (?)

Yeah, I think you got the drift, but Prince of Persia is a powerful principalty aka fallen angel that rules a certain region and will not be looking for a group of pigs to enter into.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:48 am

Superjuice wrote:Yeah, I think you got the drift, but Prince of Persia is a powerful principalty aka fallen angel that rules a certain region and will not be looking for a group of pigs to enter into.

Perhaps you'd like to actually join the discussion. It's hard to understand what you mean with your posts that raise even more questions.

by Gandalf the White Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:48 pm

You guys know why Snoop Dogg carries an umbrella?

Fo drizzle.

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:19 pm

alldatndensum wrote:I thought we shut the theology room down?

..in other words..." hey mods, look at what these guys are doing. "

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:30 pm

sentient 6 wrote:
alldatndensum wrote:I thought we shut the theology room down?

..in other words..." hey mods, look at what these guys are doing. "

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:35 pm

Mortal wrote:
sentient 6 wrote:Well, all humanity has fallen into sin, but the way I am leaning on this is that God is dealing with the corruption of the obedient line of seth as well as the line of cain.

To say that the sons of God were the sons of Seth...and that the daughters of man were the sinful line of Cain doesn't seem right to me.

In my understanding, the daughters of man are the descendants of the specific man Adam....Not the sinful line of Cain.

The way I see it, the daughters of Adam are the closest ones to the "descendants of Seth" here.

But they are not called the "daughters of Seth" because they ultimately come from Adam (man).

They all came from one common earthly father which was Adam. That is why they are called the "daughters of man".

sentient 6 wrote:I am going with the general scriptural principle of that if you walk in the ways of God, then you are " son of God.

And I'm going with the general scriptural principle that if one does not have an earthly father (created by God), that they are "sons of God". This applies to spiritual beings as well as Adam. But Adam's/Seth's descendants certainly would not be called "sons of God" because they have earthly fathers.

I am also going with the scriptural principle that if one does have an earthly father (born of flesh) they are a "son of man"....or "daughters of man" as in these verses.

sentient 6 wrote:These " sons of God " were being judge in the same way as the others because of how they compromised when they married " hot " pagan women instead of Godly women.

I'm not so sure about that.

Ok. I'll get off this aspect and go back to another aspect that you brought up. You said fallen angels were different than evil spirits or demons. A couple of things I'd like to press with you. We know angels were created " good " but some rebelled against God. They were originally created to serve their Creator. With that in mind, did God create demons to serve Him and then they rebelled ? Or do you believe that God created them with a " evil " nature ? Basically if we know what Gods purpose was in the creation of angels, what was Gods purpose with demons if they are not the same creature ? Also, the scriptures talk about the devil and the fallen angels future judgment. But what will be the fate of " demons " in the judgment, and were do you feel scripture addresses it ?

.also, do you believe that the " devil " is the same entity as Lucifer/Satan ?

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:42 pm

Mortal wrote:
By nature? I certainly don't believe so.

The sons of God committed an unnatural act with the daughters of Adam and that's why they were destroyed along with their offspring.

If thats the case, wouldn't God have had to give these angels the ability to have sex and hence, allow for this to take place ?

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:53 pm

Mortal wrote:
There is manna...angel's food....which man did eat to sustain their flesh bodies.

Angels also did eat man's food when they came to visit Lot (Genesis 19:3).

Back to the manna...
This manna...angel's food...is a literal, physical food. It would have to be in order for man to be able to handle it and eat it.

If angels were not physical beings, how could they eat physical food?

The manna was from heaven and Gods hand, but the scriptures don't say that its specifically " angel " food...does it ?

As for what took place with Abraham, God can allow non physical beings to do physical things in space and time for his own sovereign purpose. Abraham ate food with God and angels, but we do not need to take away from that encounter that God or angels require food to sustain themselves. It was done more for the sake of Abraham I believe.

God and angels are spirit, but from time to time they have taken on human form for Gods purpose. And this also, should not be confused with the unique event in history when the Word became flesh from real descendents of Israel.

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:59 pm

Mortal wrote:
Well...Angels (whether fallen or not) can not physically get inside of a human body in order to possess it...

...but evil spirits can because they get inside the mind.

Scripture.....you gotta show this from scripture. Directly stated, or even a implied principle. Because if they are both the same creature, then an fallen angel could possess a human if God allowed it.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:17 pm

Could you take one thing at a time? Instead of posting a barrage of different questions?

Think about that and come again.

I'll get to your questions in due time.

Posting lots of questions when I haven't even had time to address the first is quite frustrating.

Perhaps the answer to one question may answer others.

Patience.

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:51 pm

Mortal wrote:
Absolutely nothing. That is why God destroyed them.

Oh, and heres something I wanted to mention the other day but forgot. If nephilim were angel/human hybreeds and it was Gods plan to destroy them to undo what the angels did, why are they showing in Numbers 13:33 ?

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:55 pm

Mortal wrote:Could you take one thing at a time? Instead of posting a barrage of different questions?

Think about that and come again.

I'll get to your questions in due time.

Posting lots of questions when I haven't even had time to address the first is quite frustrating.

Perhaps the answer to one question may answer others.

Patience.

The questions are more for you than me. Whether you answer them here or not is not as important as just simply getting people to look at the issues involved and thinking consequences of ideas. And if you do answer, then it gives me something to think about though.

by Guest Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:59 pm

sentient 6 wrote:The questions are more for you than me. Whether you answer them here or not is not as important as just simply getting people to look at the issues involved and thinking consequences of ideas.

So you are admittingly trying to cause confusion?

by sentient 6 Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:24 pm

Mortal wrote:
So you are admittingly trying to cause confusion?

So questioning a particular belief is " confusion " ?

All i'm trying to do is get to the nitty-gritty of the view. And the theological implications of the view. And in the in the process, if one side has good evidence and good biblical ground that will all come out.

How can you test a theological view if you don't ask questions that get to the heart of the matter ?

by Sponsored content