Letter of Jude

[roger]

[quote] Jude 1:9:- When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee.[quote]



*** In the thread on "The Bible" we determined that the angels referred to in Jude1:6 might be Esau and his descendants.

Who now is Michael the archangel and when did he have this dispute with the devil?

Further, where did Jude get this information from?

[roger]

I think this has to be about the most difficult verse in the Bible to understand at present. In my view, the more difficult a truth is to understand the more information it yields when it is unveiled.

In light of this I will like to offer a token of a token to the first person to come up with an explanation of this verse that is at least plausible by my assessment. That is, an explanation that does justice to the language of the textual manuscripts and also to the overall doctrines of the scriptures.

I will give TT$1,000. to the winner of this contest:

The Contest: From Jude 1:9 -

1. Identify the historical figure who, in your opinion, Michael the archangel is and give evidence to support your view.

2. Identify using scripture and with your reasons for saying so, the historical event of a "dispute" between Michael and the devil to which this verse refers.


Roger

[roger]

Ok, seeing that no one dares to even guess , I'll give a hint:

[i]The verses in Jude are indeed related to Zechariah 3:1- , but Michael is not "the angel of the Lord" referred to there.

Contest closes tomorrow (Monday 20th October) at 3 pm.

Roger

[Falcon]

Oh gosh roger, extend d closin date nuh please...............

[roger]

Falcon,

That photo of our alleged human ancestor is surely enough to evoke my sympathy and cause me to extend the time, however, it seems that no matter how long I extend the time neither will he/ she or his assumed mutant descendants be able to figure out the answers to my quiz.

Roger

[brag]

So Roger, what is the point of holding back information that you think can be informative, perhaps helpful and useful to others? Are there some good reasons for it?

[roger]

Brag, my dilemma is what is the point in giving out information in which no one has an expressed interest?

Roger

[Chicabonita]

Interesting. My question is: Is there a "right" or "wrong" answer? Michael the Archangel is seen as different people in many religions from Islam to Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and everything in between... so what are we answering here? Michael the Archangel according to who? Roger?

[roger]

[quote] Interesting. My question is: Is there a "right" or "wrong" answer?[quote]

*** In my view there must be a right answer because we are dealing with an objective reality of the world/ universe. The Bible does not deal in fiction so the character called Michael is a real one: he is not a Captain America or Superman.

If we were dealing with made up stories in the Bible then anybody's guess might suffice: in that case the manner in which the Qu'ran chose to portray their character will be no less "right" than it is right for Stan Lee to portray Spiderman as he sees fit.

Also there will be no problem in the way in which Mel Gibson portrays Jesus Christ in his movie if the Bible were a book of fables.


[quote] Michael the Archangel is seen as different people in many religions from Islam to Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and everything in between... so what are we answering here? Michael the Archangel according to who? Roger? [quote]


*** We are trying to find out who Michael is according to the Bible. We can leave the views of Islam out because their point of reference the Qu'ran is clearly Antichrist and anti-truth in my view.

However views from any Biblical, historical or scientific perspective are welcome regardless of whether they are Mormon, JW, Roger or otherwise.


Roger

[PB144]

Roger,

I'll try to answer part of your questions from my religious perspective. Your question as to 'who is Michael?'.
In a few words, I believe that the archangel Michael is the same person as our pre-human and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. I'll provide support for my belief below.

First let me make note that the word "angel" means messenger. Likewise, the word "archangel" means chief messenger.

The scriptures prophesize about the Lord Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. At Psalms 110:1, we read:


The Lord said to my lord, Be seated at my right hand, till I put all those who are against you under your feet.

If God gave the command to Jesus to be "seated" at His right hand "until" a certain event (as mentioned in Psalms 110:1), that must mean that at the culmination of that event (i.e., the placing of Jesus's enemies under his feet), our Lord will do something. I believe that action will be to stand up and take charge as ruler. Daniel 12:1 states that:


"At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who stands for the children of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who shall be found written in the book.

Malachi 3:1 states:


Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he will come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Who is that "messenger of the covenant"? I believe that this messenger is Jesus (compare to Hebrews 8:8, 13).

Additionally, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states:


For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God`s trumpet.

Notice that this verse states that the Lord (Jesus) will descend from heaven with an archangel's voice. The remainder of that verse adds the "dead in Christ will rise first" (compare to John 5:28, 29).

One final point, I searched four translations of the Bible for "archangel" or "chief angel" (the Bible in Basic English, Noah Webster Bible, World English Bible and the King James Version). I found three references. Here they are:

* Daniel 10:13 (refers to Michael by name)
* Jude 1:9 (refers to Michael by name)
* 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (speaks of Jesus)

This is my belief. It is not a Jehovah's Witness belief (even though they believe this also). There are other churches including the Bible Students (my church) who believe that Jesus and Michael are the same. Never-the-less, what really matters in the end is that Jesus died as a ransom for all and that he has been resurrected (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 1:3).

[Aloha]

These writers actually existed in those times with Moses and Michael, and since Moses was given the ten Commandments, he had authority to lay down the law and Michael was the
a leading Angel who protected the Law, and defended the faith against the attacks of Evil on
to this day, for those who believe. The Bible quotations are to be interpreted in our everyday life, those are the Truths that we really should live by. It's all about living life according to the rules of God not man because we were all created out of original sin but cleansed by his blood
he shed on the cross for all people. :D

[PB144]

In the thread on "The Bible" we determined that the angels referred to in Jude1:6 might be Esau and his descendants.

Hi again Roger,
I must say respectfully that you've determined that the angels referred to in Jude 1:6 might be Esau and his descendants. I do not agree.

I believe that the act of desertion referred to in Jude 1:6 was performed by the 'sons of God' (the angels) in Genesis 6:1, 2:


And after a time, when men were increasing on the earth, and had daughters,

The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives for themselves from those who were pleasing to them.

The angels were spirit beings. They were not meant to come to earth and marry the daughters of men. Their domain was spiritual (i.e., heavenly). Just as the domain of a Christian is heavenly and not earthly (see Hebrews 11:16; Hebrews 12:22).

Also I believe that the reference to the Day of Judgment (in Jude 1:6) is also alluded to in Matthew 8:29:


And they gave a loud cry, saying, What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Have you come here to give us punishment before the time?

The angels, because of their sin in Genesis, are being kept in a state of spiritual isolation until the Day of Judgment.

Just to refer back to that 6th verse in Jude, I'd like to quote it again:


Angels who didn`t keep their first domain, but deserted their own dwelling place, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.


A great companion text to Jude 1:6 can be found in 2 Peter 2:4. Here we read:


For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved to judgment

The next verse in 2 Peter chapter 2 (i.e., verse 5) discusses the days of the flood in Noah's day. Showing that when kept in context, the angels were being punished for what they did in Genesis 6:1, 2.

So, here in 2 Peter chapter 2, we see the same condition of darkness (or isolation) being reserved for the angels until the Day of Judgment.

Therefore, Jude 1:6 is actually talking about real angels (of the spiritual form) and not physical men.

[PB144]

These writers actually existed in those times with Moses and Michael, and since Moses was given the ten Commandments, he had authority to lay down the law and Michael was the
a leading Angel who protected the Law, and defended the faith against the attacks of Evil on
to this day, for those who believe. The Bible quotations are to be interpreted in our everyday life, those are the Truths that we really should live by. It's all about living life according to the rules of God not man because we were all created out of original sin but cleansed by his blood
he shed on the cross for all people. :D

Hi Aloha,
I agree with the gist of your thought. We are condemned by the sin of Adam. Jesus' death on the cross has redeemed us from the condemnation of Adam's sin (Romans 5:19).

[roger]

*** First I must say that I am pleasently surprised by the affluence of your response, PB144, especially in view of the fact that your comments were so few in the past. Was it your interest in the USA elections that kept you tied down? If it was there was no necessity for you to remain in suspense all this time. I could have told you since about July, I think, this year that the die [as in dice] was already cast in favor of Obama.

[quote] I believe that the archangel Michael is the same person as our pre-human and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. [quote]

*** Ok, this is a very defining statement and we can keep it as your point of reference.
To further clarify your definition:

(a) the pre-human Christ according to Jn. 1:1 was the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who was [God] (or maybe in your view "god" but we need not debate that at this point of our analysis).

(b) The resurrected Jesus is one I will like to have represented as the lamb having seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God. This symbol is given in Rev. 5:6.

You can comment on those points and, if you wish, tweak them to better suit the way you would like your definition above to be understood..


[quote] The scriptures prophesize about the Lord Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. At Psalms 110:1,...If God gave the command to Jesus to be "seated" at His right hand "until" a certain event... that must mean that at the culmination of that event (i.e., the placing of Jesus's enemies under his feet), our Lord will do something. I believe that action will be to stand up and take charge as ruler. Daniel 12:1 states that: "At that time shall Michael stand up... [quote]


*** I see your point but 1 Corinthians 15: 25-28 paraphrased says:

" For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet... And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".

That is, Christ's sitting on the right hand of God's throne implies he is reigning with the Father. When his reign has succeeded in subduing all the enemies then Christ himself will be subject to the Father that God might be as he was in Jn. 1:1.

So Jesus Christ does not 'stand up' after his reign, that is, after being seated at the right hand of God, but instead becomes one with God again.

Furthermore, Christ's reign on God's throne goes on till after the millennium ending with the white throne judgement whereas Michael stands up during the first half of the last seven years for Israel which is 3.5 years before the beginning of the fulfilment of the prophecy in which Christ's enemies are made his footstool at the millennium.

So when Michael stands up Jesus Christ will still be 'sitting till' his enemies are made his footstool.

This point of Michael standing up therefore does not link him to Jesus.


[quote] Malachi 3:1 states: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he will come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Who is that "messenger of the covenant"? I believe that this messenger is Jesus (compare to Hebrews 8:8, 13)[quote]


*** You are quite right: the Angel of the covenant is Jesus. The problem is we have not yet studied angels in general we have only been trying to identify specific angels and groups thereof from the book of Jude.

This seems an opportuned time however for me to state by way of information what my view of the several types of angels are. To summarize we have, not in any particular order:

(i) God himself appearing in elemental (ie wind, fire etc); human; horsemen; and even animal (dove, cherubim/ cow) forms.

(ii) Seraphims which comprise two aggregate beings of three each, giving six individuals who might be Noah's six children that survived the flood and the nations they represent.

(iii) Cherubims which are also aggregate beings of three by four. These seem to be the 12 tribes of Israel.

(iv) Individuals like Gabriel; Michael; one of the two angels of your reference verse here of Malachi 3:1; possibly Philip the 'evangelist' [Acts 21:8]; and, if the classified apocryphal book of 'Bel and the Dragon' is authentic, the prophet Habbakuk.

(v) The evil and fallen angels: the devil/ serpent; those that sinned before Noah's time; those that relinquished their birthright sometime between the events of Sodom's destruction and Israel leaving Egypt etc.

So in Malachi 3: 1 whereas the Angel of the covenant is Jesus, the angel sent to prepare the way before him is John the Baptist his cousin according to the flesh [Mark 1:1-3, and John1:23].

So the bottom line is that the reference to Jesus as "the Angel/ Messenger" does not necessarily make him an angel of Michael's kind since Michael might be the kind that John the Baptist is whereas Jesus the kind that God is.



[quote] Additionally, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states:
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God`s trumpet.

Notice that this verse states that the Lord (Jesus) will descend from heaven with an archangel's voice. The remainder of that verse adds the "dead in Christ will rise first" (compare to John 5:28, 29).[quote]


*** You will need to clarify your understanding of this verse: it seems you are visualizing Jesus descending from heaven with a trumpet in one hand and making a sound with his voice which sound is the sound of the voice of the archangel.

You seem to be saying also that from John 5:28 that the dead will hear this voice of Jesus and be resurrected.

My understanding is that Michael is the last of the seven angels of Revelation 8:2 to sound a trumpet and this last trump is the one Paul referred to in 1Corinthians 15:52 as announcing the rapture.

The salient point here though is that the trumpets are given to the angels meaning that they do not belong to them. I believe these trumpets are the trumpets of God.

Further, I believe that the voices of the angels are the same as the sounding of the trumpets they blow: Revelation 10:7 says "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound the trumpet...".

So to complete the picture, we have a saying that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" and I believe that the "voice of the angel" here (which is his sounding of the trumpet of God) is the voice of God.

But just as the people are not God only their voice is that of God in that it says what God wishes to say, so the archangel is not God only his voice is the voice of God.

I hope I have made myself clear here.

Now even the shout with which Jesus descends from heaven is not his shout but if we check the original text it is a shout that commands him to act.

So consistent with the passage from John 5:19, 30 etc Jesus can do nothing of himself but God must command him to do it.

And so here God the Father, using the voice of the archangel Michael which is the trump of God, commands Jesus to raise the elect from the dead in the rapture.

Michael is actually like the choir boy who sings the anthem of God to signal to the Lord of Lords that it is time to begin his act.

My understanding is that this is also why in John 5:28 Jesus says that all that are in the grave shall hear "his" voice and not "my" voice because it is the voice of the Father via the trumpet we will hear not Jesus' own voice.

There are also greater intricies to this that links Michael to one of the seven eyes of the Lamb mentioned above, but we can discuss this at some other time.

So again in my view these verses do not show that Jesus is Michael.


Roger

[roger]

PB144 wrote:

[quote] I believe that the act of desertion referred to in Jude 1:6 was performed by the 'sons of God' (the angels) in Genesis 6:1, 2: [quote]

*** Ok but I will like you to justify your equating of the 'sons of God' with angels.

In an earlier post I proposed a distinction between the two: sons of God = lineage as given in Luke 3:23-38 whereas angels = descendants of Cain, Esau, Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (all disposessed firstborns).

As an aside here is something I discovered only while doing this message:

In my last post I surmised that John the Baptist is the "angel" sent before Jesus in Malachi 3:1. If this is to be consistent with my definition of angels it means that John must be of one of the disposessed groups mentioned above. But John was a Levite. The spirit that led him however was that of Elijah and Elijah was of Gilead who is of Manasseh (one of the angel groups). So as the spirit of Elijah John is an angel.



[quote] The angels were spirit beings.[quote]


*** I quite agree and that is why neither Gabriel nor Michael are referred to as angels in the book of Daniel: they are always ' the man Gabriel...' [Dan. 9:21], "one of the chief princes" [Dan. 10: 13] or "the great prince" [Dan 12:1] etc. where a prince is a man. And this is so because they were still alive then.

It is only after their death that their spirits reappear as angels: Luke 1:19, Jude 1:9 etc. These New Testament books are from some 500 years after the book of Daniel so it is unlikely that these two, if they were men, would have lived that long at that time.

In my view the verses of Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4 speak of the spirits of the deceased Edomites and Cainites from times of old. Their spirits are the angels referred to in these verses.



[quote] They were not meant to come to earth and marry the daughters of men. Their domain was spiritual (i.e., heavenly). [quote]


*** Are you saying that spirits marry women and have children also?

Genesis 6:4 says "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them...".

How do you reconcile this with Mat. 22:30 which says "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"?



[quote] Also I believe that the reference to the Day of Judgment (in Jude 1:6) is also alluded to in Matthew 8:29: And they gave a loud cry, saying, What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Have you come here to give us punishment before the time? [quote]


*** Well you have me answering the question: who are the angels? Angels and the demons (doomed ones) referred to in Mat. 8:29 are the spirits of dead human beings.


[quote] The angels, because of their sin in Genesis, are being kept in a state of spiritual isolation until the Day of Judgment. [quote]


*** True, where the angels = the spirits of dead human beings.



[quote] Just to refer back to that 6th verse in Jude, I'd like to quote it again: Angels who didn`t keep their first domain, but deserted their own dwelling place, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day [quote].


*** For what sin was this group of angels punished?



[quote] For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved to judgment

The next verse in 2 Peter chapter 2 (i.e., verse 5) discusses the days of the flood in Noah's day. Showing that when kept in context, the angels were being punished for what they did in Genesis 6:1, 2.[quote]


*** Not correct. Verse 5 says "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah...". The "And" points to a new group apart from the group of "angels that sinned" of verse 4. The group referred to as " the old world" is the group punished by the flood for the sin of Gen. 6:1,2.

The question that must be asked therefore is: why only "flesh" is punished by a flood if as you allege the sin was committed by spirit beings? Further why were men punished at all if only women sinned with the spirit beings?


[quote]Therefore, Jude 1:6 is actually talking about real angels (of the spiritual form) and not physical men.[quote]

*** In conclusion therefore I think you would need to revise this statement in light of the above.


Roger

[PB144]

Was it your interest in the USA elections that kept you tied down? If it was there was no necessity for you to remain in suspense all this time. I could have told you since about July, I think, this year that the die [as in dice] was already cast in favor of Obama.

:)

Well, although I followed what was going on, I can't say that I was altogether caught up in it. I believe that Obama was being groomed for that position for at least the past four years. Additionally, recent turn of events with the world economy pretty much nailed things in his favor.

However, my absence from this board is really due to other obligations that consume my time.

[PB144]

*** Ok but I will like you to justify your equating of the 'sons of God' with angels.

In an earlier post I proposed a distinction between the two: sons of God = lineage as given in Luke 3:23-38 whereas angels = descendants of Cain, Esau, Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (all disposessed firstborns).

Hi Roger,
I'll try to take your responses and questions in pieces as time permits. For now, I'll deal with your point above.

In your reference to Luke 3:23-38, only Adam is referred to as "son of God" (verse 38). Men, in their imperfect sinful condition, can at best be only called a friend of God as we see with Abraham (see 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8). To become a son of God, men would need to be adopted by the Spirit of God (see Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6).

Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 could not have been earthly sons, but angelic sons materialized as human beings. In Old Testament times (as you already know), this was quite common.

Now, regarding my position on Jude 1:6, I'd like to refer back to the rendering of this verse as stated in the King James Version:


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.

The three words I'd like to focus on are "angels", "estate" and "habitation". Consulting my trusty Strong's Concordance, I found the following definitions:

Strong's Reference Number G32 (angels):
a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

Strong's Reference G746 (estate):
beginning, origin

Strong's Reference G3613 (habitation):
of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit

Now, your point is well taken that "angel" could simply be a messenger. However, this verse sates that these messengers did not keep their first origin (estate), but left their dwelling place (habitation).

It seems logical to me that angelic creatures failed to maintain their original spirit condition, but left their heavenly habitation to come to earth and marry the daughters of men. Additionally, in what way can we say that Cain or Esau were messengers of God?

Additionally, given the fact that only Adam, Jesus and spirit begotten Christians are called sons of God, Jude 1:6 and Genesis 6:2 could not be speaking of earthly men.

[PB144]

Roger,
I've invited a friend of mine (familiar with biblical languages) to join the forum. However, so far, he hasn't been granted permission to join our forum.

[roger]

[quote] Additionally, recent turn of events with the world economy pretty much nailed things in his favor.[quote]

*** Good insight.

Roger

[roger]

[quote] In your reference to Luke 3:23-38, only Adam is referred to as "son of God" (verse 38). [quote]


*** In fact not even Adam is referred to as a son of God in this passage. The verse says Adam was "of God", the word 'son' does not appear in that list of names at all.

I referred to that passage not as proof that those on the list were called sons of God but I only used the reference to point out the ones who in my view are the sons of God of old time.


[quote] Men, in their imperfect sinful condition, can at best be only called a friend of God as we see with Abraham (see 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8). [quote]


*** Ok but there is no scripture that says that Abraham was not redeemed from sin through faith in God.

Moreover, being called a friend of God does not mean that he could not also have been a son of God. Paul was a son of God yet in Titus 1:1 he is referred to as "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect..."


[quote] To become a son of God, men would need to be adopted by the Spirit of God (see Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6).[quote]


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

So from Seth's time men began to call on the Lord. Now concerning the sons of God today, all of Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 and Romans10:13 say "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered/ saved...".

It follows that Seth's line of descendants were also "saved" and so were sons of God in my view because they called upon the Lord.

I think the two following verses give some more insight into the sons of God issue as related to Israel:

(i) Exodus 34: 19-20 says "All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male... All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty".

(ii) Ezekiel 16:20, "Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter...?".

So the firstborn sons of Israel were God's own, borne unto God, and so sons of God.


[quote] Therefore, the sons of God in Genesis 6:2 could not have been earthly sons, but angelic sons materialized as human beings. In Old Testament times (as you already know), this was quite common [quote].


*** I know of no one except God himself who can "materialize" as human beings.

For all the cases in the Old Testament this is a sure test: if an angel eats it is the angel of God but if it is a spirit (of a deceased person) it can neither eat nor can you touch it. There will be a vision of the angel only but they cannot physically interact with this world.

This is probably where the hand shake came from: a handshake will ensure that the stranger is not a spirit.

That might also be why Jesus said to Mary in John 20: 17 "Touch me not" or "Don't try to touch me" for I am not yet ascended. Before Jesus ascended he was a spirit so he could not be touched.

After his ascension however in Luke 24:39 he says "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not and flesh bones, as ye see me have". He was now able to visit with a human body that could be touched and that could eat etc as God did in old times when he visited Abraham and others.

Compare the angel's of the Lord response to Manoah in Judges 13:16 "And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD"

with the apparation to Abraham in Genesis 18:5 "And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said".

In my view it was a spirit that appeared to Manoah but God to Abraham.

So I don't agree with you that "angelic sons" can materialize as humans to eat, drink or marry women.


[quote] Strong's Reference Number G32 (angels):
a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God[quote]

*** If the sons of God of Genesis 6:2 are such angel-envoys as you say, what was the mission on which they were sent? Were they actually sent by God to marry women?


[quote] Strong's Reference G746 (estate):
beginning, origin[quote]

*** "First estate" can also mean first place position as in firstborn rights to my understanding.


[quote] Strong's Reference G3613 (habitation):
of the body as a dwelling place for the spirit[quote]

*** What this definition means is that a "habitation" is a dwelling place and that it can be construed to be the dwelling place of the spirit which is a body. It does not mean, however, that "habitation" is exclusively a dwelling place for a spirit, or a human body: it means dwelling place in general so it could be a house, a jail cell or in this case an abode for departed spirits of men, that's my view.


[quote] Now, your point is well taken that "angel" could simply be a messenger. However, this verse sates that these messengers did not keep their first origin (estate), but left their dwelling place (habitation).[quote]

*** I showed before how I think Esau neglected his birthright, which is the rights of being born first or first place position and from which we get prince, principality, etc.

May I now add as I alluded to in my last post, that the word angel is being used post humously in the verse. When Esau sinned he was a living man, now that he is dead his spirit is what is referred to as an angel that is reserved in chains of darkness.

Eccliastes 12:7 says "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it".

So according to this verse the spirit of man returns to God.

Further, 1 Kings 22:19 says "...I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left".

These to my mind are the spirits of the dead: good on the right and bad on the left.

Also, a conversation ensued between God and the souls of the dead:-

1Kings 22:20-22 says, " And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

So The Lord sends the evil spirit, which to me is the spirit of a dead man, fort to be a lying spirit to Ahab's prophets. This lying spirit is therefore an envoy or an angel, an evil messenger, a demon call him what you may.

In my view this is also the type of spirit that spoke to the prophet Mohammed.


[quote] It seems logical to me that angelic creatures failed to maintain their original spirit condition, but left their heavenly habitation to come to earth and marry the daughters of men. [quote]

*** Can they do this? Firstly can they of their own free will, that is, without being sent by God as described in 1 Kings 22:22 above, leave heaven and come to earth?

But if they must get God's leave to do so then are you saying that God sent the angels to marry women then punished them for doing his will?

Can spirits marry women and have children too, or are their capabilities not limited to posessing of minds (of human beings, say)?


[quote] Additionally, in what way can we say that Cain or Esau were messengers of God? [quote]

*** Good question. My position is that the reference to them as angels speaks of their spirits after death.

The question that is in my mind is why only the spirits of the deceased of Cain, Esau, Reuben etc seem to be envoys/ angels? It can be pure coincidence that only these are referred to as angels in the Bible as well as there can be a reason but I know not that reason at this time.

It seems to me that all the dead can be messengers. Romans 4:17 says "God...: who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things that are not, as those that are:."

This means that to God all the dead are as though they were alive and he can send them on assignments as he sees fit. So I don't know why only certain groups are referred to as angels in the Bible.

But to answer your question the spirits of Cain and Esau etc must be the ones on a mission to roam the earth while the righteous rest and await the resurrection.


[quote]Additionally, given the fact that only Adam, Jesus and spirit begotten Christians are called sons of God, Jude 1:6 and Genesis 6:2 could not be speaking of earthly men[quote].

*** Will it not be more correct to say that since from your reference only living human beings are called sons of God then the sons of God of Gen.6:2 could not be angels?



Roger