Crossbreed People will they go to heaven

...

angels don't have dicks.

also they are crossbreeds between the children of Seth and Cain.

there were church fathers who supported the hybrid idea, though whatever, its not really important, just an average theologoumena.

The Virgin Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit so it's not outside the realm of Scripture

Hogwash!

No mixed-race individual down to the 16th generation will be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven!

Angels aren't god.

THIS.

So because my great great grandfather was a jew I can't enter heaven? I guess I'm going to have to just spend my afterlife haunting and trolling people.

I don't get the Seth and Cain idea. It seems to me that it's merely the product of anti-supernatural bias.

Then why didn't the author just say "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain"? Why did he chose the phrase "sons of God" which is elsewhere used of angelic beings? Why did he use the term "daughters of men" as if distinguishing between the human origin of the daughters, and the heavenly origin of the sons?

Angel dicks are disinfo.
The mark of Cain is melanin.
Nephilim are mutts.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown."
Genesis 6:4
Pic related.
The Bible even says we will see mass racemixing again in the endtimes.
"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Matthew 24:37

Sons of God is often used in the Bible to refer to righteous people.

forgot pic

Attached: President_Barack_Obama.jpg (2687x3356, 1.22M)

Where in the OT is the phrase "sons of God" used of godly humans?
All other times we find it, it is used of angelic beings. Why should this time be the exception?

We aren't jews, user. There's a whole other half of the Bible.

The NT was written in Greek so its more difficult to get the usage of the phrase "בני־האלהים" from it.
The point of the NT is that because of what Jesus has done we can now become the sons of God where we could not before. Romans 8:14 is in the context of how the Holy Ghost now indwells believers for this purpose.
You have still not answered all my questions about why the author of Genesis words the passage the way he does.
Yeah, but we don't follow Marcion either. There's a whole other half of the Bible, and that half must also be taken in its context.

Are you implying we can become angels?

Attached: 978654565768789.jpeg (1024x1024, 68.7K)

I'm saying that the context, and wording of Genesis 6:1-4 indicates that there was an angelic cohabitation with human women which resulted in giant offspring. It does you no good to run away from the text to Romans 8 because we aren't talking about Romans.
The very fact that you're trying to attribute beliefs to me which I never put forth tells me that you have no real response.

Mormon

Brainlet.

The Book of Jude talks about (fallen) angels who committed this vile act so again, it's not outside the realm of Scripture

This. I'm willing to bet these 14-year olds don't believe the plagues in the Book of Exodus were real. Maybe they don't even believe in the Bible.

Humans are refered to as "sons of God" much more than humans in the Bible. In fact, only place where it relates to angels is book of Job and 'presumably but not surely, Genesis. throughout rest of the Bible it refers to the humans, like in psalms 82 and so on.

...

ANGELS
DON'T
HAVE
BODIES

Attached: 1537904358551.jpg (960x960, 53K)

Even if Cain was black which he probably wasn't but okay that doesn't matter because they aren't at all connected to modern black people who are descendants of Noah and therefor sons of Seth and not sons of Cain.

Ham's wife was Cainite.

(7)  And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
(8)  And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

(10)  But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door…
(16)  And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

(20)  And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
(21)  Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.

(1)  Let brotherly love continue.
(2)  Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

No Nephilim boarded the ark?

Prove it.

thats not a creature though, thats a theophany of Jesus

Then just explain the other three passages please.

Angels are purely spiritual beings, though they cann assume physical form.
I dont really care about the rest though, only thing that caught my mind was "angel of the lord" part.

Those are generated bodies, that the angels dispose once they're done with them. Are you implying they generated bodies specifically designed to produce immoral rapebabies?

that caught my eyes
I need some sleep

Psalm 82 is speaking about Angels. Otherwise it would make no sense to make the point that they would "die like men" in verse 7.
Every time the phrase is used in the OT it is used of Angels.

That's sufficient.

Oyasumi Nii-san

I'm just reading the text my man. If you think its absurd then you're going to have to explain that to God.

The text is fine. It's your interpretation that's absurd.

*die like adam
Also Jesus affirms in John 10 that its about humans
wow, it surely sucks not to have sacred tradition

I mean, to be fair, its not that far from capabilities. We can also create artificial environment for growth of organisms.

Then stop abusing it.

Jesus is making the point in John 10 that He is the God who judges among the angels in Psalm 82. He's saying that if God calls the angels gods then how much more does He as the unique Son have the right to call Himself one with the Father, and thus God.
If Psalm 82 is really about human judges then the Jews are becoming angry for no reason because Jesus has just given them the same warrant to call themselves gods.
He's doubling down, not backpedaling.

I know, but if the angels wanted to produce orcs with bad morals why not just directly generate and let lose evil people? It makes no sense.

Except that he doesnt. He says that if ordinary humans are called gods, he, who is directly sent by the father has more right to call himself "son of God"
They do. Thats the bloody point
Even site as retarded as gotquestions got it right
gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

I'm operating within the bounds of Catholic (and probably Orthodox afaik) doctrine. You're the one abusing scripture to push your fanfic tier doctrine I've only seen taught elsewhere by literal jews.

im not the guy you are arguing with and I am not quite a christian yet either (polite sage because of that I dont want to shit up the board)
but you are using things from outside the text and he is using the text itself, if anyone is writing fanfiction its you

patristics.co/what-are-demons/
tl.dr. Humans are supreme creation, so they wanted to smear image and likeness of God in descedents of mankind by spawning these subhumans.
This of course, if we assume that nephilim meme is true.

Asides your point, (though to be fair, several church fathers considered nephilim stuff to be true, so it may have some right to exist) asides from this user, several protestants and autistic scholars hellbent on assigning everything in bible to paganism or henotheism, this is the first time I've seen someone assigning psalm 82 on non-humans. In fact, Orthodox dont even consider it being said for judges, but for mankind in general. Not having sacret tradition spawns memes like those.

nevermind just ban me for being retarded

Sorry but this is a Patriarchal board, I think the site you are looking for is this
tumblr.com

He doesnt, he just uses his own interpretation. You can give every verse any interpretation if you desire, but it doesnt makes interpretation a correct one.

...

Because Angels cannot create ex nihilo.

Where in Jesus words in John 10 does he explicitly apply Psalm 82 to the Jewish leaders? Because the passage says: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods'?" and Jesus then goes on to apply it to some group of people in the past without unambiguously identifying them.
The best we can go on is the statement "unto whom the word of God came" which can just as easily be applied to angels (Galatians 3:19, Acts 7:52-53, Hebrews 2:2).

You just confirmed that you are not operating on the basis of what the text says, but rather on late traditions. Which sounds kinda Jewish.

We need to go back to Psalm 82, and interpret it on its own terms to see how Jesus is using it.

user I…

...

Yes and word of God is who? For who did word of God became flesh? For whom word of God became incarnate? Did he assume nature of angels?
Asides from this, even if we take it as word of God and not Logos, it still comes down to humans. Angels are merely messengers, ministering spirits, not targets.
Even protestants acknowledge it
Not to mention that sacred tradition preserved by Orthodoxy and Catholics apply it on humans and as one of the verses directly referencing divinization/theosis, a purpose specific to humans. Orthodoxy ascribes it to humans in general, I dont know about Catholics exactly, but I think they have same attitude.

No, you interpret it on your terms, fallen for retarded meme of the Jews and """scholars"""

If your tradition is correct then it will stand up to an examination of the text itself, and as we've seen in this thread it has not.
Show precisely where I've injected an unfounded assumption, or something not found in the text.

Mind if you tone down your prelest a bit? There are numerous commentaries, including ones I've posted here, that shows what is a traditional view found since foundation of Christian church. You on the otherhand, gave your own personal interpretation and have views mostly supported by Jews and """scholars""".
Your personal interpretation of psalm 82 and the nephilim meme

though perhaps nephilim meme has some minimal grounds.

Still not seeing you exegete the text. Commentaries are nice, but if they're wrong they're wrong.
Psalm 82 uses Elohim to talk about beings which stand before God in a counsel, and over whom He declares they will "die like men, and fall like one of the princes" which is only surprising if they are not human princes.
He also speaks to the scope of their failure by saying "all the foundations of the earth are out of course" which would be quite a feat for some little human rulers.
If these are just human beings then God is really laying on the hyperbole, and melodrama.
I've already defended it above, but for you I'll just say that even our earliest Christian traditions take Genesis 6 as a story about angel cohabitation with human women.

It was already exegated and I'm quoting those
No it doesnt. Elohim is also used on Moses and Judges of Israel. Also, it also serves as plural for "gods" as in this case.
again, die like Adam, as it is in original. Also, I know this might be intriguing newsflash for you, but angels cannot die.
One of the princes is usually seen as reference to Satan.
We are meant for rulers of creation, entire creation groans due to us. Have you ever read Romans?
I guess it was also melodrama for you that Jesus became a Man then? Or the fact that bible states that death came to world due to one man? Or the fact that humans were made in image and likeness of God?

Furthermore
1. This Psalm, like others similarly named, was so entitled either from the name of the man who wrote it, or from the explanation of that same name, so as to refer in meaning to the Synagogue, which Asaph signifies; especially as this is intimated in the first verse. For it begins, God stood in the synagogue of gods Psalm 81:1. Far however be it from us to understand by these Gods the gods of the Gentiles, or idols, or any creature in heaven or earth except men; for a little after this verse the same Psalm relates and explains what Gods it means in whose synagogue God stood, where it says, I have said, You are gods, and you are all the children of the Most High: but you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. In the synagogue of these children of the Most High, of whom the same Most High said by the mouth of Isaiah, I have begotten sons and brought them up, but they despised Me, Isaiah 1:2 stood God. By the synagogue we understand the people of Israel, because synagogue is the word properly used of them, although they were also called the Church. Our congregation, on the contrary, the Apostles never called synagogue, but always Ecclesia; whether for the sake of the distinction, or because there is some difference between a congregation whence the synagogue has its name, and a convocation whence the Church is called Ecclesia: for the word congregation (or flocking together) is used of cattle, and particularly of that kind properly called flocks, whereas convocation (or calling together) is more of reasonable creatures, such as men are….I think then that it is clear in what synagogue of gods God stood.

2. The next question is, whether we should understand the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, to have stood among the congregation of gods, and in the midst to distinguish the gods; because Each One is God, and the Trinity itself is One God. It is not indeed easy to make this clear, because it cannot be denied that not a bodily but a spiritual presence of God, agreeable to His nature, exists with created things in a wonderful manner, and one which but a few do understand, and that imperfectly: as to God it is said, If I shall ascend into heaven, You are there; if I shall go down into hell, You are there also. Hence it is rightly said, that God stands in the congregation of men invisibly, as He fills heaven and earth, which He asserts of Himself by the Prophet's mouth; Jeremiah 23:24 and He is not only said, but is, in a way, known to stand in those things which He has created, as far as the human mind can conceive, if man also stands and hears Him, and rejoices greatly on account of His voice within. But I think that the Psalm intimates something that took place at a particular time, by God's standing in the congregation of gods. For that standing by which He fills heaven and earth, neither belongs peculiarly to the synagogue, nor varies from time to time. God, therefore, stood in the congregation of gods; that is, He who said of Himself, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 The cause too is mentioned; but in the midst, to judge of the gods….

3. How long will you judge unrighteously, and accept the persons of the ungodly Psalm 81:2; as in another place, How long are you heavy in heart? Until He shall come who is the light of the heart? I have given a law, you have resisted stubbornly: I sent Prophets, you treated them unjustly, or slew them, or connived at those who did so. But if they are not worthy to be even spoken to, who slew the servants of God that were sent to them, you who were silent when these things were doing, that is, you who would imitate as if they were innocent those who then were silent, how long will you judge unrighteously, and accept the persons of the ungodly? If the Heir comes even now, is He to be slain? Was He not willing for your sake to become as it were a child under guardians? Did not He for your sake hunger and thirst like one in need? Did He not cry to you, Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart? Matthew 11:29 Did He not become poor, when He was rich, that by His poverty we might be made rich? 2 Corinthians 8:9 Give sentence, therefore, for the fatherless and the poor man, justify the humble and needy Psalm 81:3. Not them who for their own sake are rich and proud, but Him who for your sake was humble and poor, believe ye to be righteous: proclaim Him righteous. But they will envy Him, and will not at all spare Him, saying, This is the Heir, come, let us kill Him, and the inheritance shall be ours. Deliver, then, the poor man, and save the needy from the hands of the ungodly Psalm 81:4. This is said that it might be known, that in that nation where Christ was born and put to death, those persons were not guiltless of so great a crime, who being so numerous, that, as the Gospel says, the Jews feared them, and therefore dared not lay hands on Christ, afterwards consented, and permitted Him to be slain by the malicious and envious Jewish rulers: yet if they had so willed, they would still have been feared, so that the hands of the wicked would never have prevailed against Him. For of these it is said elsewhere, Dumb dogs, they know not how to bark. Of them too is that said, Lo, how the righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart. He perished as far as lay in them who would have Him to perish; for how could He perish by dying, who in that way rather was seeking again what had perished? If then they are justly blamed and deservedly rebuked, who by their dissembling suffered such a wicked deed to be committed; how must they be blamed, or rather not only blamed, but how severely must they be condemned, who did this of design and malice?

4. To all of them, verily, what follows is most fitly suited: They did not know nor understand, they walk on in darkness Psalm 81:5. For if even they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory: 1 Corinthians 2:8 and those others, if they had known, would never have consented to ask that Barabbas should be freed, and Christ should be crucified. But as the above-mentioned blindness happened in part unto Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, this blindness of that People having caused the crucifixion of Christ, all the foundations of the earth shall be moved. So have they been moved, and shall they be moved, until the predestined fullness of the Gentiles shall come in. For at the actual death of the Lord the earth was moved, and the rocks rent. Matthew 27:51 And if we understand by the foundations of the earth those who are rich in the abundance of earthly possessions, it was truly foretold that they should be moved, either by wondering that lowliness, poverty, death, should be so loved and honoured in Christ, when it is to their mind great misery; or even in that themselves should love and follow it, and set at nought the vain happiness of this world. So are all the foundations of the earth moved, while they partly admire, and partly are even altered. For as without absurdity we call foundations of heaven those on whom the kingdom of heaven is built up in the persons of saints and faithful; whose first foundation is Christ Himself, born of the Virgin, of whom the Apostle says, Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus; 1 Corinthians 3:11 next the Apostles and Prophets themselves, by whose authority the heavenly place is chosen, that by obeying them we may be built together with them; whence he says to the Ephesians, You are built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone. Ephesians 2:20 …But the kingdom of earthly happiness is pride, to oppose which came the lowliness of Christ, rebuking those whom He wished by lowliness to make the children of the Most High, and blaming them: I said, You are gods, you are all the children of the Most High Psalm 81:6. [cont]

[cont] But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes Psalm 81:7. Whether to those He said this, I said, You are gods, and to those particularly who are unpredestined to eternal life; and to the other, But you shall die like men, etc., and shall fall like one of the princes, in this way also distinguishing the gods; or whether He blames all together, in order to distinguish the obedient and those who received correction, I said, You are gods, and you are all the children of the Most High: that is, to all of you I promised celestial happiness, but you, through the infirmity of your flesh, shall die like men, and through haughtiness of soul, like one of the princes, that is, the devil, shall not be exalted, but shall fall. As if He said: Though the days of your life are so few, that you speedily die like men, this avails not to your correction: but like the devil, whose days are many in this world, because he dies not in the flesh, you are lifted up so that you fall. For by devilish pride it came to pass that the perverse and blind rulers of the Jews envied the glory of Christ: by this will it came to pass, and still does, that the lowliness of Christ crucified unto death is lightly esteemed in the eyes of them who love the excellence of this world.

5. And therefore that this vice may be cured, in the person of the Prophet himself it is said, Arise, O God, and judge the earth Psalm 81:8; for the earth swelled high when it crucified You: rise from the dead, and judge the earth. For You shall destroy among all nations. What, but the earth? That is, destroying those who savour of earthly things, or destroying the feeling itself of earthly lust and pride in believers; or separating those who do not believe, as earth to be trodden under foot and to perish. Thus by His members, whose conversation is in heaven, He judges the earth, and destroys it among all nations. But I must not omit to remark, that some copies have, for You shall inherit among all nations. This too may be understood agreeably to the sense, nor does anything prevent both meanings existing at once. His inheritance takes place by love, which in that He cultivates by His commands and gracious mercy, He destroys earthly desires.
newadvent.org/fathers/1801082.htm

Also to Catholics: Although as an Ortho I disagree with you on numerous stuff, I love you for this website. Its really handy

Also, if you want a protestant view
youtube.com/watch?v=Szkz4bVB-hg

Psalms 82:1
(1)  "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods."
But does Psalm 82 explicitly take up these foreign contexts? No.
Even if we were to take the use of Adam(man) as a proper name explain the second half "and fall like one of the princes" if they were human rulers(princes) then it makes no sense to make this point either.
So were the Angels:

Also this ww1.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature

Right, because you said so.
Except that Augustine explains it. If you ever bother to read what I've posted
They werent, you heretic
meanwhile
and furthermore
and furthermore
and

No, because the text says nothing about Moses.
I did, and his explanation is not sufficient. The text never applies "one of the princes" to Satan.
Seems like you're relying more, and more on the jews as the convo goes on. Wonder why?
Doesn't mean that angels are not meant to serve a governing role under Christ's headship as we are.
Daniel 12:1 KJV
(1)  And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people

Meant to reply to >>706956

Are you acting or are you actually like that?
Sure, as you say so. Lets ignore the fact that virtually all the early commentators and church fathers interpret as such.
Tough talk coming from from a man who supports Jewish theology, while citing retarded ESV translation, while all other relevant translations write "children of Israel". Also food for thought:
Except that its not only about Christ. Especially since Psalm 8 is talking about humans in general. And "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
Its talking about heavenly Hosts, who also act as guardian angels. Note: Guardian angels. Bodyguards assigned to senators dont rule the United States.

And Furthermore:

The earliest church fathers are AD. So yeah, lets just look at the text.

>>>/trash/
Not approved by any Orthodox Church
Comments on biblehub.com You being protestant, it should be of some relevance fore you, as you dont give a damn about church fathers.
Because we are not autistic about some kind of "magical infallible versions". Even Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom confirm that.

Came here to post this

Who the hell do you thing translated Septuagint you winnie the pooh retard?

Ever wonder why Canaan was the one that Noah decided to curse and not Ham?

What if the following is what happened:

In Genesis 3 the serpent was originally a "beast of the field" which was a beast that had the ability to talk. Presumably there were others like him that didn't get cursed. Fast forward to Genesis 4, Cain kills Abel and gets cursed and exiled yet somehow finds a wife before Seth is even born. Maybe the "mark of Cain" was intended to enable him to not be killed by the unnamed "people" that he was afraid of before Seth was even born, and perhaps his wife was from those "people."

If that was the case, what on earth would his children be? They would certainly have a man for a father, so you could call them "daughters of men" but would they really be human? Meanwhile, according to Genesis 5:26 in the days of Enos men began calling on the name of the Lord, therefore according to the NT definition making them sons of God.

Thus the mixing happening in Genesis 6 would be the race of Cain seducing men from the line of Seth, Enos, etcetera. The corruption would be the result of Cain's race corrupting all flesh except for Noah, who is said to be "perfect in his generations" according to Genesis 6. It's understandable why the world would be filled with violence then, and in fact if you read the boasting of Lamech, descendant of Cain in Genesis 4:23 it strongly resembles hip-hop music of today.

The last piece of the puzzle is that Canaan was cursed and not Ham. This would make sense if you supposed the above was true and that Canaan was a bastard son who would start the whole pattern of Genesis 6 in the world all over again.

Whatever man.

Israelite scribes translated it in time for it to be used by the authors of the NT.

There are a lot of unfounded assumptions in that theory so I'm still not convinced.