Slaying Cain

[Nayto]

Nayto, please listen to Pragmatic Genesis, LOL

I have listened to it already, but I humbly request that you spell out the details to me

I of course see your presentations with my worldview and perhaps extract cues and meaning where not intended and miss cues and meaning where it was intended.

First, Christ is talking about angels in heaven.

But what if the ancients understood the angels of Genesis chapter 6 to have been the already fallen angels?

In other words, what if the ancients identified pre-Adamic races (and the corruptions they created) with the fallen angels, as the Revelation also identifies the serpent of Genesis 3?

So angels developed the ability to procreate sexually in their falling? Or did they develop the propensity to indulge in their existing ability to procreate?

[bradley39482]

from what i have studied, and this is my humble opinion,
messengers,"angels" had the ability to procreate, we are an image of our former self, this body is just a temporary housing. there is no law until God makes one, or declares one. in revelation Satan drew a 1/3 of our family to follow him, and they did, and they still follow him, they are evil spirits, Demons if you will. in my humble opinion, could not this be the time when these fallen, came to earth and seduced the daughters of adam? and as God saw this monstrosity, could he have made a law in heaven that this is not to be any more? there is no biblical reference to this, but this might be an explanation of why Jesus explained that they do not give and take in marriage in heaven. Jesus said , i saw satan fall, as lightning from the Sky, "paraphrasing" im quite sure Jesus saw this happen, when it happened, and im quite sure he saw these messengers seduce the daughters of adam, so im pretty sure he knew what he was talking about, because he was there.

my humble opinion, only, not Gods.

[Nayto]

so im pretty sure he knew what he was talking about, because he was there.

If that were true, we'd have to assume that Christ was being disingenuous. Why would He say one thing and actually mean another? In my opinion we need to draw conclusions based on what He said and not based on our assumptions of His experiences.

[bradley39482]

Disingenuous about what? i don't follow you? please use a quote of this disingenuous that you are speaking of?

[Staropramen]

....messengers,"angels" had the ability to procreate, we are an image of our former self, this body is just a temporary housing. there is no law until God makes one, or declares one. in revelation Satan drew a 1/3 of our family to follow him, and they did, and they still follow him, they are evil spirits, Demons if you will.

I'm not following you here. Some CI teachers in the past like Wesley Swift taught that we existed in heaven as spirits before we were placed in earthly bodies. This is incorrect.

42 In this way also is the restoration of the dead. It is sown in decay, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in honor. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual. 45 And just as it is written, the first man Adam "came into a living soul,” the last Adam into a life producing Spirit. 46 But the spiritual was not first; rather the natural, then the spiritual:

1 Corinthians 15:42-46, CNT

Are you suggesting that we pre-existed as spirits [as Swift taught] and that we are related to the angels that rebelled?

[Nayto]

Disingenuous about what? i don't follow you? please use a quote of this disingenuous that you are speaking of?

Apologies if I wasn't clear. What I mean is that Christ specifically said that angels are not given in marriage. Marriage to our ancestors is sex. By this I easily infer by the passage that Christ is saying that angels can not have sex.

Now Christ has never said anything to contradict the above statement i.e. He never said that angels are able to have sex.

With the above two points in mind, to infer that in saying that angels are not able to have sex, when Christ knew that they in fact were able to, would mean that Christ was being disingenuous.

It reminds me of when Bill was talking about Hitler's stance on Christianity in one of his podcasts. Why would Hitler continually say Christian things if he was a pagan? The context is probably lost if you haven't heard the podcast, so please ignore this part if that's the case.

To take it further, by the current theological theories its implied that angels procreated with Eve or early Adamites to produce mongrels, but this seems to contradict what Christ explicitly said. If there is something I've misunderstood then I hope someone will clarify for me. I don't think there is an answer to this question in all of codified CI knowledge to this day, even in Bill's Genesis series. Again, if I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct me.

[Kentucky]

from what i have studied, and this is my humble opinion,
messengers,"angels" had the ability to procreate

Messengers can be either terrestrial or celestial. If the latter angelic beings were only spiritual beings, then how could they have possibly transformed themselves into physical biological reproductive beings?

Mark

[wmfinck]

To take it further, by the current theological theories its implied that angels procreated with Eve or early Adamites to produce mongrels, but this seems to contradict what Christ explicitly said. If there is something I've misunderstood then I hope someone will clarify for me. I don't think there is an answer to this question in all of codified CI knowledge to this day, even in Bill's Genesis series. Again, if I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct me.

But the words of Christ in the Gospel concerning marriage in the Resurrection was in relation to angels in heaven.

But your question to Brad in that regard is legitimate because it concerns angels in heaven.

As Mark just said, the term angel could refer to a terrestrial or a celestial being.

The angels at Lot's house in Sodom attracted the sexually perverted Sodomites.

I have tried to explain, without trying to assert a doctrine, that the angels which fell from "heaven" in the Revelation, who must have been the antagonists of Genesis chapters 3 and 6, did not necessarily fall from a celestial heaven. Christ very well may have spoken allegorically in Luke 10. They certainly did have the ability to procreate.

The children of the Resurrection will be in "heaven" once again, but that "heaven" will also evidently be on earth (1 Corinthians 15).

[Nayto]

I have tried to explain, without trying to assert a doctrine, that the angels which fell from "heaven" in the Revelation, who must have been the antagonists of Genesis chapters 3 and 6, did not necessarily fall from a celestial heaven. Christ very well may have spoken allegorically in Luke 10. They certainly did have the ability to procreate.

The children of the Resurrection will be in "heaven" once again, but that "heaven" will also evidently be on earth (1 Corinthians 15).

I think I've started to understand what you're saying. Don't hold back though; it seems like you're trying to be gentle about it. Let 'er rip, lol! My next question would be where do these terrestrial angels/messengers come from? Where did they fall from and where did they fall to?

[Joe]

I am still thinking about this.
And one question I have is that if these are not celestial angels then they must be white.
Yet they were in the garden before the first man Adam.

And if these angels were white they would not create giants or abominations when they took the daughters of Adam.

And if there were angels on the earth that were not celestial (or created by fallen celestial angels) nor Adamic, then I would question their origination. They were not of God yet they were on the Earth.