Actually, no, I'm endeavoring to show that "death" means more then the cessation of bodily activity.
Much love!
Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.
- Thread starter stunnedbygrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Much love!
I agree with you here. But, I have also seen you call things mysticism that I see layed out all through the Bible.
Sometimes, whereas I say, what is this strange teaching I’ve never heard…let me listen along with my Bible and see if it has any scriptural validity, you seem to me to…think you have no leaven.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
His problem is relying on the worst translation available in English. From ESV, which claims to be the most literal:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
NASB also claims to be the most literal:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
What a minute. Angels are Spirit. It means all flesh are 'strange flesh' for them.
Okay. But flesh of one man is not a different kind of flesh than another man. But it is forbidden.
And Amorite and Jebusite women are not flesh of a “different kind” than the flesh of Jewish men. But it was forbidden.
So…strange flesh means flesh that God told other flesh not to get fleshly with.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Both could be true. I can have all kinds of leaven AND you can be making all kinds of mystical connections - in the Bible, in life, etc.
Could and can are mere possibilities. FWIW, I might see those same connections but attach a non-mystical explanation, independent of having a double dose of leaven. :)
Actually it means flesh of a different kind, and you are correct, the flesh of one man is not a different kind from another man. Not between men. "Forbidden" would be a different word. This word means a different kind. Forget about the implications and just look at the words. If you deny the valid meaning because you don't like the implications, what good is that? They went after flesh of a different kind in fornication.
And this standard meaning of heteros used with flesh is validated here,
1 Corinthians 15:39-40 KJV
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
Not all flesh is the same, there are different kinds of flesh, men, beasts, fishes, birds . . . and celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies.
These angels "left their habitation", their heavenly realm body, fornicating with flesh of a different kind. That's the plain saying of the passages. We either accept it or we do not.
I know many people who are perfectly willing to say, as you do here, things like this, "It says different, but what it really means is forbidden", but I'm not willing to do that. Words have meanings, and God uses words to communicate with us.
Much love!
Last edited:
If you are talking about me, maybe there is a question you'd like to ask me before making this statement?
I realize you don't like this kind of thing, but here's one example,
Hint . . . this isn't the KJV . . .
Much love!
Last edited:
At this point, it’s all so messed up that ANY doctrine is suspect to me unless I carefully check it out. And how long the doctrine has been around doesn’t really matter either. I don’t trust a dusty old dead man any more than I trust a living one to teach me correctly. It’s just a mess. One little speck of wrong can do a whole world of hurt when it comes to my understanding. I’ve only ever found a few men who at least have studied things out for themselves and received from God too rather than having what pops out of their mouth when they open it be just regurgitation with their own opinions added in.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Friend, you are lost in the weeds. The point does not pivot on the object of the angels desire - flesh being different or forbidden, which wrongly implies a type of allowed flesh for angels. The point pivots on their sexual immorality - regardless of the target group.
Consider a sentence, ‘the soldiers were killed in the battle when they crossed the line.’ It is wrong to suppose the reason they were killed is because they crossed the line; rather because they were in a battle.
Not sure how all this relates to figurative use of ‘death’ but there it is.
Believe me, I’m not refusing things because I don’t like what they imply. I’m refusing the supposings of men. Nowhere do I see what you see. I just don’t see it. When it’s talking about Sodom, “strange flesh” does not mean homosexual men were having sex with angels all throughout the land. It means men were having relations with other men or beasts.
Gosh sakes! Everyone thinks angels with penises are lurking around every corner! And yet I’m the one teaching false things.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I believe holding any doctine suspect is a healthy point to be at.
The basic question is, why are doctrines needed at all? My wife has convinced me of the the simplicity of 'it's not about religion but relationships' which echoes what Jesus said, to love God and love others.
Going to the next level of detail, Romans 10:9 is the only concise condition of salvation I've found. (Of course, this is with the caveat of faith being tied to action, not lip service.)
Beyond that, how many persons are the Godhead or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin struggle to find necessity.
Genesis 19:1-5 KJV
1) And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2) And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3) And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4) But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Much love!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I think a little differently than you in only one place here - your last paragraph. Because men are so messed up by all the supposings and opinions they’ve taken into their minds, they are now strongholds that block out any more light or further understanding. If you carefully follow the conversation in here and how it went, because of what is now in their mind, they can’t even question if it might be wrong.
You can admit you don’t understand the concept, but you can’t (truthfully) say the concept doesn’t exist. It’s mentioned in Rev 2 and explained in Rev 20.
Since ALL men will one day raise to be judged, can you think of a better word than sleeping to convey that they will again wake in the future, some to eternal life and others to the lake which is the second death?
- Status
Similar threads
