hisalone said:
While we are talking about the Angel Michael, has his final battle with the fallen angels taken place yet?
I believe Michael's battle with Satan and the fallen angels has already taken place: Satan's defeat follows the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Rev. 12:5; cf. John 12:32, Luke 10:17,18). You'll notice in vv. 13-17 that after being cast out of heaven, Satan turns to persecuting the woman (who represents the church), and failing to overwhelm her, to persecuting the offspring of the woman (individual believers). This period is equivalent to his millennial binding in Rev. 20:1-3. (This is really another issue. Read
More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen, for an in-depth interpretation of Revelation.)
The angels who appeared to Abraham did eat. Of course this is speculation, and I only do this as a discussion, but if they can eat Gen. 19:3-5, then I believe they could have sexual relations. This explains the idea of them leaving their first abode, they chose to have physical form to have relations with the daughters of men.
What explains "leaving their first abode" is leaving off obedience to God. There is nothing in Jude to suggest that he is even referrencing Gen. 6, much less that he is promoting the idea that fallen angels have the capacity to copulate. And even IF they could copulate, what Gen. 6 is describing is that the sons of God MARRIED the daughters of men (took them as wives), not merely that they had sex!
CovenantInBlood said:
3) His interpretation of Matt. 12:43 is also unwarranted. Of course, he uses the KJV because he can twist that translation to his purposes. But the word translated "walketh" is dierchetai in Greek, the primary meaning of which is to journey or pass through. (And anyway, how does a disembodied spirit "walk"??)
Again, I agree with you here, again, I didn't say I bought into everything he said. But as mentioned previously, remember I'm only discussing, but this would explain some of the things the paranormal people say they have seen of the spirit world. Dangerous business to say the least.
What would it explain? One need not resort to Tom Brown's fanciful interpretations to explain people's perceptions of ghosts and spirits. One need only acknowledge that there are demons.
CovenantInBlood said:
4) For Paul, these are all variegated descriptions of the same thing, namely, Satan and his demonic hosts (which are fallen angels).
If the fallen angels are bound as said in Jude 6, then our battle is only against Satan.
As Pilgrim has aptly pointed out, Satan also is bound.
I believe there are spiritual forces in heaven and on earth which we battle. Why can't it be the demon forces?
Well, it is demon forces. The problem that I'm pointing out with Tom Brown is that he is saying that demons are something different from fallen angels, and you apparently also accept this theory. But it hasn't got any basis in Scripture.
We saw very many cases of demon possession spoken of in the Bible, which by the way, there are no instances of demon possession prior to the flood.
I don't recall any cases of demon possession in Genesis period, but that may be my faulty memory.
I don't quite understand his argument about the Nephilim
His argument is that the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim are today's demons. I thought that was what answered your difficulties about the origins of demons, and now you're saying you don't quite understand his argument? Color me confused.
but as for the fallen angels having bodies, again, that explains them leaving their first abode.
One can assert many things. But there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that this is what Jude has in mind. Why this explanation should be preferred over what Pilgrim and I have said-that Jude is referring to their willful rebellion against God-is beyond me.
As in Jude 6,7 a relationship of gross proportions, an unnatural sexual union, like Sodom.
Again this unfounded reading into the text. Here is the structure of Jude's argument:
v. 3 Contend for the faith.
v. 4 Ungodly men have come in among you and they are marked out for destruction.
v. 5 Remember, God destroyed the unbelieving Israelites after delivering Israel from Egypt.
v. 6 God has also consigned the rebellious angels to bondage.
v. 7 Likewise the men of Sodom and Gomorrah are undergoing eternal punishment.
v. 8 These ungodly men revile the faith in the same way.
v. 9-10 If even Michael the Archangel did not rail against Satan himself, how much less should these ungodly men revile the faith.
v. 11 They have gone the way of Cain, they have rushed into the error of Balaam, they have perished in the rebellion of Korah.
If Jude 6 is taken to mean that these angels engaged in unnatural sexual intercourse because Sodom and Gomorrah did, you have to conclude that the unbelievers among the Israelites were destroyed for the same reason, and that the way of Cain, the error of Balaam, and the rebellion of Korah were also sexual in nature! You interpretation of Jude 6 proves too much.
I don't see this being a problem, because the fallen angels were called the sons of God in order to understand who they were, weren't they the sons of God when they were tempted to sleep with the daughters of men? When did they fall? Was it necessarily when Satan fell?
Now you want to suggest that some unfallen angels had sex with women and then fell? It should strike you how many uncorroborated "possibilities" you have to suggest in order to support this interpretation of Gen. 6.
I have no problem with this referring to those angels who left their first abode entering into gross immorality and going after strange flesh. It doesn't necessarily have to be speaking back to verse 5.
See above on the structure of Jude's argument.
I agree he twists certain things, however, the overall premise is feasible. Although his motives may be wrong, it doesn't mean his basic point is wrong. I still believe this to be very feasible, and have not been convinced to attribute the verses to Seth's line, for me to do that would be a stretch, I can't make that leap.
If Tom Brown's overall premise is predicated on false readings of Scripture (which you admit), not to mention unscriptural Jewish tradition and apocryphal I Enoch, how can it be "feasible"? And why is it such a stretch that the "sons of God" would refer to the Sethite line?
