Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
islandrazor

Giants again...What were they?

Recommended Posts

islandrazor

Another musing… not relevant to our relationship with God.

Goliath

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

 

Cubit 18 inches

Span

1 span 

= 9 inches[8]

= 0.2286 m

Wikipedia

Goliath was apparently 9 feet 9 inches

 

Deu, 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

 

Anakims = Strong's H6062 in the following manner: Anakims (9x). "long-necked. a tribe of giants, descendants of Anak, which dwelled in southern Canaan

 

Deu, 2:1 Which H1992 also were accounted H2803 giants, H7497 as the Anakims; H6062 but the Moabites H4125 call H7121 them Emims. H368

Deu, 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

 

The KJV translates Strong's H7497 in the following manner: giant (17x), Rephaim (8x).

 

Not to be confused with; H5303 giants, the Nephilim which is: giants, the Nephilim as in Genesis 6:4 There were giants H5303 in the earth H776 in those days; H3117 and also after H310 that, H3651 when H834 the sons H1121 of God H430 came in H935 unto the daughters H1323 of men, H120 and they bare H3205 children to them, the same H1992 became mighty men H1368 which were of old, H5769 men H582 of renown. H8034

 

Some may reply that it refers to renown or great strength, yet, that does not preclude TALLER people even if it does refer to reputation. 10 ft tall people would be famous, well known and considerably stronger than a 5’10” - 6’0” man. Who would go up against someone 4 feet taller, fully armed?   Well David did...

 

Not married to this concept, not seeking a divorce from it. To me it just says what it says. There were tall people, very tall,. And apparently unrelated to the genesis giants scripture.

 

In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
22 minutes ago, islandrazor said:

And apparently unrelated to the genesis giants scripture.

Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor
1 hour ago, Origen said:

Please explain.

Sure.

 

1. The words used are different:

Word used in Genesis. H5303 giants, the Nephilim

 

Word used in Deuteronomy. H7497 giant (17x), Rephaim (8x)

Rephaim is also a reference to "a very ancient Canaanites beyond Jordan famous on account of their gigantic stature". (Strongs)

 

2. Gen, 6:4 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, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

God looked around and one man found favor. Noah. I’ve heard it argued that the sons of God were believers in God and the giants were simply well known, mighty men, not necessarily large men. If this is the case, then why decide to destroy them if they remained on earth, or their offspring, being His sons? Who is referenced in the statement, “The sons of God?”. Noah? Noah’s sons?”

 

In verse 8 & 9 we find that; But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

“A just and perfect man who walked with God.”

 

So who are the sons of God that He decided to destroy along with everyone else?

Gen, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

They married the women, not just a one night stand, so they didn’t split, or maybe they did, just before rains set in.

Still may not be relevant since a different word is used.

Were the Nephilim fallen angels? Still don’t matter. Did God as He stated only destroy humans and the offspring of the Nephilim? (They were half man? ) Leave the fallen angels to scatter? Still a different word.

Scripture gives us the dimensions of the ark and most people won’t argue that. Why argue when scripture gives us the dimensions of a man, or a mans bed?

 

Like I stated, I’m not married to the concept of giants, It is not pertinent in regard to our salvation by Gods grace. Still find no reason to get a divorce since scripture, in my opinion clearly states, Tall men. Goliath at 9 feet 9 inches. And a 14 foot bed owned by a giant.

 

I find no direct correlation between Genesis giants and Deut. Scripture. Though could have just been considered immaterial by the writer.

 

In Christ

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
58 minutes ago, islandrazor said:

Sure.

 

1. The words used are different:

Word used in Genesis. H5303 giants, the Nephilim

 

Word used in Deuteronomy. H7497 giant (17x), Rephaim (8x)

Rephaim is also a reference to "a very ancient Canaanites beyond Jordan famous on account of their gigantic stature". (Strongs)

 

2. Gen, 6:4 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, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

 

God looked around and one man found favor. Noah. I’ve heard it argued that the sons of God were believers in God and the giants were simply well known, mighty men, not necessarily large men. If this is the case, then why decide to destroy them if they remained on earth, or their offspring, being His sons? Who is referenced in the statement, “The sons of God?”. Noah? Noah’s sons?”

 

In verse 8 & 9 we find that; But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

“A just and perfect man who walked with God.”

 

So who are the sons of God that He decided to destroy along with everyone else?

Gen, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

They married the women, not just a one night stand, so they didn’t split, or maybe they did, just before rains set in.

Still may not be relevant since a different word is used.

Were the Nephilim fallen angels? Still don’t matter. Did God as He stated only destroy humans and the offspring of the Nephilim? (They were half man? ) Leave the fallen angels to scatter? Still a different word.

Scripture gives us the dimensions of the ark and most people won’t argue that. Why argue when scripture gives us the dimensions of a man, or a mans bed?

 

Like I stated, I’m not married to the concept of giants, It is not pertinent in regard to our salvation by Gods grace. Still find no reason to get a divorce since scripture, in my opinion clearly states, Tall men. Goliath at 9 feet 9 inches. And a 14 foot bed owned by a giant.

 

I find no direct correlation between Genesis giants and Deut. Scripture. Though could have just been considered immaterial by the writer.

 

In Christ

While the Hebrew words are different the groups are related to one another.

 

Nephilim = נְפִילִים

Anakim = עֲנָקִים

Rephaim = רְפָאִים

 

(1) "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  (Num. 13:33)

 

The sons of Anak come from the Nephilim.   The sons of Anak are the Anakim.

 

(2) "a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, Who can stand before the sons of Anak?"  (Deut. 9:2)

 

The Rephaim are regarded as Anakim.

 

(3) "Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim." (Deut. 2:10)

 

The Rephaim are descendants (or subgroup) of the Anakim who are descendants (or subgroup) of the Nephilim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor
40 minutes ago, Origen said:

While the Hebrew words are different the groups are related to one another.

 

Nephilim = נְפִילִים

Anakim = עֲנָקִים

Rephaim = רְפָאִים

 

(1) "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”  (Num. 13:33)

 

The sons of Anak come from the Nephilim.   The sons of Anak are the Anakim.

 

(2) "a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, Who can stand before the sons of Anak?"  (Deut. 9:2)

 

The Rephaim are regarded as Anakim.

 

(3) "Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim." (Deut. 2:10)

 

The Rephaim are descendants (or subgroup) of the Anakim who are descendants (or subgroup) of the Nephilim.

Thanks for the clarification. Are we saying then, that God really didn’t wipe out humanity sparing Noah and his family only? That offspring of the “sons of God” survived for roughly 1400 years? Or did the sons of Gods offspring leave and return after the threat was over? The time between the Genesis 6 account and David.

David. approx 1024 bc

The flood 2500 bc https://biblehub.com/timeline/

 

I don’t find enough information, and it began as an attempt to understand scripture as it refers to giants. I don’t pretend to know the answer to this question. I do find however clear evidence of giant men whatever the origin in Goliath. I will not surmise a scenario on these topic and cast it in stone. It began as a musing, a question which I find may not have enough scriptural information.

 

Thanks for your input truly.

 

In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
deade
1 hour ago, islandrazor said:

So who are the sons of God that He decided to destroy along with everyone else?

Gen, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

They married the women, not just a one night stand, so they didn’t split, or maybe they did, just before rains set in.

Still may not be relevant since a different word is used.

Were the Nephilim fallen angels? Still don’t matter. Did God as He stated only destroy humans and the offspring of the Nephilim? (They were half man? ) Leave the fallen angels to scatter? Still a different word.

Scripture gives us the dimensions of the ark and most people won’t argue that. Why argue when scripture gives us the dimensions of a man, or a mans bed?

 

I was told this story many times, but I still don't see where fallen angels mated with humans.

 

When scripture does not tell us something we are better not to assume. That is how all the wild stories come about. Let’s quit trying to limit God's power with demons running all amok. We have one instance where it seems to apply to angels: Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. Who set its measurements, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what were its foundations sunk? Or who laid its corner-stone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy?”

 

Even that is almost poetic and may mean something other than what we believe.

 

We also have a scripture where God does not call angels sons: Heb. 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

 

Genesis 6 and Job 1 and 2 are the only places other than Job 38 where "sons of God" are even mentioned. I say it is a stretch to apply that to cherubim or seraphim. I did not try to interpret Job 38 about the singers, I just left it alone. It may be something out of the element of time which God is not subject to.

So all our arguing about Gen. 6 and Job 1 & 2 is still nothing more than assumption. It also steals from the perception of God's power, which the spirit world knows well of. 2 Tim. 3:5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2eek.gif.f4c81722108282e31f630119b8734125.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
14 minutes ago, islandrazor said:

Are we saying then, that God really didn’t wipe out humanity sparing Noah and his family only?

I am merely pointing out what the text states.  How one solves any perceive issues or problems is another matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor
3 minutes ago, deade said:

I was told this story many times, but I still don't see where fallen angels mated with humans.

When scripture does not tell us something we are better not to assume. That is how all the wild stories come about. Let’s quit trying to limit God's power with demons running all amok. We have one instance where it seems to apply to angels: Job 38:4-7 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. Who set its measurements, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what were its foundations sunk? Or who laid its corner-stone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy?” Even that is almost poetic and may mean something other than what we believe.

 

We also have a scripture where God does not call angels sons: Heb. 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

 

Genesis 6 and Job 1 and 2 are the only places other than Job 38 where "sons of God" are even mentioned. I say it is a stretch to apply that to cherubim or seraphim. I did not try to interpret Job 38 about the singers, I just left it alone. It may be something out of the element of time which God is not subject to.

So all our arguing about Gen. 6 and Job 1 & 2 is still nothing more than assumption. It also steals from the perception of God's power, which the spirit world knows well of. 2 Tim. 3:5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."2eek.gif.f4c81722108282e31f630119b8734125.gif

I agree with everything your stated above and assumption or suppositions I have no interest in. I do think however that if we believe we can steal anything from God, we are misguided.

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
12 minutes ago, deade said:

When scripture does not tell us something we are better not to assume.

Laughing Out Loud Lol GIF by GIPHY Studios Originals

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
44 minutes ago, deade said:

I was told this story many times, but I still don't see where fallen angels mated with humans.

 

When scripture does not tell us something we are better not to assume. That is how all the wild stories come about. Let’s quit trying to limit God's power with demons running all amok. We have one instance where it seems to apply to angels: Job 38:4-7Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. Who set its measurements, if you know? Or who stretched the line upon it? Upon what were its foundations sunk? Or who laid its corner-stone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy?”

 

Even that is almost poetic and may mean something other than what we believe.

 

We also have a scripture where God does not call angels sons: Heb. 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

 

Genesis 6 and Job 1 and 2 are the only places other than Job 38 where "sons of God" are even mentioned. I say it is a stretch to apply that to cherubim or seraphim. I did not try to interpret Job 38 about the singers, I just left it alone. It may be something out of the element of time which God is not subject to.

So all our arguing about Gen. 6 and Job 1 & 2 is still nothing more than assumption. It also steals from the perception of God's power, which the spirit world knows well of. 2 Tim. 3:5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2eek.gif.f4c81722108282e31f630119b8734125.gif

WWW.LIGONIER.ORG

In the twentieth century, the German biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
deade
4 hours ago, William said:
WWW.LIGONIER.ORG

In the twentieth century, the German biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann...

 

Thanks William, I wasn't aware of this article. It completely makes sense.  5thumbsup.gif.c80959eb070efa4b9ff8379009bb21c7.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
On 8/8/2019 at 9:18 PM, deade said:

Thanks William, I wasn't aware of this article. It completely makes sense.  5thumbsup.gif.c80959eb070efa4b9ff8379009bb21c7.gif

I find learning other areas or perspectives held by others to be rather fruitful studies.

 

Hope the article at least demonstrates the variety of positions on the subject matter.

 

Now it comes down to that nagging question which was rearing itself throughout the board in other threads. Who decides which interpretation is more plausible, that is if we are contending for truth? I think that at least moving from one perspective to another allows us to at least see from varying positions in order to come to a more informed perspective knowing why we believe what we do rather than an other.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Becky
Moderator

Thanks for the article 🙂  I enjoy reading things i can not write but know in my heart to be so.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
th1bill

RC's point has long been my position and I have long felt the leading of the Spirit in that direction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Goodman John
Posted (edited)

"Thereafter the wicked devil [Satan], entering into the evil serpent, deceived the angel who was in the form of a woman [Eve] and poured out upon her head a longing for sin, and Eve's desire was like a glowing oven. Forthwith, the devil in the form of the serpent came out of the reeds and sated his lust on her with the serpent's tail. That is why [the offspring] are called not sons of God but sons of the devil and sons of the serpent, fulfilling the diabolic desires of their father even unto the end of the world."

 

Interrogatio Iohannis (SOURCE)

 

As noted in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 7:2), certain angels and demons were able to mate with humans and thus were created the race of giants known as the Nephilim. As a spiritual being himself, Satan copulating with Eve would have had the same effect, with Cain being the first in the line of Nephilim. 

Edited by Goodman John

Share this post


Link to post
Becky
Moderator

There are some very good reasons why Enoch is not part of Scripture. Some folks just cant get enough of sexual stimulation . 

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
53 minutes ago, Goodman John said:

As noted in the Book of Enoch, certain angels were able to mate with humans and thus were created the race of giants known as the Nephilim. As a spiritual being himself, Satan copulating with Eve would have had the same effect, with Cain being the first in the line of Nephilim. 

Why are you referring to an uninspired literature from apocryphal literature? Here's something to think about, neither the book of Enoch or canonical Apocrypha though completed and in circulation before Jesus walked upon the earth was once referred to by Jesus during His earthly ministry.

 

Note: I am not suggesting that one should steer away altogether from extra-biblical study but I think it important to understand which books are inspired and which are not.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Goodman John
26 minutes ago, William said:

Why are you referring to an uninspired literature from the Apocrypha? Here's something to think about, the Apocrypha was completed and in circulation before Jesus walked upon the earth but during His earthly ministry He never once referred to the Apocrypha.

 

God bless,

William

 

The Apocrypha often fills in the gaps left in the Biblical narrative, and the documents covering those were deemed too controversial to be included in Biblical canon (the Questions of John, the Gospel of Mary, etc.). For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea- even Jesus' divine nature was decided by vote (see Athanasius vs Arius). That this or that document was included in Biblical canon wasn't proof it was inspired- only that scholars liked it and it fit the narrative they wanted to create. 

 

As for the creation of the Apocryphal documents, many of them could not have been recorded until Jesus' time at the very earliest- how else would we have the afore-mentioned documents (as well as many others) filling in the gaps of the Bible? Certainly many non-Jewish and pre-Christian documents were out and about, though (we already know Zoroastrianism was alive and well in Persia well before Jesus' time).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

 

The Apocrypha often fills in the gaps left in the Biblical narrative, and the documents covering those were deemed too controversial to be included in Biblical canon (the Questions of John, the Gospel of Mary, etc.). For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea- even Jesus' divine nature was decided by vote (see Athanasius vs Arius). That this or that document was included in Biblical canon wasn't proof it was inspired- only that scholars liked it and it fit the narrative they wanted to create. 

 

As for the creation of the Apocryphal documents, many of them could not have been recorded until Jesus' time at the very earliest- how else would we have the afore-mentioned documents (as well as many others) filling in the gaps of the Bible? Certainly many non-Jewish and pre-Christian documents were out and about, though (we already know Zoroastrianism was alive and well in Persia well before Jesus' time). 

Well, Goodman John, I'm speaking to you as a past Gnostic.

 

I think a good place to begin is with Jesus Christ:

 

  1. "Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled," Luke 24:44.
  2. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation," Luke 11:51.

 

So we have exactly what Jesus included in His Earthly ministry. Since the OT canon was closed and apocrypha literature was in circulation and never left the Lord's lips I think any argument is largely from silence.

 

And on the subject of the NT do you understand the "process" of inspiration that was used in deciding which books to include in the NT canon? For example, no vote included what books were to be in the canon that were not already in circulation. Perhaps that was criteria 1? That is which books already in circulation were to be dismissed but none added? I think one of the main controversies were Gnostic authorship which begged the question as to whether they belonged in the NT and were truly inspired. After all, given the time of the canonization of the NT we may now date Gnostic authorship to a time of that controversy (when are the earliest Gnostic bibles dated to). Is there any doubt as to when the controversy arose?  Another point, because certain books were widely known or even mentioned by an NT author doesn't convey divine inspiration. For example, Jesus referred to many careers in parables but does that mean those careers are divinely inspired? Jude mentions Enoch but is that referring to a book which was largely known by most of the audience and to a universal truth or was it conveying divine authorship of that book?

 

I mean, all theological implications aside were there any criteria? That is, other than casting a piece of paper this way or that way?  For example, besides the book already being in circulation, was the author of the book in question an actual Apostle? Is Scripture written by anyone? Or was there an office that writ such as Prophet, Christ, and Apostle from a time when the revelatory process was open? And were those that claimed such office able to authenticate themselves? Today are there any offices that are still open and gifted with the revelatory process? As a Protestant I reject Apostolic succession and I'm a firm cessationist. The various miraculous gifts which were given to authenticate such offices have today ceased. I firmly believe that the revelatory process has ceased and only the offices of illumination are open, they are: teachers, pastors, missionaries, and evangelist. Even in the Scriptures we read of certain certain spiritual gifts ceasing at the end of the Apostolic age or the closing of the NT canon. No new Scripture today, but exactly when was the earliest time that that principle came into existence?

 

Here's a book recommendation on the subject of how we got Scripture. The authors are Norman Geisler and William Nix:

 

WWW.AMAZON.COM

From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible [Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying...

 

Lastly, to address the "too controversial for the NT" I think you're also going to have to address the author John in the bible. His arguments were directed to a certain audience. Whether they were some branch of early Gnosticism or not we can match the popular system of belief to what we known of certain schools of thought which existed in John's day. I think that there's no doubt of the doctrine in question which is refuted by John that is taught by various schools of thought today.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
islandrazor

I really don’t care where giants came from. I can’t confirm who the “sons of God” were. Fallen angels as the sons of God? Shrug. For all I know giants were some genetic abnormality. We have a plethora of body types today and how many would Eve walk up to and say,

“You have your fathers eyes?” but you are so short, tall…

 

They were before the flood and after the flood.

 

It is irrelevant to our relationship with God. It was a musing. Is there evidence of the existence of giants? I say yea.

Carry on.

 

In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

The Apocrypha often fills in the gaps left in the Biblical narrative,

In other words some people simply made up stories to fill in the gaps to support their own personal views without regard to N.T. teachings.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

the documents covering those were deemed too controversial to be included in Biblical canon

There is no historical evidence to support such a view.  The fact is they were rejected because they were late in date, could have been written by anyone who was a follower or the follower of a follower, and/or contradict the New Testament.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

Questions of John

A very late in date document (sometime after the 7th century).  It is Catharism and not does not reflect the teachings of the N.T.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

Gospel of Mary

This is nothing more than another late document (ca. 5th century) with no evidence to support it.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea-

You don't know what you are taking about.  No vote was taken in regard to the canon at Nicaea.  Nicaea has nothing to do with the canon.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

even Jesus' divine nature was decided by vote (see Athanasius vs Arius).

Wrong again.   The deity of Jesus was believed and accepted long before Nicaea.   The documentation is overwhelming.

 

16 hours ago, Goodman John said:

That this or that document was included in Biblical canon wasn't proof it was inspired- only that scholars liked it and it fit the narrative they wanted to create. 

Another untrue statement.  The Gospels were recognized as scripture from the very beginning (as were most N.T. documents).  The earliest sources confirm this.

  • Informative 1
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
51 minutes ago, Origen said:

In other words some people simply made up stories to fill in the gaps to support their own personal views without regard to the N.T.

I vote Marvel Comics in for the really New NT. Thanos as an anti-apostle! Can you imagine the spin on anti-apostolic doctrine? Wait, we already have Gnostics. Let's add a Gnostic Thanos!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Goodman John

With regard to the proceedings of the Council of Nicea, if there were no debate over the divine nature of Jesus or what belonged in the 'official' Bible then there would have been absolutely no need for the Council to begin with. That the Council was even convened is testament to the numerous- and powerful- arguments for the many theories of Christianity that were being promoted in the ancient world. If there were no debate, no ideas competing with each other for what form Christianity would take, Nicea would have been totally irrelevant and unnecessary. 

 

The bottom line is that the majority of scholars who took part in the Council had an agenda to push- their specific brand of Christianity- and wanted to make sure that the product they gave Constantine was in keeping with that agenda. All other views were- fairly or unfairly- discredited and deemed to be heresy according to what the Council decided. 

 

We can look at the long-running debate between Athanasius and Arius over the divine nature of Jesus as just one example. Athanasius and Arius had opposing viewpoints and their arguments raged and scholars clearly had a difficult time deciding whose argument was the more sound. In the end, Athanasius won the day and Arius faded into history. But suppose Athanasius had not garnered as much support or Arius was a little more convincing at the podium? Christianity- by DECISION of the scholars of Nicea- would have taken a vastly different turn and what we would have had today would likely not be recognizable to modern Christians. 

 

Mind, I am not arguing that the Council's decision were wrong; my intent is to show that Christianity became what it is by vote (or show of hands, or mutual consent, whatever) as opposed to men in general being allowed to decide for themselves what was 'inspired by God' and what wasn't. In that the Council- through the authority of Constantine- put together a coherent workable doctrine is commendable and a testament to their faith as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Origen
Moderator
1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

With regard to the proceedings of the Council of Nicea, if there were no debate over the divine nature of Jesus

No one suggested or said anything like that.  No one doubts there was a debate between Athanasius and Arius in regard to the nature of Christ.   Your point is moot.  The topic I addressed was the canon, Nicaea, and this vote you say happened.

 

You claimed "For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea..."

 

I reiterate, "no vote was taken in regard to the canon at Nicaea.  Nicaea has nothing to do with the canon."   That was the context of my comment.   It had to do with the canon and Nicaea.  The best idea is for you not to misrepresent what I and other say and stay on point.

 

Cite any primary source which states that council of Nicaea had anything to do with the canon.  I will hold you do this.  You will not be able to just ignore this point.

 

1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

That the Council was even convened is testament to the numerous- and powerful- arguments for the many theories of Christianity that were being promoted in the ancient world. If there were no debate, no ideas competing with each other for what form Christianity would take, Nicea would have been totally irrelevant and unnecessary. 

Cite a primary in regard to the canon.  That is the topic.

 

1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

The bottom line is that the majority of scholars who took part in the Council had an agenda to push- their specific brand of Christianity- and wanted to make sure that the product they gave Constantine was in keeping with that agenda. All other views were- fairly or unfairly- discredited and deemed to be heresy according to what the Council decided. 

Cite the evidence from the primary sources concerning the canon and Nicaea.

 

1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

We can look at the long-running debate between Athanasius and Arius over the divine nature of Jesus as just one example.

Does not address the topic of canon and the primary sources.

 

 

I am not going to waste my time with your other comments.   You claimed "For a document to be 'inspired by God' required only a vote from the scholars of Nicea..."  Cite the primary sources which says that there was vote concerning the canon.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
1 hour ago, Goodman John said:

With regard to the proceedings of the Council of Nicea, if there were no debate over the divine nature of Jesus or what belonged in the 'official' Bible then there would have been absolutely no need for the Council to begin with. That the Council was even convened is testament to the numerous- and powerful- arguments for the many theories of Christianity that were being promoted in the ancient world. If there were no debate, no ideas competing with each other for what form Christianity would take, Nicea would have been totally irrelevant and unnecessary. 

 

The bottom line is that the majority of scholars who took part in the Council had an agenda to push- their specific brand of Christianity- and wanted to make sure that the product they gave Constantine was in keeping with that agenda. All other views were- fairly or unfairly- discredited and deemed to be heresy according to what the Council decided. 

 

We can look at the long-running debate between Athanasius and Arius over the divine nature of Jesus as just one example. Athanasius and Arius had opposing viewpoints and their arguments raged and scholars clearly had a difficult time deciding whose argument was the more sound. In the end, Athanasius won the day and Arius faded into history. But suppose Athanasius had not garnered as much support or Arius was a little more convincing at the podium? Christianity- by DECISION of the scholars of Nicea- would have taken a vastly different turn and what we would have had today would likely not be recognizable to modern Christians. 

 

Mind, I am not arguing that the Council's decision were wrong; my intent is to show that Christianity became what it is by vote (or show of hands, or mutual consent, whatever) as opposed to men in general being allowed to decide for themselves what was 'inspired by God' and what wasn't. In that the Council- through the authority of Constantine- put together a coherent workable doctrine is commendable and a testament to their faith as a whole. 

I'll address one of your points.

 

Heresies arise over time and creep into the church. Is it your position that the church should not convene and respond to heretical doctrine?

 

And early councils convened, the councils which resulted in various creeds did not rely on popularity but rather appealed to the authority of Scripture. We profess the early Ecumenical Creeds because they convey the essential truths on certain issues from Scripture. These particular creeds are a response to a heresy or heresies which arose over time. For example, if you study the history of the Nicene creed you'll discover a few different drafts. As time goes on and questions arose in response to various heretical teaching the creed was developed further.

 

The principles that early councils followed are conveyed in Sola Scriptura, that "pillar" would be later lost and not reestablished again until the Protestant Reformation. The years in between the Catholic church established herself as equal authority rather than by the authority of Scripture alone.

 

We see the very formation of councils in the early church which are recorded in Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council). The Council of Nicaea was not the first church council convened. In Acts 15 we have a pattern in which to follow. Issues and/or heresies arise and a council is convened to address those problems.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...