truthislight:

he does not read his bible that is why he does not know what the Angels did in Noah's day.
GENESIS 6:1-3

Of course, I don't. That's how I know that that passage you just threw out was the one you were banking on to hold up that teaching. What in there says that angels slept with women? I don't care to derail this thread nor am I interested in fighting over Scripture with you, truthislight. As far as I am concerned, you and I do not belong in the same home so why would I bother to open the treasures of my heritage to you?

it seems that enigma is not talking to me because I called him (amongst others) up for trying to use english language to mock Deepsight. What a pity!

@Enigma. All that stuff about separation of church and state is water under the bridge for me and I don't think you have to imagine that everything I say is being addressed to you. I was talking about upstart evangelicals, and if you are not one then you don't have to take it so personally. My point about the upstarts still stands whether you're one or not.

Pastor AIO: it seems that enigma is not talking to me because I called him (amongst others) up for trying to use english language to mock Deepsight. What a pity!

@Enigma. All that stuff about separation of church and state is water under the bridge for me and I don't think you have to imagine that everything I say is being addressed to you. I was talking about upstart evangelicals, and if you are not one then you don't have to take it so personally. My point about the upstarts still stands whether you're one or not.

^^^ Water under the bridge --- but you went to dig up a thread that had been dead for about a year (9 months) to make a pointless and even dishonest dig at me. And hypocritical too --- because I can point to examples of you calling people up on English language.

Yeah right, water under the bridge indeed; even after the 'separation of church and state' debate and even after your nonsense on the Religious Practices thread, I was still quite disappointed that you could sink so low! I guess it was your reaction to the fact that your arguments on some 3 or 4 other/preceding threads were shown to be tosh.

Ihedinobi:

No sir, I doubt very much that you did. Nowhere in the Bible from Genesis to the Revelations did any spirit or extra-material being of any sort consort with a woman in the sexual way. I am open to disagreement. But I can assure you that such a teaching will not hold up under scrutiny.

OIC. Well, we learn everyday. I will go scrutinise it, then, and see if I find your position agreeable or not.

MyJoe:
OIC. Well, we learn everyday. I will go scrutinise it, then, and see if I find your position agreeable or not.

By all means, please do.

Genesis 6:1-4(KJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.

Gen 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6 (MSG)
1-2 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.
3 Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."
4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

No, Mr Obi. I don't find your current position agreeable. But you already considered these verses before adopting it, so it will be interesting to hear your explanation.

Enigma:


^^^ Water under the bridge --- but you went to dig up a thread that had been dead for about a year (9 months) to make a pointless and even dishonest dig at me. And hypocritical too --- because I can point to examples of you calling people up on English language.

Yeah right, water under the bridge indeed; even after the 'separation of church and state' debate and even after your nonsense on the Religious Practices thread, I was still quite disappointed that you could sink so low! I guess it was your reaction to the fact that your arguments on some 3 or 4 other/preceding threads were shown to be tosh.

Well, I apologise for offending you. I was not digging up the thread to dig at you. I dig up old threads when I find the current page 1 threads boring, and I chanced on that one and made the comment.

I've just looked at the religious practices thread and fail to see what was 'nonsensical' about it. https://www.nairaland.com/524398/religious-practices

It seems that you're really smarting from my comments, but really think about it. You were mocking someone for not knowing some vague english phrase (Indian Summer) which is different from calling people up on their beliefs based a misunderstanding of the bible's english. (eg. Thou shalt Suffer a witch to not live - misquoted and used to justify torture of those accused of witchcraft). Okay, it's possible that I might have pointed fingers at someone else's misunderstanding of english outside of biblical or theological contexts in which case I would have been just as pathetic as the whole Indian summer debacle. I don't recall ever doing so but I apologise if I did.

"The sons of God". Now, that is where the devil would be. Well, it will be interesting to hear Mr Obi's explanation.

MyJoe: Genesis 6:1-4(KJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.

Gen 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6 (MSG)
1-2 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.
3 Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."
4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

No, Mr Obi. I don't find your current position agreeable. But you already considered these verses before adopting it, so it will be interesting to hear your explanation.

MyJoe, my feeling about you is that you're a believer. I'm still not very willing to take that fact on face value and show you the meaning of that part of the Bible. I will know if it's worth it if you please accommodate one question, or two as the case may be, for me.

What in that passage indicated that it was angels that married these women? And why?

Pardon my seeming arrogance. I have suffered from opening up deep meanings to abusers of my family heritage and do not intend to put the value of my family treasures through such terrible handling again. So show me, if you will, that there is truly that in you which knows the value of the Scriptures.

Edit: I see that you have answered the first question: the term, sons of God, is what you receive as refering to angels. And you say that the devil (that is, Satan, right?) is numbered among them. Please tell me why you receive that to mean "angels".

Moderator, why so much highlighting?

Pastor AIO:

Well, I apologise for offending you. I was not digging up the thread to dig at you. I dig up old threads when I find the current page 1 threads boring, and I chanced on that one and made the comment.

I've just looked at the religious practices thread and fail to see what was 'nonsensical' about it. https://www.nairaland.com/524398/religious-practices

It seems that you're really smarting from my comments, but really think about it. You were mocking someone for not knowing some vague english phrase (Indian Summer) which is different from calling people up on their beliefs based a misunderstanding of the bible's english. (eg. Thou shalt Suffer a witch to not live - misquoted and used to justify torture of those accused of witchcraft). Okay, it's possible that I might have pointed fingers at someone else's misunderstanding of english outside of biblical or theological contexts in which case I would have been just as pathetic as the whole Indian summer debacle. I don't recall ever doing so but I apologise if I did.

1. On the Religious Practices thread: this was a thread that I had not got involved in at all; the very first line on the thread was pitifully stu.pid anyway (as was relying on a dictionary merely to "define" religion!) and even if I had seen the thread I would have kept out of it. Anyway, on a thread that I was not involved in you felt no shame making the dig that I would avoid it like the plague.

2. As for your hypocrisy regarding calling people up on the English language, here is just one example https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/3#10831529

Pastor AIO: Either you don't understand english or you hallucinate as you read. . . . .

That alone is worse than what you said caused you "pain deep within your soul" (O ga ) as done by "bloviating"* "ITKs" "doing like say na dem papa get language".

Hypocrisy much? Also dishonesty, as I said before, because of course the fact that I told the other poster to let it go was conveniently overlooked.

Anyway, I note you are now apologising; it's all good.



* Thanks again, davydlan.

Ihedinobi:

MyJoe, my feeling about you is that you're a believer. I'm still not very willing to take that fact on face value and show you the meaning of that part of the Bible. I will know if it's worth it if you please accommodate one question, or two as the case may be, for me.

What in that passage indicated that it was angels that married these women? And why?

Pardon my seeming arrogance. I have suffered from opening up deep meanings to abusers of my family heritage and do not intend to put the value of my family treasures through such terrible handling again. So show me, if you will, that there is truly that in you which knows the value of the Scriptures.

Edit: I see that you have answered the first question: the term, sons of God, is what you receive as refering to angels. And you say that the devil (that is, Satan, right?) is numbered among them. Please tell me why you receive that to mean "angels".

Quite often I have felt it is not worth expending energy on schooling some of the non-Christians here who are usually ungrateful anyway ---- "casting pearls before swine" and all that.

@truthislight, So for you, the books of the new testament were accepted by the early christians as scriptures only becos they were written by the apostles. But the book of luke, acts and hebrew were not written by the apostles (the twelve) but they are found in the bible. This goes to show that the cannon we have today is not a product of the endorsment by the thesalonian christians like you are trying to make us believe

Though the bible says they accepted it as the word of god, but the truth is they did not consider it on the par with the 'established' hebrew cannon (the OT) prior to the 4th century AD. So the only reason why you and i believe that the bible we have today is scripture is thatthe RCC called it so!

one more thing; since there were no printing press and the various chuches are miles away frrom each other, there is nothing to prove that all of the churches were in possesion of all the letters of the apostles. Or is there anything to prove that some of the churches were not having documents that are not found in the bible today.

Enigma:

Quite often I have felt it is not worth expending energy on schooling some of the non-Christians here who are usually ungrateful anyway ---- "casting pearls before swine" and all that.

@Enigma and Ihedinobi;

Ok now I am interested in this thread, please share with us about these sons of God because I have always known them to be angels....and for the benefit of MyJoe as well

^^

@ Mr Anony

I have not actually got involved on that point here and would leave it to Ihedinobi if he wants to address it.

Enigma: ^^

@ Mr Anony

I have not actually got involved on that point here and would leave it to Ihedinobi if he wants to address it.

fair enough, I'll let Ihedinobi address it but feel free to jump in anytime.

Enigma:

1. On the Religious Practices thread: this was a thread that I had not got involved in at all; the very first line on the thread was pitifully stu.pid anyway (as was relying on a dictionary merely to "define" religion!) and even if I had seen the thread I would have kept out of it. Anyway, on a thread that I was not involved in you felt no shame making the dig that I would avoid it like the plague.

The very first line of the thread is as follows:

I'm trying to list a summary of the various practices that are common to all the religions of the world and investigate what are the possible effects of each of them. Here are a few that I can think of at this moment:

Sacrifices (usually using the blood of a variety of victims)

https://www.nairaland.com/524398/religious-practices#6866546

I fail to get the stupidity of it. However I totally agree with you that using the dictionary to define religion was stoopeed (bad deepsight!) and I criticised it. It was Deepsight (Again?!!! chei!) that brought your name up on that thread and I responded that I thought you'd avoid the thread like a plague. It wasn't an insult, I just felt that it was the kind of thread that you'd turn your nose up at. I really don't see how you could feel insulted but what was written there.

Enigma:
2. As for your hypocrisy regarding calling people up on the English language, here is just one example https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/3#10831529

That alone is worse than what you said caused you "pain deep within your soul" (O ga ) as done by "bloviating"* "ITKs" "doing like say na dem papa get language".

Hypocrisy much? Also dishonesty, as I said before, because of course the fact that I told the other poster to let it go was conveniently overlooked.

Anyway, I note you are now apologising; it's all good.



* Thanks again, davydlan.

No no no!! They are not the same thing. Mocking someone for not knowing an obscure english phrase is quite different from saying that someone that is misunderstanding you doesn't understand english (when english happens to be the language you're communicating in). There is the element of Mockery as if you had some pride for knowing a vocab that someone else didn't which was missing in my statement.
I said something in plain english and was misconstrued. you mocked someone for not knowing an obscure english phrase.

@Enigma, it seems that there are some underlying issues that you and I need to discuss, and not just brush under the carpet with glib apologies. I'm open to having this discussion, I hope you are. It'll have to be publicly, here on NL though.

^^^ Will you please top stop the lie that I mocked someone.

As for your defense of your own action, that to me is just weaseling nonsense to be honest.

Pastor AIO: @Enigma, it seems that there are some underlying issues that you and I need to discuss, and not just brush under the carpet with glib apologies. I'm open to having this discussion, I hope you are. It'll have to be publicly, here on NL though.

Every thing has been public.

Enigma: ^^^ Will you please top the lie that I mocked someone.

As for your defense of your own action, that to me is just weaseling nonsense to be honest.

Okay, no wahala.

@ihedinobi
If you have had problems with certain discussants and found the exercise unedifying, my sympathies. I will skip the bit about degrading your family heritage since I respect your strong Christian values. But I will like to say that while I do place considerable value on the Bible, I doubt that the “value of the scriptures” would mean exactly the same thing to you and me. That portion of the Bible is not of any particular importance to me – I highlighted your post because I had thought Christians generally accept that the “sons of God” were angels and you are the first person I recall to hold a contrary view. So if you only discuss these matters in a heavy atmosphere and with someone who shares similar interests, feel free to respond no further. Not that I sought a discussion per se. I just hope to understand why you hold your position. I have no intention to debate or that sort of thing.

Now to answer your question:
I have not paid any particular attention to that verse beyond recollections of what I learnt many years back – you know, Sunday school, children’s Bible and CRK stuff. Now that you have made me to think about the matter, I think those who taught me knew what they were talking about because:
1. The expression “sons of God” used here is used in other verses of the Bible to refer to angels. For example, Job 1:6 and 38:7 – or weren’t the guys in Job angels?
2. St Jude talks about angels abandoning their positions (Jude 6).
3. St Peter talks about “the spirits in prison” and links them with the days of Noah (1Pe 3:19, 20).

@Edit
No no. I didn’t mean that the devil was among them, although, funny enough, that seems to fit in somehow. I’m sure you are familiar with the phrase, “the devil is in the detail”. Just a harmless idiomatic expression stretched a bit.

chukwudi44: Purgatory is mentioned as prison in the verse below
1 Peter 3:19-21 (King James Version) - Bible Gateway

By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime
were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days.

The spirits of those who ignored noah were kept in prison pending the death of jesus

in addition to the above written, you can read 1 corinthians 3:2-15 verse 15 says

if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be save yet so as by fire 1 cor 3: 15

read it from chapter three for better understanding.

My question is how can one save by passing through the fire if there is no pogatory?

Mr_Anony:
@Enigma and Ihedinobi;

Ok now I am interested in this thread, please share with us about these sons of God because I have always known them to be angels....and for the benefit of MyJoe as well

Ah! A non-non-Christian is interested. No doubt, even Sir Enigma won't mind hurling some "pearls" now. Thanks.

Mr_Anony:
@Enigma and Ihedinobi;

Ok now I am interested in this thread, please share with us about these sons of God because I have always known them to be angels....and for the benefit of MyJoe as well

My beloved brother, I do not mind telling you that that is hard work. But I'll do my best to make it short work and avoid muddling things up along the way.

First off, I also held the notion that they were angels for two reasons: (a) the Nephilim that were mentioned later and I'd assumed were their progeny and (b) the two verses in Job that appeared to include Satan among the sons of God (Job 1:6, 2:1).

(a) The same verse where the Nephilim were mentioned was the same where the notion that they were borne of these marriages was destroyed. In the Amplified, Genesis 6:4 reads

"there were giants on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

The Nephilim, that is, the giants were part of the environment, not the product of those marriages.

(b) I read the two verses in Job from four translations to get the true picture. I didn't quite need to, because there is Psalm 82 to address assumptions. In the Amplified Bible, the word, angels, was put in square brackets to explain the sons of God. In the New Living Translation, the expression is "members of the heavenly court". In the New International Version, the word was angels with a footnote saying that the Hebrew is "sons of God". King James Version, New King James Version, and the Revised Standard Version all run with "sons of God".

Again I declare, nothing in the Scriptures may be interpreted alone. The Scriptures must be interpreted by Scriptures. Eph 3:10 record in the Amplified Bible, "[The purpose is] that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere."

Psalm 82 speaks of God having a council of sorts with authorities. The latter chapters of Daniel are filled with speakings of angelic authorities operating under God. Paul's letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians are quite rife with mentions of spiritual authorities that are not human in nature. These all lend their meaning to Job 1 and 2. So, the sons of God there are most likely angelic authorities charged with oversight of the Old Creation, that which is passing away. But do they as well lend their meaning to Genesis 6? We have Jesus's words to educate us there. Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:36 speak of one essential difference between the human and the angel: the human marries and bears children, the angel doesn't. It is extreme liberality with the Scriptures that result in careless meanings like that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are the sons of God of Job 1 and 2.

However, who are the sons of God in Genesis 6?
Before anything else is said, it must be known without question that they were human. They most definitely were.

Having said that, I'll go on to say that they were, possibly among others Seth's lineage. Adam had two distinctive sons who represented the two paths available to the human race: (1) Cain and (2) Abel. We know what Cain did to Abel. We probably also know why. But do we know the significance of Eve's utterance in Gen 4:25 when she had Seth?

There was a Seed promised. He was going to come from a line of men who held on to God and were faithful to His commands. Abel was the first we saw who indicated understanding of the gravity of Adam's failure in the Garden. His sacrifice pleased the Lord and the Lord accepted his person. Upon his death at the hand of Cain (another incredibly significant thing in itself), Seth replaced him. Seth's lineage was the same as Abel's lineage in the eyes of the Lord. Everyone who was in the same understanding that Abel had about the Righteousness of the Lord and the gravity of Adam's failure was morally and legally, even if not biologically, of that lineage. They are those called sons of God as against sons of men.

From the beginning, there has been two lines: those who are the Lord's and those who are their own. Abel and all in his character are of the first, Cain and all in his character are of the second. And, from the very beginning, there was never supposed to be mixture of the lines or else there would be corruption and loss of purity in that which is the Lord's.

Those who, in those days, made acceptable sacrifices on altars recognized by the Lord are those that proceeded from Seth's line. Like I said, others not of this line biologically may have joined them. They were also accepted. But I'm sure it'll be recognized that they were the exception among their people. . .

Likewise those of the line who thought nothing of the sacrifice were rejected by the Lord as being of men and not His, just like Cain was.

If the purity of the line had been maintained and not corrupted by those marriage alliances, wickedness would not have filled the earth resulting in having only one righteous man approved of the Lord in that entire generation. But for the Flood, things would have degenerated to the point that we'd have completely lost God in our imaginations and there'd be no line through which the Messiah would come. This was why the Flood.

In fact, I understood God's statement about His Spirit striving with man for the first time doing this re-examination. The instant the marriages began to happen, it became incontrovertible that even these sons of God were flesh and could no longer be counted on. They would eventually lose sight of the significance of the purity of their line and God's last link to the earth He created would be gone. To secure that link, the Lord destroyed everything that threatened it.

I don't mean to explain the Flood. I mean to explain that the sons of God were certain people with peculiar characteristics. They were people like Abel, like Enoch, like Noah. You'll see the significance of the issue of marital purity later with Abraham and his children, then later the children of Israel and finally us Christians.

There's a great deal in this study. Many things that are thrown up as a result of defining these sons of God. That's one reason I said it's very hard work. And I hate to do it for anyone who doesn't belong in the House because doing so makes nonsense of the sacred things I present and causes incredible bitterness as as result of the wrangling that ensues.

Enigma: People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

Hahaha, lol

are you real?

Laughing in 100 languages.

AIO will get you arrested for, you know, the usual charges, heresies/heresy

oh! I forgot, its an internet forum.

Enigma: People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

Hahaha, lol

are you real?

Laughing in 100 languages.

AIO will get you arrested for, you know the usual charges, heresies/heresy

you know what they do to your sort and me.
Tie us BACKward to a spinning wheel with a fire burning under.

Jolly ride.

oh! I forgot, its an internet forum.

Ihedinobi:

Of course, I don't. That's how I know that that passage you just threw out was the one you were banking on to hold up that teaching. What in there says that angels slept with women? I don't care to derail this thread nor am I interested in fighting over Scripture with you, truthislight. As far as I am concerned, you and I do not belong in the same home so why would I bother to open the treasures of my heritage to you?

lol.
But GENESIS 6:1-3 is open for all to read.
Do we need your permission to read our bible?

Do we also need to seek your point of view to have the understanding of that plain scripture?

Other Angels did come down to talk to Abraham, Jacob, etc, etc.

We are not in those churches that we should just stay put and take in all that the MOG dishes out.

We are not also in the 15th and 16 century need i remind you.
Peace

MyJoe: Genesis 6:1-4(KJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
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.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.

Gen 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6 (MSG)
1-2 When the human race began to increase, with more and more daughters being born, the sons of God noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful. They looked them over and picked out wives for themselves.
3 Then God said, "I'm not going to breathe life into men and women endlessly. Eventually they're going to die; from now on they can expect a life span of 120 years."
4 This was back in the days (and also later) when there were giants in the land. The giants came from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. These were the mighty men of ancient lore, the famous ones.

No, Mr Obi. I don't find your current position agreeable. But you already considered these verses before adopting it, so it will be interesting to hear your explanation.

beautifully done.
Well done.

souldust: @truthislight, So for you, the books of the new testament were accepted by the early christians as scriptures only becos they were written by the apostles. But the book of luke, acts and hebrew were not written by the apostles (the twelve) but they are found in the bible. This goes to show that the cannon we have today is not a product of the endorsment by the thesalonian christians like you are trying to make us believe

Though the bible says they accepted it as the word of god, but the truth is they did not consider it on the par with the 'established' hebrew cannon (the OT) prior to the 4th century AD. So the only reason why you and i believe that the bible we have today is scripture is thatthe RCC called it so!

one more thing; since there were no printing press and the various chuches are miles away frrom each other, there is nothing to prove that all of the churches were in possesion of all the letters of the apostles. Or is there anything to prove that some of the churches were not having documents that are not found in the bible today.

guy the basis of your argument is faulty.

Acts was related by apostle luke, (he is a physician)

he accompany paul during most of his missionary journey.

The book of Hebrews goes to paul and this is Generally accepted.

On the surface the writer is not obvious. Due to the content being highly critical of the Law/abolishment of the law.

And the Jews had sorted ways to kill Paul in many occasion even on issues like circumcission, how more when he the wrote that the law has been abolished, and that christ is the new high priest.


So, with such faulty foundation i cannot exert further energy on the rest of what you said.
Peace

D P

Mr_Anony:
@Enigma and Ihedinobi;

Ok now I am interested in this thread, please share with us about these sons of God because I have always known them to be angels....and for the benefit of MyJoe as well

bro thank you o!