Nephilim? Baptism SAVES? A clean conscience? And more - 1 Peter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 січ 2016
- A careful handling of these interesting and controversial verses!
This Bible study is from the Sunday evening service at Hosanna Christian Fellowship in Bellflower, CA. Check out www.hosannachapel.org
0:20 Conscience
31:20 Nephilim (May need to re-wind some)
39:12 Baptism
Thank you.
This is very helpful thanks
U rock
Nephilim(fallen ones) in my Torah they are (Divine ones) Giants in the Greek version (septuagent) is the word (Gigantes) meaning earth born and were actual large deformed human like 10 to 12 feet tall. (Redhaired giants in Nevada) good references can be found in Chuck Misslers Cosmic Code... I liked your comment by the way...
Thank you so much. Was gonna watch this to steel man the opposing argument for baptism and you saved me 40min of other stuff lol
“If you have to know what God is doing to trust Him, you don’t” That’s one for the refrigerator door.
@ladawg81 Some?
27:30
I am excited to see that you have people that are interested in this type of teaching. Too many people want the simple stuff and won't make the effort to be more knowledgeable in order to make them better witnesses. I love your demeanor, and it makes a lot people want to listen even when they disagree with you.
same here with me, BrotherROGER ... in SSB radio language --- ROGER!
I agree. Good teaching Mike!
@@JP-hr3xq A lot of truth in that.
Your view on prosperity gospel is brilliantly insightful -- wrong millenia, wrong people, etc. I had to listen to it twice to absorb. Thanks!!!
Dr Michael Heiser talks about this in great details. Just got 2 of his books on this topic. Books are "Unseen Realm" and "Reversing Hermon".
TheNikolinho you beat me to it! I am here to say the same thing!
Yes Mike is an excellent source
Heiser has led so many astray with his false doctrine & elevation of false books to scripture level.
Read the book and it's get beyond kooky and starts taking verses way out of context.
@@validcore he doesn't do that when he speaks. I've watched a lot of his UA-cam videos and whenever he references "false books" like 1 Enoch, he always seems to make a point to say how it's useful in understanding the culture, even though it isn't inspired. I don't like the way he presents himself or his information, but I do respect his ability to research and support his affirmative positions.
An example of what I don't like is a video he has about Genesis 1 where he is explaining how it is describing God applying order to the universe. My issue isn't with the idea that it explains how God assigned a purpose to things, because it does do that, and I had never really thought about that aspect of creation, but he goes on to assert that it can not be interpreted to be literal. One of the reasons I came to believe the Bible is that in every instance where God or Jesus speaks that I had stopped to think about for a while had contained at least three layers of truth, an observable, falsifiable truth, a philosophical truth, and a spiritual truth. If you look at Jesus's parable about the seeds, for example, there is the truth that a seed in good soil with good sunlight and access to water will grow if tended, but one dropped on the side of the road will grow badly, and one in rocky soil will wither and die, all quite literally. Then it's also saying that if you are to follow Christ, you have to tend the seed you have been entrusted with, and it's telling a truth about the nature of God and Jesus.
For Michael Heiser to assert that Genesis 1 can't be taken literally is saying that the second and/or third levels of truth are there, but the first is not. It doesn't mean that he's wrong in his understanding of the truth he sees, just that he's blind to the obviously literal truth that it is contained within. My point is that he is good at encouraging me to reread and think critically about what I'm reading, but he sometimes says things that are not even a little bit logical. While he presents himself as annoyingly arrogant in his knowledge, I know that I tend to do that too, so I won't stop watching him just because he's sometimes off target and as convinced of his accuracy as I am of his inaccuracy, as long as he can continue to push me to use the noodle God gave me.
Edited for some atrocities against grammar.
Mother Theresa, the good person, and saint:
She accepted millions for the express purpose of helping the Indian destitute. All of that money went to the Vatican bank.
She "forced" conversions by secretly baptizing them by putting the cross on their foreheads with "Holy water."
She withheld pain meds from the dying.
Conditions were very unsanitary.
She lied about feeding the poor.
She was given an ambulance to transport the very ill. That was converted to a "Nun mobile."
She told families of the acutely (but treatable) ill that they had no ambulance.
She refused to let her patients go to a real hospital.
When she was dying she had the best, and most expensive, care at the hospital.
@12:55 Wow I got convicted by that simple statement. I am coming up on 40 and I feel like my faith has caused me to separate from friends who were living very sinful lives, and while I was trying to pull them out I lost connection with them and this really caused me to retract myself from the world. My life has basically been my wife and kids, work, and Church. I have been trying really hard to come up with ways to become more involved with my local community and do more to advocate for Christ to the lost.
Well Christ Yeshua (Jesus) is Holy, so let him advocate for you and all the people who need him.
I’m planning on saving money for a PhD in ancient Hebrew translation by reading the UA-cam comment section instead.
😂
😆
When I go through trials I just think I get to go thru this with jesus. I have peace and this would be so much worse without jesus or peace.
Our LordJesus, in The Bible, in Hebrews, Learnt Obedience, (Yet With out Sin)threw The Things He, Suffered.
The angels do not possess humans, this is unscriptural... The disembodied spirits of the Nephelim DO possess humans and animals. We see this when Yeshua commands them into the pigs rather than sentencing them before their time. The word for the angels offspring is wrongly translated as giants, and that they were, but it is an incorrect translation. Understanding the Watchers did have offspring with women, as well as animals, is key to understanding end times prophecy as well as why God commanded Joshua to exterminate every man, woman, and child when taking possession of the promised Land. Satan was corrupting the gene pool because the Lord said he would raise up a Savior out of the seed of the woman. The Watchers, fallen angels, are the mythological gods of other cultures. Everything on our planet tumbles into place when this finally clicks in your head.
where did you get that? the Hebrew word for "giant" is "nephilim". Look it up.
watchgoose More or less. It's plural, so it is "giants". The Hebrew word Nephilim comes from an Aramaic root and that root word means "giant".
Cosigner22 I mostly agree with you, except that Nephilim really does meant "giants" so that is not a mistranslation.
Cosigner22 it's funny that you call Jesus "Yeshua" but Joshua, you leave as Joshua..
Here is some stuff I learned in my research that you might find interesting, in case you do not know:
we do not have a single page of Scripture in the entire history of the world calling Jesus "Yeshua" ...yet "Joshua", on the other hand, is actually called Yeshua by the Jew rendering of that name in the Jew/Hebrew scriptures
Consistency is a good thing, God used it (consistency). My hope in telling you this is that maybe if you know what God did, you might understand that *_God used Greek and He did that one purpose_* .. to preserve His word, capture the specificity of meaning with the acuity of the GREEK language, and transmit the Scriptures to the entire Greek-speaking world which He had promised Abraham He was going to eventually save anyway (Gen 18:18 &21)... the Greek scriptures were the ONLY authorized scriptures in circulation outside of Jerusalem between 280BC and the 3rd century This means that 500y before Jesus got here, God saw fit to scatter the Jews into all nations and 400y before Jesus got here God saw fit to have all those nations speaking 1 pure language (Zeph 3:9) so that by 300y before Jesus got here, there would be a Greek copy the "Scriptures which testify of me" (John 5:39) waiting in _every_ synagogue from Spain to Ethiopia that would soon be converted to become the Church ...
There would not even be a "hebrew" text in common circulation until the Masoretes (Pharisees of the 2nd -12 centuries) finally agreed on a vowel pointing system in11th century AD. So Jesus & the new Testament authors & all the Christians exclusively used the Greek Old Testament until the 14th century AD... as if God _meant to do that_ and NO Christians knew Jesus as "Yeshua" and NOT a single Christian writer EVER called God by the tetragrammaton...including Jesus who testified that He manifest God's real name to us!!
If there wouldn't be a common Hebrew text in circulation among the Jews for the Christians even consider, until roughly 14 centuries after Jesus was here proclaiming that _He had already_ manifested both God's name (John 17:6 & 26) and His word (John 17:8, 14, 17, 20)... how can you believe the Jews who contradict Him? Did God _forget_ to us His name?? Did Jesus lie to us in John 17?? So why do you believe the Jews about whom we have been warned by Jesus Himself??
This is just an FYI. If Jesus is His name and He calls the Father God, Father Almighty, Eloi/ Eli (but NEVER yhwh).... and He warned us about scribes and Jews who say they are Jews but are the synagogue of Satan... maybe we ought not to doubt Jesus and the Scriptures Jesus quoted and left us with. If Jesus said He manifested God's name and never mentioned "Yahweh".. and not a single Christian did either, it's not God's name.
Do an image search on Google for "tetragrammaton" (you'll see who that "hebrew" influence is pointing to. God used Greek, He meant to do that. Jesus is NOT a liar, neither are Matthew Mark Luke and John... and they told us His name is Ἰησοῦς
Do some research on texts and the names JESUS mentions and the Scriptures God armed the first 12 centuries of Christian with to testify of Jesus and God the Father.... none of them say Yeshua or Yahweh..
:)
nephelim means fallen ones
AS IN NOAH’S FLOOD, BAPTISM IS A RESCUE EXPERIENCE.
IT IS AN APPEAL FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE.
And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
Just my thoughts....Angels didn’t have to possess anyone to eat food in Genesis 18. Angels can’t possess. They already can manifest in fleshly bodies. Demons can’t, they seek to possess.
Check out Chuck Missler’s work in this area.
This is the conclusion that I came to. To be clear, this is peripheral doctrine. So it's interesting to talk about, but not central to the Christian walk. Angels seem to be physical and have access to other dimensions (they seem to appear to people as if they just walked into our space? See Jesus also appearing to the disciples despite the doors being locked). It's possible the fallen angels were thrown in tartarus for stepping out of their abode (2 Peter and Jude) and having relations. The question of demons, maybe spirits of nephilim? I don't think you can draw any definite conclusions, but they do seem to need a physical body and maybe that's why they asked Jesus to send them into pigs. Maybe being "exorcised" sends them to a different place rather than their "host" being killed? Idk. And the nephilim seem being "giant" when you track lineage of anakim/goliath that as far as I understood is ~9.75 ft tall. I think the book of Enoch may be interesting, but if it contradicts the Bible at any point then how much can you really trust? (Just a side note from the other discussions). Giant in the KJV as far as I understood is a transliteration. If translated, as far as I understand, it means "earth born".
Chuck Missler has done a great job addressing this subject. Chuck open my eyes to passages in the Bible that I have struggled with for years. Like God's command to kill ALL women and children in certain tribes when conquering the "promise land".
On a side note, if we believe that God created the world as written in Genesis, then we have to believe that man lived side by side with dinosaurs and other "prehistoric" creatures. Many fossils we find are extremely large versions of the same animals that live today. From 2' dragonflies, 200lb Beavers, and 40 foot crocodiles, it is not hard to imagine that chances are people pre-flood were much bigger then average people today. So any angel - human hybrid that would be considered a giant would be much bigger then post flood giants like Goliath (which was around 9' tall).
Chuck Missler also goes into the controversial subject of Alien abductions and how it relates to the Nephilims. Very eye opening.
@@akelch11 see the UA-cam Genesis Apologetics channel for this. Really.
@@akelch11 Yeah, Chuck Missler did amazing work on this. Another person that did a ton of work on the nephilim study is Rob Skiba, and his theory on this is very interesting. I find this topic very interesting and to me it explains a lot of the Old Testament tribes that were completely wiped out by the Lord. I could talk on this subject for hours, and also the evolutionary nonsense also.
Chuck Missler’s work is Gnostic you better take a deep hard look at his work !
Nowhere in scripture does it say that angels are only spiritual beings with no bodies. Jesus said that we would be like the angels after the resurrection, and we are definitely getting new BODIES.
Also in Genesis the angels at Sodom seem very physically present.
" having a good conscience " does not necessarily mean you do the right thing, it simply mean the intention of the heart to do the right thing... the outcome sometimes might not be necessarily be the right thing all the time. You might even donthe right thing with wrong intention. That is why the Bible says God most deal with the intention of our hearts.
The Bible says give to the poor.. if someone gives to the poor with the intention of showing off .. his intention will be wrong but his actions will be right...
So having a good conscience is simply mean having a good heart felt intention and hoping that through the intention of our hearts God ( but not us) perfect our actions
Don't make stuff up. Angels can appear as men - there are examples of such in the bible.
True: For some have entertained "Angels" unaware.."
I don’t know if this is what you are suggesting but ‘appearing’ as men does not necessitate or even imply the ability to impregnate women though.
Appear, not become
@orangeclawhammer777 there are huge people now...
Saying that the "book of enoch" interpretation is the only possible one is uninformed at best. Especially considering enoch specifically contradicts Christianity calling enoch himself the messiah
@@marvalice3455 amen!
I thought tithing was under levitical law and not in the new testament, but rather we are encouraged to freely give with a cheerful heart. Is there a still a 10% tithe in place?
There's another possibility with the Nephilim. Maybe Angels are both physical and Spirital beings and can interchange between those straights. Thus allow them to have physical interaction. After all Angels in the Bible have been known to take the form of humans to give messages. Humans that can be seen and touched, as in the case of Abraham.
I just have a quick thought on the angels or offspring of fallen angels. Jesus said that when we get to heaven we will be like the angels. We will not marry. And in Genesis the scriptures say that these Sons of God or fallen Angels left their given state and married the children of man. In other words, once they left their given state, they were no longer angels, but some other type of creature that could have intercourse with women and produce offspring which were giants. It also says that Noah's seed was pure. In other words, he and his children didn't have linage with these fallen creatures. This is possibly another reason why all had to perish in the flood except Noah and his family.
Then why did Noah preach ?
Leaving their estate is just talking about the rebellion and they are fallen angels now. No sex with women! This is gnostic teaching, not biblical. God bless you 🕊
@@mikeballard8404 amen!
I love this sermon! it hits so many things and you are so spot on. Thank you Mike for all your humbleness and teachings!
Thanks Pastor Mike
Thank you so very much 🙏😊!
Mike, What Bible do you quote scripture from? 👍I like it and am interested
ESV
I need help. If we need to be immerse in the water to be saved then what Jesus had done on the cross is not enough?
vin cerd - 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the gospel defined, 2 thes 1:7-8 shows us that we need to obey the gospel (not just believe it), acts 2:32-39 brings it all together. One Lord (Christ), One faith (the Gospel), One baptism (the obedient response) - Eph 4:5
Informative!
1Corinthians 11:10 "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels." I've heard lots of preaching about cultural norms etc relating to this topic, but nobody seems to pick up on the "angel" reference. Could this relate to the Nephilim?
It may, never considered this, but I should dive more deeply into it.
Early Christians on baptism:
“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]).
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism-which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes-by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).
“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).
“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).
Serious question. Naaman the leper had faith he would be cleansed of leprosy. If he had said that immersing in the river Jordan is not necessary because I have faith, did he have to be immersed? If he refused to be immersed because he had faith, would be be cleaned?
As I watch these videos every time there is an amen moment I want to hit the like again but it doesn't work that way.
I’d love to see Pastor Winger interact with Michael Heiser’s work on the Nephilim. It’s really fascinating stuff.
Kevin Rider - Magnus, See Refuteit channel. Also consider God would have had to create angels to be able to have intercourse with mankind to be able to produce offspring with them and then make it unlawful for them to do so - this indicates to me there is another understanding to these verses.
Angels and the first representative of man, Adam, were created directly by God and could both rightly be referred to as 'sons of God' as God created both directly and come only from Him. In contrast God used man that was already created and his stem cells from the re-growing rib to make the first representative woman.
I believe it's reasonable to say the 'sons of God' may be referencing instead to 'all men descended from the man created by God, hence 'sons of God', and 'daughters of men' referring to 'women descended from the one woman - 'created from the man' in the beginning, hence 'daughters of men'. (I Cor 11:7 Man created first 'is the image and glory of God' and woman taken from man 'is the glory of man'). As men and women began to multiply on the earth - man's self-centeredness is reflected in what should have been the closest, purest, most intimate relationship we should have on this earth - the union between God - man - his wife. Marriage instead had become an unholy debased thing in this fallen world, where man was more about himself and 'whoever' he was attracted to for his pleasures - despite how they lived or whether they acknowledged God, were already married, age, etc.
Therefore, out of these unions would come descendants from 'the sons of God' coming into 'the daughters of man' that would share the same self-centered mindset (a picture of mankind's corruption before the flood) having left God's influence out. Then goes on to give an account of how even heroes, warriors, mighty men, leaders, the Nephilim who were among these that represent the achievements of humanity, 'mighty men of renown' - idolized in their power and accomplishing great worldly things, were themselves so greatly debased that they ('before and after the flood' these 'mighty men of renown' vs 4) were not able to save mankind from their own corruption , or the fate that would have to overtake them all. But later in the Bible we read of a promised 'Savior' that would - Jesus.
(The Nephilim may have been 'giants' compared to the average man, but maintained these genetic traits from the perfect creation that gave them the advantage through these periods of time.)
(The effects on mankind due to the flood would be shorter life spans. Man would now be able to better reflect on the brevity of life sooner as old age approaches before entering eternity. Also would shorten mankind's sinful influence and control on future generations thereby slowing the spread of corruption. The same reason God divided men into language groups at the Tower of Babel.)
Jude 1:6 speaks of the imprisonment of some of the angels being used as an example to the others to cause them to submit to God's authority and only able to do what He allows. "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness 'until the judgment of the great day'...serve as an example..." There proper dwelling could reasonably be in their own dimension on this earth - only being allowed into ours if they are called upon, and given permission to as we see happens through occult practices. The only way to enforce beings with free will to obey God's laws would be to have a punishment that would instill fear into them, as man's laws do to maintain order. Angels that had initially disobeyed God's laws would have been used as an example. (In the same way Sodom and Gomorrah 'served as an example' of God's righteous judgement on the unrighteous to the people groups around them that knew of their depravity. It doesn't have to be in reference to sexual sin of angels - only that they were used as an example.) Reminds me when the demons begged Jesus that He would not command them to depart into the abyss, but begged Him to let them enter the herd of swine.
The viewpoint that the purpose of the flood was to wipe out the offspring of angels pro-creating with mankind - seems to be a demonically led distraction to take man's mind away from the fact that the end result of 'man's sinful nature' brings a judgement from God. I've heard so many, when it comes to this topic, 'only mention' the reason for the world-wide flood was to destroy the offspring of fallen angels, it thereby diffuses the reality of future judgement on 'man's sin nature'. Unless someone turns to God for salvation from 'his sinful nature' through Jesus, the Bible tells us he cannot be saved. People want to think of mankind as being essentially good and gravitate to this idea because of it's fantastical storyline and is a way for many Christians UA-camrs to get connected with a lot of viewers because of the subject's popularity, although might do, not considering these things. Not only does it turn one's mind from God's past judgments due to man needing to be aware of his sinful nature and a future judgement against it, but peaks the interest away from reading and searching out God's Word, and causes man to chase an interconnecting hamster wheel of myths. I don't believe the book of Enoch we have today is the one that is spoken of in the Bible, but may be a channeled distraction from the truth the Bible reveals for some of these reasons. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and 'will turn away from listening to the truth and turn aside to myths.' May we not allow ourselves to get distracted in promoting extra-biblical sources that supposedly expound on the Bible - a lot of people have been drawn into false religions in this way thinking - in that they needed more than what was revealed to us in His 'confirmed' Word the Bible.
So what do you make of acts 2, 38 then: Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' And this is not the only verse who talks about getting baptized to become a Christian but the most important one Imo because they literally asking Peter here 'what shall we do?'
Another passage would be Galatians 3, 27: 'for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ' and of course Matthew 28, 19: 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...'
And there are many more!
Also look at 2 kings 5, 10 - 14: 'Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, ‘Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.’ But Naaman went away angry and said, ‘I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?’ So he turned and went off in a rage. Naaman’s servants went to him and said, ‘My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, “Wash and be cleansed”!’ So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.'
Do you think he would have been healed if he hadn't done exactly what God told him to do? Did the Jordan heal him? Of course not. But TRUSTING in God's word and OBEYING him no matter what did.
Regarding Cornelius and his household, do you not think a miraculous event such as the Holy Spirit descending on a Gentile household is necessary to confirm the vision Peter received while at Simon the Tanner's house? I do not think this scripture can be specifically used for suggesting baptism was not or is not required as a Christian due to the nature of the circumstances of the early church and the difficulties in addressing Jewish misconceptions of salvation/God's chosen people.
Nothing in Scripture is there without good reason. If there were giants in the days of Noah, which the Bible tells us there were, Jesus may also be telling us that we will be seeing giants again before his return.
We already have giants in the Bible after the flood: Oz king of Bashan and Goliath. They were taller than most people, but not ridiculously. Here is a good sermon on Job 38 that covers the topic: ua-cam.com/video/CNNlM6pEvFc/v-deo.html
Aren't they in Hades?
Thank you.
"sons of God" people that follows God. I think this is most logical answer. Thanks pal . Every time I need answer you are the man.
The Nephilim -- Our Lord explained why such men came about (from Maria Valtorta's Notebooks 1945-1950, p.315-316): "Cain did not repent of his crime. He and his children were thus nothing but children of the animal called man. The descent of one branch, the one poisoned by Satanic possession, knew no rest and took on a thousand faces. When Satan seizes, he corrupts in all ramifications. When Satan is king, the subject becomes a satan, who go against divine and human law, violating even the most elementary and instinctive norms of life and becoming brutish with the foulest sins of bestial man. They ventured into what is illicit, degrading, and bestial. And they had monsters as sons and daughters. These monsters now impress your scientists and lead them into error (error of evolution of man from monkeys). Their powerful physique and savage beauty seduced the children of God -- that is the descendants of Seth through Enos, Cainan, ....and Noah. To keep the branch of the children of God from being entirely corrupted by the branch of the children of men (who became animal beasts), God sent the universal deluge to extinguish men's lust and destroy the monsters begotten by the lust of godless, insatiable sensuality aroused by the fires of Satan."
@@hyeminkwun9523 Visit a doctor 💊!
Who were the sons of God in Job 38:7?
You seem to be saying that God said, "If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold" plus, "the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him" about, "one branch...poisoned by Satanic possession...corrupts in all ramifications...brutish with the foulest sins of bestial man...illicit, degrading, and bestial....monsters...godless, insatiable sensuality"?
@@KenAmmi-Shalom I don't know
Hi Mike and that CAT
Thanks
God bless
If you read 1st Enoch which Jude quotes from, it answers all these questions.
Mother Teresa believed God needed a middleman. Our middleman is Christ
I enjoy your sense of humor as you share your wisdom
You said that angels don’t have bodies they are spirits that is not right according to Paul he says in 1 Corinthians 15:35-45
I like how you are always going by what the bible says and not by your opinions.
You are such a great teacher!
3:30 I just got into a discussion about “forgiving yourself” on one of your other videos a few days ago. This discussion here might have been helpful.
What stance were you on?
Sons of God are the Angels, the Nephilim are their offspring you had it right with the demigod comparison! , check out chuck missler videos on the nephilim
for as many as believe him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. That was directed to humans.
watchgoose That is true for believers in Jesus Christ, yes. But in the Old Testament the term "sons of God" means something else.
Fallen angels are no longer "sons of God ". Also Matt 22:30 Angels don't marry
Mike, what is your opinion on the Sumerian text that contain the story of Genesis, and Noah, and are said to be about 6,000 years old. Making them, in my understanding, older than any book in any bible.
American Citizen 1986 that’s awesome, because the flood happened 4500 years ago, making the Bible and the sumerians right. It also makes the biblical account of the confusion of the languages accurate because the Sumerian account, written at about that time, was written in, wait for it, Sumerian!
Why do you see angels as a possibility vs the rest of it? I feel like you and Dr Heiser would be a could discussion
Wow! I did not see him siding with the Nephilim explanation.
baptism doesnt save, i agree, but for the longest time i thought i was saved but i wasnt. I truly believed during this time the Lord was calling me to baptism so I asked my pastor to baptize me(I truly thought i was saved before this baptism and truly thought the Lord was calling me to be baptized). October 6th, 2020 Jesus saved me(when i let go off works and trusted in Jesus Christ alone and His work on the cross alone). Truly for the first time saved. Do i now need to get baptized since i thought i was baptized a year give or take prior? pray for me, for trust in Christ and wisdom and direction.
"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be Baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Acts 22:16
"'See, here is water. What hinders me from being Baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he Baptized him.""
Acts 8:36-38
"Then Peter answered, "Can *ANYONE FORBID WATER;* that these should not be Baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he *COMMANDED* them to be Baptized in the name of the Lord."
Acts 10:46-48
It is written, "Why are you waiting? Arise and be Baptized," AND "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be Baptized?"
Acts 2:38
In the book of John it calls believers " now we are called the sons of God".
Book of Job irons this out for you
I know the book of Enoch isnt in the bible but j have read it and I do believe the fallen Angel's mated with women and then were punished for it.
Side note...I miss the days I could cough in public and people didnt look at me like a leper
The Book of Enoch is not a part of the Bible for a reason do not take it as such it is false there are false teachings in The Book of Enoch do not be deceived it is God's word not ours we keep the Bible for what it is
@@epmmare4998 I use discernment and prayer when I read anything. And everything I read must not conflict with the truth of the Bible. If Paul read Enoch, and the rest of the apostles were also familiar with it, then I want to read it as well...along with every other writings they were familiar with.
Pastor Mike Wenger,
I disagree with your interpretation regarding Noah's ark, the floodwaters and the prepositions "by" and "through" in 1 Peter 3 18-20. I have other thoughts regarding the word "conscience" as well. However, I am compelled to halt the pursuit of my argument and all the citations attached thereto because "the love of Christ constrains me". You see teacher, you did a good job of expressing your application of 2Timothy 2:24. I am compelled to agree with you on that point!
P.S. I'm not being facetious, I'm simply sharing the irony of it. Thank you for your teaching.
Can some one have a good conscience when he keeps condemning Jesus preachers of the Good News?
What happened to Saul the persecutor of the sect of the Nazarene?
He was converted, don't you remember?
Only after the blinding light ok?
Yeah, you can only have a good conscience when you accept Jesus and ask him to forgive you
What translation is this guy reading?
In regards to the Nephilim impregnating worldly women earthly women isn’t that how the holy Spirit impregnated Mary?
good followers will go from good to "a good conscience toward God
And evildoers will ashamed to "spirit in prison"
Luke 16 gives us the description of where Jesus went after He died and before He rose. He went into Abraham's Busom and brought out the believing dead and brought them to heaven.
Even Catholics have to admit some martyrs were not baptized, so you can be saved without baptism.
We believe in baptism of blood and desire. Meaning if you lack the water for baptism you have to either be killed for Christ or desire to be baptized. Baptism is still necessary for salvation though, at least in one of those three forms. Water baptism being the standard form.
If one truly believed, but refused to or didn’t desire to be baptized, they wouldn’t be saved, as our Lord clearly and explicitly taught that those who both believe _and_ are baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16), and scripture teaches that being baptized is what has you put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).
@@catholictruth102 so you believe, but don't believe.
@@dahelmang We believe that baptism saves.
@@catholictruth102 unless you can't be baptized, then there are no negative implications.
@@dahelmang Not unless you can’t baptized, in every instance, but specifically if you aren’t water baptized but desire to be water baptized. So the desire for the sacrament would avail one to justification. This still means strictly that faith alone would not save, unless the faith includes the desire for baptism.
You see it both ways in scripture, in Acts 2:38 the Spirit was received after baptism and repentance, and in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10:47 when he received the Spirit before water baptism (presumably from desire).
what should a believer do who committed a crime while or after they had trusted christ. should thee confess this to the authorities. I believe I understand that their salvation and even a clear conscience is not dependent on confessing to men, but it seems like this would be the right thing to do. it seems like this passage is suggesting that Christians should have a clear conscience before man and God
My question is what makes baptism important if it"s not salvific?
What makes praying important if it's not salvic?
@@jamesenewold8864 exactly! Of course it is!
Hey there Mike! Love your videos and explanations. I would suggest since you're such a good studier and explainer of things that it would be good for you and your subscribers if you researched more into Nephilim and especially the work of Steve Quayle and Tim Alberino. You will quickly see that giant bones have been uncovered, that just like in the book of Samuel where there was a man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each feet and double rows of teeth, we have in human history discovered numerous skeletons like this, and yes, sometimes over 30 ft tall. Furthermore, elongated skulls have been found with brain capacity greater than 50% more than humans. The skulls also had a different suture pattern to the plates. There is a wealth of knowledge within this body of research that if you are interested you would do well to study. Just want to encourage you to do so to help your biblical understanding and explanations.
I agree... I've watched a lot of Mike's teachings and this is the only area where I disagree with him. Chuck Missler and Gary Wayne also have tremendous insight into these topics. That said, I still love listening to your teachings Mike..
Hi Mike, I totally believe God has led me to your broadcasts at this season in my walk. I have thoroughly enjoyed how you explain the difficult questions and the terminology you use. In this particular teaching I was drawn to it due to the title which included "Nephilim". I know you didn't spend long on this subject, therefore, I have a question which I am now confused about. If you say angels are spirits and cannot take on physical form and reproduce how can you explain Gen 6 1-4? Also it's noteworthy that Jesus, although spirit (but not fully transformed on accassions) could eat and drink with his disciples. If these physical acts could be carried out in the new testament is it not possible that the fallen heavenly beings could also appear in physical form and participate in human actions; albeit very rebellious?
Matthew 22:30
Angels don't marry
I agree with you. Btw on many comments we have a reply that "Angels don't marry" ...which is true! (Matt 22:30). But I believe that's not the point. The point or question we need to ask is "Can angelic beings have sexual intercourse with human women?" I would argue that (Gen 6:4) explains this clearly -that physical intercourse took place) but we even have support for this view in the NT. When reading (Jude 1:1-7) "in context" it's easy to see that angelic beings are being held in chains due to sexual sin with the human race. There is no getting around those verses.
The Nephilim -- Our Lord explained why such men came about (from Maria Valtorta's Notebooks 1945-1950, p.315-316): "Cain did not repent of his crime. He and his children were thus nothing but children of the animal called man. The descent of one branch, the one poisoned by Satanic possession, knew no rest and took on a thousand faces. When Satan seizes, he corrupts in all ramifications. When Satan is king, the subject becomes a satan, who go against divine and human law, violating even the most elementary and instinctive norms of life and becoming brutish with the foulest sins of bestial man. They ventured into what is illicit, degrading, and bestial. And they had monsters as sons and daughters. These monsters now impress your scientists and lead them into error (error of evolution of man from monkeys). Their powerful physique and savage beauty seduced the children of God -- that is the descendants of Seth through Enos, Cainan, ....and Noah. To keep the branch of the children of God from being entirely corrupted by the branch of the children of men (who became animal beasts), God sent the universal deluge to extinguish men's lust and destroy the monsters begotten by the lust of godless, insatiable sensuality aroused by the fires of Satan."
Kevin Rider - Paula, see Refuteit channel, also consider that God would have had to create angels to be able to have intercourse with mankind to be able to produce offspring with them and then make it unlawful for them to do so - this indicates to me there is another understanding to these verses.
Angels and the first representative of man, Adam, were created directly by God and could both rightly be referred to as 'sons of God' as God created both directly and come only from Him. In contrast God used man that was already created and his stem cells from the re-growing rib to make the first representative woman.
I believe it's reasonable to say the 'sons of God' may be referencing instead to 'all men descended from the man created by God, hence 'sons of God', and 'daughters of men' referring to 'women descended from the one woman - 'created from the man' in the beginning, hence 'daughters of men'. (I Cor 11:7 Man created first 'is the image and glory of God' and woman taken from man 'is the glory of man'). As men and women began to multiply on the earth - man's self-centeredness is reflected in what should have been the closest, purest, most intimate relationship we should have on this earth - the union between God - man - his wife. Marriage instead had become an unholy debased thing in this fallen world, where man was more about himself and 'whoever' he was attracted to for his pleasures - despite how they lived or whether they acknowledged God, were already married, age, etc.
Therefore, out of these unions would come descendants from 'the sons of God' coming into 'the daughters of man' that would share the same self-centered mindset (a picture of mankind's corruption before the flood) having left God's influence out. Then goes on to give an account of how even heroes, warriors, mighty men, leaders, the Nephilim who were among these that represent the achievements of humanity, 'mighty men of renown' - idolized in their power and accomplishing great worldly things, were themselves so greatly debased that they ('before and after the flood' these 'mighty men of renown' vs 4) were not able to save mankind from their own corruption , or the fate that would have to overtake them all. But later in the Bible we read of a promised 'Savior' that would - Jesus.
(The Nephilim may have been 'giants' compared to the average man, but maintained these genetic traits from the perfect creation that gave them the advantage through these periods of time.)
(The effects on mankind due to the flood would be shorter life spans. Man would now be able to better reflect on the brevity of life sooner as old age approaches before entering eternity. Also would shorten mankind's sinful influence and control on future generations thereby slowing the spread of corruption. The same reason God divided men into language groups at the Tower of Babel.)
Jude 1:6 speaks of the imprisonment of some of the angels being used as an example to the others to cause them to submit to God's authority and only able to do what He allows. "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority but left their proper dwelling, He has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness 'until the judgment of the great day'...serve as an example..." There proper dwelling could reasonably be in their own dimension on this earth - only being allowed into ours if they are called upon, and given permission to as we see happens through occult practices. The only way to enforce beings with free will to obey God's laws would be to have a punishment that would instill fear into them, as man's laws do to maintain order. Angels that had initially disobeyed God's laws would have been used as an example. (In the same way Sodom and Gomorrah 'served as an example' of God's righteous judgement on the unrighteous to the people groups around them that knew of their depravity. It doesn't have to be in reference to sexual sin of angels - only that they were used as an example.) Reminds me when the demons begged Jesus that He would not command them to depart into the abyss, but begged Him to let them enter the herd of swine.
The viewpoint that the purpose of the flood was to wipe out the offspring of angels pro-creating with mankind - seems to be a demonically led distraction to take man's mind away from the fact that the end result of 'man's sinful nature' brings a judgement from God. I've heard so many, when it comes to this topic, 'only mention' the reason for the world-wide flood was to destroy the offspring of fallen angels, it thereby diffuses the reality of future judgement on 'man's sin nature'. Unless someone turns to God for salvation from 'his sinful nature' through Jesus, the Bible tells us he cannot be saved. People want to think of mankind as being essentially good and gravitate to this idea because of it's fantastical storyline and is a way for many Christians UA-camrs to get connected with a lot of viewers because of the subject's popularity, although might do, not considering these things. Not only does it turn one's mind from God's past judgments due to man needing to be aware of his sinful nature and a future judgement against it, but peaks the interest away from reading and searching out God's Word, and causes man to chase an interconnecting hamster wheel of myths. I don't believe the book of Enoch we have today is the one that is spoken of in the Bible, but may be a channeled distraction from the truth the Bible reveals for some of these reasons. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and 'will turn away from listening to the truth and turn aside to myths.' May we not allow ourselves to get distracted in promoting extra-biblical sources that supposedly expound on the Bible - a lot of people have been drawn into false religions in this way thinking - in that they needed more than what was revealed to us in His 'confirmed' Word the Bible.
Love your channel Mike! Thank you for your Humility too! Really awesome, really see Christ in you 🙏🏼
If you get saved and over time lose your faith and then return to the Lord in repentance, are you saved all along?
yes..... one baptism is what the scripture teaches. If you repent, God will forgive you
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. *But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.* 2Cor 4
Mike, you mentioned that you can't imagine angelic beings interbreeding with humans because angels are spirits and do not have physical bodies. Let's pause here for a moment. The statement "angels do not have physical bodies" holds true only when they are in heavens. However, when they come to Earth, even the good angels, manifest some form of a body that enables them to eat (as seen with the three angels dining with Abraham or the angel eating with Gideon).
Christ himself, after having his glorified body (resurrecting), also ate fish with his disciples. Therefore, if angels can eat, it implies that they can engage in more physical activities, such as interbreeding with humans. I would love to hear your take on this. Thanks!
I asked a ton of in depth questions to a Mormon missionary via text, and before he was willing to answer any of them, he wanted to know if I have studied before? or was just skipping ahead? or cheating by going to the internet? My many questions remain unanswered and he wants to talk instead. Sound like he has prepared talking points to deflect my inquiries. Pretty sure he just wants me to pray to the Holy Spirit and testify everything feels true, instead of real answers. I have since apologized to him for not being a mindless sheep.
By the way, I was so happy that you're teachings are biblical. There are so many teachers who have a good video or two but then fall off a cliff by denying Jesus or something. It's refreshing to find another pure water well.
He rejects Baptism and Holy Communion therefore, he is not Biblical.
@@johnmarquardt1991 in what videos? He just said baptism is important in this video!
@@audrawelsh8467 He said Baptism did not save -- the Bible says it does.
@@johnmarquardt1991 if baptism saves then the man on the cross is not saved even though Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise? Are you sure about that?
Your videos have been very helpful to me....praise God for his love, grace and mercy that are ours in Christ Jesus.
No mention of the book of Enoch. Most scholars agree that these statements in 1 & 2 Peter and Jude come from there.
King4him - Diary of a Holiness Teacher they definitely come from there watch mike heissner reversin mount hermon
People say that Enoch contradicts the Bible but they fail to realize that ONLY Enoch 2 and 3 contradict it. I have yet to find anywhere that Enoch 1 does, IF you are studying what the authors of the various books wrote in THEIR native language and not what has been translated. Also, a lot of people fail to remember that Jude is Yeshua's brother and yet is quoting from Enoch 1. If it contradicts our scriptures then why would the brother of our Messiah quote from it?
The book of Enoch does not belong in the Bible which said not to add to it nor take away from it.
"The book of Enoch does not belong in the Bible which said not to add to it nor take away from it."
watchgoose - it is clear that Jude, Peter and Paul were all familiar with that book. While that doesn't mean that it's canonical, it also doesn't mean that you can't read it and be informed by it to a certain extent, just like you can be informed by history books. Paul, for example, uses writings of the Greek philosophers to get points across.
matt durbin - Enoch isn't part of the Roman Catholic canon, so it was never part of the King James Bible. But Enoch is included in the canon of the Ethipian Orthodox Church.
watchgoose It says not to take away from John's revelation, not the whole of scripture.
Mike, angels can take on physical form.
Thanks for these clear teachings. A clean or clear conscience: Who would have needed it more than the Christ-denier, Peter? His rebirth and renewal lend hope to my own justification.
One thing I do strongly feel could have had a bit more treatment was the focus on WHICH baptism IS "salvific" AND "poured out" AND "washing" AND "cleansing" AND "washing" OF THE CONSCIENCE...you get the idea from Acts 2, Acts 15, I Cor 12, Titus 3, most of Hebrews, 1 Peter 3.
Certainly you are correct in that NO bath to clean our outer filth can result in salvation and we can easily comprehend this no matter what version of the scripture we read from. What is so often dismissed by those teaching on this passage (skimming more than teaching really) is that Peter here IS referring to Spirit baptism; AND not the you-gotta-have-the-evidence-of-tongues-or-propehcy-or-miracles-with-the-outpouring abberant teaching (yet I'm still not entirely convinced of total cessationism). NO....Peter is lending his voice to that of Paul's and likely to his own (from Acts 15:1-21) when Peter himself defends the outpouring of the Spirit upon the gentiles (with accompanying sign gifts and witnesses to such signs to make it abundantly clear to the elders in Jerusalem God indeed had accepted the faith of non-Jews with or without circumcision). And what was the effect of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (vs. 9) but that God "cleansed their hearts through faith"!! Gives me goosebumps; and not even the Pentecostal kind, just the regular kind!! And what was the CONCLUSION of this outpouring as Peter himself saw it (vs. 11)-gentiles were "saved JUST AS we were"? You can see just in Acts 15:11 the conclusion that Peter reaches is clearly that he himself counts his own salvation as having been had upon recieving the OUTPOURING of the Holy Spirit (with no argument to the contrary via the entire body of apostles/ elders in Jerusalem which is the setting of the passage). This outpouring of the Spirit IS and since the inception of the church ALWAYS HAS BEEN the only baptism any of us can and must EQUATE with salvation or how can we allow Peter to get away with writing such a thing in his letter for we KNOW WHAT THE ANTI-TYPE IS BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY 1 BAPTISM...REALLY. Paul's words, not mine (Eph 4:5-7).
We all need a cleansed conscience and though it makes none of us innocent it's not as though any of has anything to boast about regarding our own accomplishments for God does all the purifying out of our simple faith in His Son. (1 Cor 4:1-4, 5-7).
Be blessed friends.
I have never been insulted for being a Christian , people are too scared of the mask that God gave me to wear
Good teaching. But one thing I think is incorrect. (Starting from 23:40 into the teaching).
1 Pet 3:16-22 does not point out suffering as a way for God to carry out his good will. The context is clear; God is pointing out Christ as a example for us to follow. As Christ was willing to take upon himself our suffering, we should be willing to do the same. That is suffer for others. If you are following Jesus you will have suffering, people will mock you, hate you, and in some places you will be prisoned or put to death.
But suffering as a way for God to bring forth his good will? Sickness and poverty as a way for God to teach you something? That is not there.
If you read 1 pet 2:19 in greek the text becomes easier to read.
”For this is commendable/charis/ grace, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.” (1 pet 2:19)
If you think about Charis as the outshine of God, Gods nature, the verse is easy to understand.
(This is the character/nature of God. If you suffer because of your loyalty to God, thats ok. As did Jesus.)
”For it is better to suffer for doing good, if the will of God wills it, than doing evil” (1 pet 3:17)
But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear; do not be shaken.” (1 pet 3:14)
”For this is commendable/charis (Gods nature), if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully.” (1 pet 2:19)
Peter: "Baptism saves you."
This guy: "Baptism isn't salvific."
Imma ride with St. Peter.
Where does it say that Cornelius was saved before baptism? The angel said to Cornelius that Peter will tell him what he MUST do (acts 10:6). The only time peter actually does this is acts 10:48.
If I have believed in Jesus' deity, sinless life and death on the cross and bodily resurrection for my sins, this means that I have repented of my sins and believe the Gospel. Why then would I need to be baptized to receive salvation? After all, my heart and mind have already been changed from a state of unbelief to belief. I've already repented and believed in the Good News.
What about mixing the godly and ungodly would produce giants? That doesn't currently make sense to me. Angels wouldn't need to "possess" humans. There doesn't appear any Scriptural evidence that angels have that ability. Demons have that ability but demons are not angels, they are different kinds of spiritual beings. Demons aren't angels, nor have they ever been. I don't say this definitively, I only aver my present belief.
Thanks for this message. I really like the first half on clear conscience. It's confronting my conscience especially when l lost my patience. As such, l resorted to stop responding as l can't go on talking on topics that people had already made up their minds.
Does ignoring people really regarded as a gentle respond? This is challenging when people close to you come to overwhelm you with things that are so far off and worst get on personal attacks.
Appreciated your response to help me to believe that this is the best approach to clear my conscience.
Walter
What a beautiful man of God you are! So proud of you bro! You are a total anomaly -- a millennial who is not a snowflake! Stay true to the Word dear one! So proud of you! I want to kiss your cheeks, you're so charming and so smart, all in one human!! Your Mom must be so proud of you! WOnderful! God will take you far dear one!! Well done!
Love it! "I have no right to forgive me for what I've done to others." AMEN!!
How do we get in Christ?
When you heard and believed the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, God put you in Christ.
30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” 1 Cor 1:30
✝️📖🙏🏼😇
I have recently started listening to many of your teachings. I am very appreciative for your style and for you staying to the scripture and trying to keep everything in context. You've come in a non confrontational way getting people to think. So Bible thinker is a great title for your work. I came from Calvary chapel Oceanside many years ago And am very grateful for the expository teaching that was taught there. Is there. I continue as a student of the word and will continue to listen to other lessons from you. May the Lord continued to use you for his kingdom.
Thanks Michael for your devotion to this ministry.
Michael Heiser has an interesting explanation of the Sons of God. His book "Unseen Realm" goes into detail to explain it.
Yes. I'd recommend his teachings, too.
Yes I approve this comment
Yes excellent
Matthew 22:30
Angels don't marry
@@michellejohnsen912 Right. But the angels that left their abode came to earth and had relations with women because they wanted what humans have. They defied God's law.
It would be awesome if Mike did a study on Burnt Offerings or the Tabernacle. I really enjoy his teachings.
He seems to stay away from the "sons of God" and Giants/Nephilim.
For me the "sons of God" are found in Job 1:5 "So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did regularly.
Verse 5 says that is how the "sons of God" presented themselves before God. Job 1:6 " “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them."
Job 1:5 has a lot of connections and fore shadowing of Jesus. 1. Job as head of the household same as Jesus is head of the church 2. Job as a priestly intercessor same as Jesus is our High Priest making intercession. 3. Burnt offerings are a punishment for sins same as Jesus took the punishment of sins on the Cross. 4. Burnt Offerings sanctified same as Jesus sanctifies the believer. 5. Burnt Offerings a form of worship and adoration to God same as believers way to God because of what Jesus did on the Cross, the veil of the temple tore showing the believers can come into the presence of God.
Genesis 5 is the list of the "sons of God" meaning they all presented Burnt Offerings to God starting with Abel found in Genesis 4. Cain killed Abel and Seth stepped in the place of Abel. Seth would be a type of Christ presenting Burnt Offerings like Job.
As for the Giants/Nephilim meaning the offspring in Genesis 6 To answer the Giants/Nephilim is that Genesis 5 list men that are under the fall of Adam. The offspring meaning giant is that they lived a giant number of YEARS, not meaning cubits. Years is listed over and over in Genesis 5. Take Methuselah for example. Methuselah lived 969 years and then he died found in Genesis 5:27
Noah even knew about Burnt Offerings found in Genesis 8. How would have Noah known about Burnt Offerings, probably from his father. Burnt Offerings were handed down from the generations found in Genesis 5.
The "sons of God" are called this because of the Burnt Offerings in the same way Jesus makes believers in Him "sons of God" or to say "children of God".
God is Holy and needs sin dealt with in His presence. The Burnt Offerings was in a sense the Cross in those days. As Christians we do not need Burnt Offerings. The New Covenant is in the Blood of Jesus and the punishment He took on the Cross.
This is my view on who the "sons of God" are.
God Bless!!!
So ... Sometimes things are not better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick! (I Goad!) 😅
the flood the rain was just a part, of it...there was also something called the fountains, of the deep having been broken up...
Awesome message, Mike. God bless and Happy Thanksgiving !
I've also heard that the daughters of men could be Neanderthals. It helps explain why there's the missing link between Neanderthals and humans.
Before the flood people lived to be nearly 1000. Can you imagine what skulls would of looked like on a 1000 year old human? A human brow ridge never stops growing, and neanderthals have large brow ridges. New evidence suggest neanderthals were in fact human.
3:10 its like BEING GUILTY and being FOUND GUILTY. god sees your guilt, we can only find guilt. When its not found by us who can not judge and see the heart only then are you guilty. But jesus sees your guilt.
"And this WATER is a picture of baptism which >>>now saves you
Hebrews 13:2
Mike, you should study up on the nephilim more and make a video on your findings. Definitely check out Gary Wayne's The Genesis 6 conspiracy book... I think it will blow your mind.
Are prophesying and speaking in tongues the sign regeneration? Or just a sign? The fact that this is not depicted as "regular" in conversion (only 3 times in Acts) would make me think that this is different than salvation as in : justified. Moreover, for Peter's benefit obviously God has honored the gentiles faith and showered blessing on them... (so they have faith, implied)… why not, then, carry through just as in Acts 2 and then baptize. I think so many are hung up on baptismal regeneration (primarily coming out of the catholic tradition) that we have emphasized the baby and bathwater, when we should be focused on a more biblical depiction of faith from our side (Suzerain - Vassel covenant) and the promises in Christ from God's side being given/signed over at our baptism NOT because of our baptism. Faith is the means to grace, why can't we see that baptism is the time of it and not some "statement" afterward (perhaps then I agree, it is a work). I think Luther got this write when he stated that Baptism is a work... a work of God and not man. . . there is nothing signifigant about the right words, water, people... but it is a time when you are given that justification and sanctification IF you have faith. BY grace THROUGH faith IN baptism? Wouldn't that be a better reading of Peter... he is very familiar with jewish faith leading to baptism and also gentile faith leading to baptism at this point when he writes?
I will have to watch this 4hour baptism debate advertised on the column to the right of here... to get your full understanding/view. My point is to make baptism "watered down" (yes I went there) to something like the "prayer of salvation" is misleading to Acts... and also Peter here also.
Also, I am wondering how you can not tie baptism to the rescuing (the saving/salvation) of a soul IF the 8 of Noah's family were saved IN the ark THROUGH the waters? Why is it hard to think or accept that the promises of Christ are actually given during the time of one's conversion (which is depicted in the NT as the same day of your baptism?). The Event that saved them. Yes one could say that the 8 were saved when they went into the ark and God shut the door (I guess you could stretch this as "faith"). But the actual event happened when the rain came? I find it hard to square this when even Paul is told after 3 days to rise, be baptized "washing away your sins"? After three days? If Paul had died during those three days would he have been lost - doubtful - we are not told that he didn't have any faith until he "washed away your sin, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). We are so adverse to "works" that we have a hard time grasping that God would create a tangible event in our lives to look back to (a sensual event where a spiritual promise is bestowed) for OUR benefit?
I am a little astounded that since the reformation the western church has been so willing to shelf baptism and communion for once a month, or quarter. actually I am not astounded, we are human. We should have the "ready waters" for any Ethiopian type situation in our life. (rant over)
** Mike, I want to buttress this statement with how thankful I am for your work online. I think you and "what do you meme" are my two fav places to stop at frequently - especially cause you keep pumping out content. So, know that the above remarks are just me being frank/blunt. **
The Hebrew word for giants means bully or tyrants.
Numbers 13:33 33 There we saw the [a]giants ((A)the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were (B)like[b] grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were (C)in their sight.”
Shouldn't the term be proto-type and not anti-type? :)
29:28 for the Baptism and Nephilim part
Teacher, Pastor, Mike! Thank you! I appreciate your enthusiasm to tackle tough topics. You mentioned a very tough Topic in the sermon. The topic of tithing! here are a few questions I have.
1.) what does jesus say about tithing?
2.) if we were to follow all the Jewish laws and decrees, when all added up what does the old testament say the percentage actually is?
3.) What is the model of giving we see the disciples and apostles are practicing in New Testament scripture?
4.) Finally what is the biblical definition of church whom we are supposed to give to?
That was in reference to nifelim nephilem nofelin
Hey look! Mike Winging it
Some people would say that the Book of Enoch contradict scripture and therefore should not be included in the Bible. However, like it was mentioned earlier, the book of Jude [the half brother of Jesus] quotes directly from the book of First Enoch. What everyone needs to know is that when archaeologist, linguist and other scholars did the carbon dating [and use other methods to determine dating factors] on the oldest manuscript they can find on the Book of Enoch, we know that it was made perhaps during the mid Hellenistic period if I'm not mistaken which would mean during the time or after the time of Alexander the Great . Also it is duly noted that an overwhelming majority of those Scholars do not believe that the Enoch mentioned in the Book of Genesis is the same author of the book of 1st 2nd or 3rd Enoch. In other words these books are pseudepigraphas. For the book of First Enoch most Scholars who study the script, the way was written, the text, the language, composition, phraseology, and things of that nature, it was most likely written in its original form (based on everything they know about literary works during that time that) the book of First Enoch was written before the birth of Jesus Christ but after the Book of Malachi. Some people look at this evidence and say that because there was a said 400-year period of Silence where God did not speak to any scribe or prophet that the Book of Enoch [because it falls in between the Book of Malachi and the preachings of John the Baptist or in between the Book of Malachi and the prophet Simeon or the prophetess Anna or even Zechariah John the Baptist father] that the book of First Enoch should not even be revered or even studied. some people go as far to say because it was written during of time when God was not speaking to man therefore it is not divinely-inspired therefore it should just be looked at as a regular ancient literary work with no supposed divine inspiration. However, this argument cannot work all the time if you consider other outside non Christian literary works that make its way into what has been considered Canon Scripture that is Divinely-inspired Biblical writings . This is because we know that Paul himself quotes other prophets who are definitely not Christian Prophets, he quotes other philosophers and Poets who were definitely not Christians. Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12 for example. Paul is not the only one who does this I believe Peter does so also in 2 Peter 2:22b [ I'm not referring to Proverbs chapter 26 verse 11, I'm talking about the part where he mentions the sow that was wash from her wallowing in the mire ] in which Peter is quoting from a well-known ancient story of Ahiqar. So simply because someone quotes something that is not found in the Bible does not immediately qualify it nor does it disqualify it. It just simply means that the Holy Spirit use the author or the Scribe to use a quote or proverb to demonstrate an ultimate truth. Do not forget [that in Numbers 22-24 that] Yahweh uses a soothsayer, a witch doctor, a man of divination, to prophesy not just a blessing upon Israel but also speaks of The Star that would come out of Jacob which is most likely a Messianic prophecy of Jesus Christ. So what I'm saying is God can use any person to transmit His truth regardless of who that person may be. There are some clear scientific erroneous statements in the book of First Enoch which clearly proves that it is not divinely inspired, however there is also a lot of Messianic prophecies in the book that we now know today to be true for Christians at least depending on which translation you read. There is a portion in The Book of Enoch that mentions that because of the blood of the Elect One, The apocalyptic Son Of Man [The Messiah] that believers prayers will be heard. Now if you're a Christian you know that your prayers will be heard and answered through Jesus Christ. And because His blood was shed and He died and rose from the dead that Christ can go to the Father and ask anything and the Father will grant it so that our joy may be full. Jesus says this in the Book of John. The reason why that is so important is because Jesus Himself quotes from The Book of Enoch when He says it had been better that Judas was not even born. Well that's also in the book of First Enoch, keep in mind that the Book of Enoch was written maybe more than 200 years before Jesus was born. Also if you study the books of Luke [ I.E. the Gospel according to Luke and the book of Acts] you will see that Luke was very well acquainted with the book of First Enoch. The way Luke rights and describe things is the same way certain things are described in the book of First Enoch. Even down to names of angels and I can tell that Luke loved the book of First Enoch also a hint is in the fact that he's the only gospel writer who even mentions Enoch. The Book of Enoch talks about the tongues of fire that transported him to heaven, and Luke is the only person who mentions the tongues of fire in the book of Acts. There are many other similarities that I don't have space for it. But if anybody wants to talk about Enoch just reply and we will continue from there.
Matt 22:30 angels don't marry
Marriage is referring to sex. Therefore angels don't marry means that angels don't have sex. God bless you 🕊
@@michellejohnsen912
In the text above I did not mention angelology in great detail, but I have to say you are incorrect in your interpretation. Angels marrying took place in Genesis chapter 6 you have to read the book of Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4-5. You simply saying marriage means sex is you making up a definition because you wanted to suit your own disposition. That's not actually what Jesus is saying. What Jesus is saying is that angels do not marry AT THE RESURRECTION, therefore they are NOT SUPPOSED TO engage in marriage, that is why it was a sin for them to come to the daughters of man and copulate with them. Jesus is confirming that what the Angels did back in Genesis chapter 6 was sinful. I hope that makes sense.
@@michellejohnsen912
Not trying to get into a debate over semantics. The verse clearly says during the resurrection human beings will have bodies as angels, or messengers (technically). Jesus does not say that Angels do not get married. He never says that. Yeshua says there is no marriages in heaven. Keywords in heaven. That's why the Angels had to leave heaven to procreate with women ON THE EARTH. Because there is no marriage in heaven. Jesus never says that Angels cannot get married, Jesus only says that there is no marriage in heaven. Which is why it is a sin for them to come to earth and do exactly that. If you look at the text carefully I hope this makes sense to you.
If the flood is the type and baptism is the antitype, why does this guy describe baptism in more symbolic terms making it a type in itself and making the flood literal in significance. This is not apparent in the plain reading of the text. I get that getting into water cannot save you by itself. We know that it’s faith in Jesus Christ leading to obedience (including repentance and baptism) that brings you into salvation by His Spirit. However, to say that baptism is only symbolic misses the NT message because it is clearly declared as a necessary commandment which comes from above (John 3:3-12)
No water baptism doesn't save the soul but yes water baptism when done in the name of Jesus Christ will save your body in the 1st resurrection from the fiery destruction coming upon the earth
I know this is very far back in time (6 years) but I need to give my 2c on the Nephilim.
Genesis speaks of Gen 1:25 reproduce after their own kind (Angels and Humans are definitely not the same kind), Angels don't marry and therefor do not having babies (I do not thing fornication is permitted among angels for the sake of reproduction, therefor I do not believe that they can reproduce and would not have gender) Matt 20:30. God the Father states clearly, twice in one verse that He never called an angel a son or became a Father to any angel. Heb 1:5.
The bible (Gen 6:1-4) clearly speaks of the God fearing children of Seth as they started looking at the Daughters of Kane (self-serving, unbelieving worldly woman) that they will loose the Spirit of God because of their human nature, not speaking anywhere of angels, only Children/Followers/Worshipers/Sons of God.
The question of how do they produce sperm as spiritual beings how does an angel posses a spirit filled, God fearing and worshiping Human (as Gen 6 describe them) to do such acts. This was not possession or angels themselves.
IMHO The only logical conclusion has to be what we read at face value. Sons of God speak of Humans that served God.