Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[zerinus]

Who do you think the Sons of God are in Genesis 6?

Deborah has already answered that question for you in the previous post.

And to add to what she said, the "angels" referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 refer to the spirits who rebelled against God in the pre-existence, not to the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6.

Edited October 29, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

Genesis 6 actually refers to the Covenant people marrying a non-Covenant people, not to angels intermingling with men. The Sons of God our those of the Covenant. The JST found in Moses 8 clarifies this:

I think I will take the opinion of the authors of Jude and 2 Peter over that of the author of the Book of Moses.

[zerinus]

I think I will take the opinion of the authors of Jude and 2 Peter over that of the author of the Book of Moses.

Where do the "authors of 2 Peter and Jude" teach that:

1. the "sons of God" mentioned in the OT refer to "angels," and
   
2. the "angels" they were talking about referred to the OT passages mentioned?
   

Edited October 29, 2011 by zerinus

[maklelan]

Oh I think I understand what you are asking now.

The OT briefly mentions the story of the fallen angels having intercourse with women and producing offspring (Gen. 6) This tradition is also found in the NT. So I think even the Bible indicates that a corporeal supernatural being can be evil.

I'm curious as to why you specifically asked for a biblical reference to this concept?

The notion that these were angels was a development of the Greco-Roman period. Originally they were simply second tier deities, just like Yahweh.

[diglot]

The notion that these were angels was a development of the Greco-Roman period. Originally they were simply second tier deities, just like Yahweh.

Yea, I know that the "sons of God" were originally seen as lesser deities, and that Yahweh eventually ascended to the top of the pantheon and them eventually came to be seen as more transcendent of a being. This then led to these other lesser gods being relegated to the status of created beings, or what we now might call "angels".

Regardless of all this, my point is that these deities/angels of Genesis 6 are considered by the authors of Jude and 2 Peter to be fallen angels, not humans in covenant with the Lord as one poster put it (nor the "Sons of Seth" as other people consider).

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

Regardless of all this, my point is that these deities/angels of Genesis 6 . . .

On the basis of what biblical reference do you call them "deities/angels"?

. . . are considered by the authors of Jude and 2 Peter to be fallen angels, . . .

On the basis of what statement or reference by the authors of 2 Peter and Jude?

. . . not humans in covenant with the Lord as one poster put it (nor the "Sons of Seth" as other people consider).

Again, on the basis of what statement by whom?

Edited October 29, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

Where do the "authors of 2 Peter and Jude" teach that:

• the "sons of God" mentioned in the OT refer to "angels," and
  
• the "angels" they were talking about referred to the OT passages mentioned?
  

Pick up any academic commentary on these epistles and they will tell you this.

I have dozens of commentaries and monographs on Jude and 2 Peter, and as far as I can remember, none of them dispute the idea that Jude and 2 Peter are referring to the story of angels having intercourse with women.

Interestingly, Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14-15. Now 1 Enoch is actually a composite of 5-7 different literary works, the first one being called the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36). In the Book of Watchers we are given a detailed account of how wicked angels rebelled against God and then fornicated with women. Jude undoubtedly knew of the Book of Watchers (as he quoted it directly) and was undoubtedly referring to it's story of angels having intercourse with humans in Jude 6.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

On the basis of what biblical reference do you call them "deities/angels"?

Because the Hebrew behind the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6 always referred to "gods/deities". Over time, these deities eventually came to be seen more as contingent beings (a.k.a. angels) than gods.

If you were familiar with biblical scholarship, you would probably be aware of these types of things.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

Pick up any academic commentary on these epistles and they will tell you this.

If those conclusions are based on biblical references themselves, that should be easily demonstrable. If they are based on extra-biblical sources, I as a Christian am not bound by them as valid sources for Christian theology. I am not aware of any orthodox or mainstream Christian theology that supports that interpretation.

I have dozens of commentaries and monographs on Jude and 2 Peter, and as far as I can remember, none of them dispute the idea that Jude and 2 Peter are referring to the story of angels having intercourse with women.

Again, I need to know what is the basis of their conclusions. I recognize the Bible as legitimate source of Christian theology. I also recognize LDS scripture as a valid source of Christian theology. And none of these sources justify that interpretation; and modern LDS scripture specifically contradicts it.

Interestingly, Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14-15. Now 1 Enoch is actually a composite of 5-7 different literary works, the first one being called the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36). In the Book of Watchers we are given a detailed account of how wicked angels rebelled against God and then fornicated with women. Jude undoubtedly knew of the Book of Watchers (as he quoted it directly) and was undoubtedly referring to it's story of angels having intercourse with humans in Jude 6.

If you consider those sources to be on a par with the Bible as a source of Christian theology, that is up to you. I don't. I don't think that mainstream or orthodox Christian theologies do either.

[diglot]

If those conclusions are based on biblical references themselves, that should be easily demonstrable. If they are based on extra-biblical sources, I as a Christian am not bound by them as valid sources for Christian theology. I am not aware of any orthodox or mainstream Christian theology that supports that interpretation.

Well, it's your prerogative if you want to read the Bible in a complete vacuum.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

If you consider those sources to be on a par with the Bible as a source of Christian theology, that is up to you. I don't. I don't think that mainstream or orthodox Christian theologies do either.

The author of Jude evidently thought 1 Enoch was good enough to derive theology from it.

[zerinus]

Well, it's your prerogative if you want to read the Bible in a complete vacuum.

I don't call that reading it in a vacuum. The Bible is a rich cultural source, and is able to provide its own interpretation. We have additional scripture that augments that. We consider these as primary sources interpretation. Extra-biblical sources may or many not contain useful information; but if they teach a doctrine that cannot be supported by the scriptural data itself; or worse still, contradicts it; then I am not bound by those conclusions.

[David T]

I don't call that reading it in a vacuum. The Bible is a rich cultural source, and is able to provide its own interpretation. We have additional scripture that augments that. We consider these as primary sources interpretation. Extra-biblical sources may or many not contain useful information; but if they teach a doctrine that cannot be supported by the scriptural data itself; or worse still, contradicts it; then I am not bound by those conclusions.

Is your position that no scripture writers were ever influenced by incorrect religious or doctrinal concepts? The position being set forth is that the writers of those letters thought they were true, or at least were influenced by them. Not that what they presented is actual reality/doctrine today.

[maklelan]

Yea, I know that the "sons of God" were originally seen as lesser deities, and that Yahweh eventually ascended to the top of the pantheon and them eventually came to be seen as more transcendent of a being. This then led to these other lesser gods being relegated to the status of created beings, or what we now might call "angels".

Regardless of all this, my point is that these deities/angels of Genesis 6 are considered by the authors of Jude and 2 Peter to be fallen angels, not humans in covenant with the Lord as one poster put it (nor the "Sons of Seth" as other people consider).

The question becomes, which is more authoritative in the case of contradiction, the Old Testament text or the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament text?

Also, for those who are not convinced, these NT texts unquestionably make reference to Genesis 6, which was a tradition that was reinterpreted as referring to angels by Dead Sea Scroll texts, several Septuagint manuscripts, and numerous other Second Temple Jewish texts. Around the first century CE it became popular to interpret "sons of God" as a reference to humans, and subsequent rabbinic authorities actually made a concerted effort to prohibit interpreting Gen 6 as a reference to anything else.

[diglot]

The question becomes, which is more authoritative in the case of contradiction, the Old Testament text or the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament text?

Why does one have to be more authoritative though?

I'm not sure if you were following this tangential discussion from the beginning, but I bought up this whole issue due to someone asking me where the Bible supports the idea that there are evil supernatural beings who also appear to be corporeal beings. Irrespective as to whether Jude is in sync or not with the original meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, his reference to this tradition supports my claim that the Bible does support the notion that there are evil supernatural corporeal beings.

Edited October 29, 2011 by diglot

[maklelan]

Why does one have to be more authoritative though?

I'm not sure if you were following this tangential discussion from the beginning, but I bought up this whole issue due to someone asking me where the Bible supports the idea that there are evil supernatural beings who also appear to be corporeal beings. Irrespective as to whether Jude is in sync or not with the original meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, his reference to this tradition supports my claim that the Bible does support the notion that there are evil supernatural corporeal beings.

No, I haven't followed it from the beginning, so I may very well be misunderstanding exactly what your point is.

[zerinus]

Is your position that no scripture writers were ever influenced by incorrect religious or doctrinal concepts? The position being set forth is that the writers of those letters thought they were true, or at least were influenced by them. Not that what they presented is actual reality/doctrine today.

"The position being set forth" by whom? My position is the same as Peters:

2 Peter 1:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zerinus

[shalamabobbi]

Mainstream Christianity believes (AFAIK) that angels (good or evil) can appear as corporeal beings. Whether angels are inherently corporeal or incorporeal is another question. But if they are all naturally incorporeal, they can appear as corporeal beings if they so desire.

Ok, thanks. It seems an odd belief to me (and not because I was raised LDS, because I wasn't) that there could be beings that can assume a physical condition at will and as quickly dispense with that physical body again.

It seems to run contrary to the whole concept of the resurrection. Why are angels apparently more powerful than the Savior in this regard?

[Robert F. Smith]

Ok, thanks. It seems an odd belief to me (and not because I was raised LDS, because I wasn't) that there could be beings that can assume a physical condition at will and as quickly dispense with that physical body again.

It seems to run contrary to the whole concept of the resurrection. Why are angels apparently more powerful than the Savior in this regard?

It might be pertinent to make a couple of observations: When Yahweh and two angelic companions come to Abraham and are fed by him, corporeality seems involved (as we have discussed elsewhere on this Board). Second, LDS theology maintains that spiritual beings are composed of fine material, i.e., that they are not immaterial, even if not embodied.

[shalamabobbi]

It might be pertinent to make a couple of observations: When Yahweh and two angelic companions come to Abraham and are fed by him, corporeality seems involved (as we have discussed elsewhere on this Board). Second, LDS theology maintains that spiritual beings are composed of fine material, i.e., that they are not immaterial, even if not embodied.

Could you provide a reference to that thread? There is the concept of translated beings (city of Enoch) that can account for physical angels prior to the resurrection.

[Robert F. Smith]

Where do the "authors of 2 Peter and Jude" teach that:

1. the "sons of God" mentioned in the OT refer to "angels," and
   
2. the "angels" they were talking about referred to the OT passages mentioned?
   

The problem here is that both 2 Peter and Jude are directly quoting from Scripture. In their day, I Enoch was official Scripture, and still is in some branches of Christianity, e.g., Ethiopic. Thus, to understand what they are quoting, one must read the Ethiopic book of Enoch in context (see James Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha for a full, modern translation).

[Robert F. Smith]

Could you provide a reference to that thread? There is the concept of translated beings (city of Enoch) that can account for physical angels prior to the resurrection.

See http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55754-the-immaterial-god-eating-material-lunch-with-abraham/page__fromsearch__1

[Robert F. Smith]

Why is that?

Apparently (I'm just guessing) because it names names and gets down to the nitty gritty in a way unacceptable on this elite Board.

[shalamabobbi]

See http://www.mormondia...__fromsearch__1

Ok, thanks. I am going with the post by NauvooSaint #21 that they were angels and one was the angel of the Lord and they were translated beings if they ate food.

I don't see the appeal to spirits being material solving the issue since it is a different kind of matter (see D&C 129).

I made my post to try and clarify the mainstream Christian viewpoint, not to modify my own viewpoint.

[zerinus]

The problem here is that both 2 Peter and Jude are directly quoting from Scripture.

I agree that both 2 Peter and Jude appear to be quoting scriptural material not found in our existing canon; but what makes you so sure that the material that they were quoting from was the same as the apocryphal Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch) that is currently known by that name? I think what the Lord has told us about the Apocrypha in general in D&C 91 is equally applicable to the Book of Enoch, and even more so.

In their day, I Enoch was official Scripture, . . .

That is not true. It was never accepted as part of the canon either by the Jews or the Christians.

Thus, to understand what they are quoting, one must read the Ethiopic book of Enoch in context.

I don't agree. The mere fact that 2 Peter and Jude appear to be quoting scripture not found in the biblical canon, with similarities to the content of the (existing) Book of Enoch, does not provide overwhelming evidence that that is what they were quoting from .