SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is the current Todd Bently thing an avenue in which christian may be killed in the public arena

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1826
Hemel Hempstead

 Is the current Todd Bently thing an avenue in which christian may be killed in the public arena

With the Todd bentley thing violence is a major part of it in Gods name!
What happens if this is extended, if someone is killed
I have been trying to find the verse that they will kill you in Gods name is this circus not a means by which christians may kill other christians.
If punching and kicking christians in the head is fine, then what about killing other christians in a public arena.
We live in a age of video games and tv violence.
We are flooded with it!

I have been also thinking about the scripture that relates to the times of Noah.
It is interesting to note that Todd Bentley has been calling and praying for Angels.
In the book of Genesis Fallen Angels mate with humans.
In the bible in Revelation it talks about babylon being a place filled with birds or demons!

It has been intresting not to note just the things but every aspect, what will the ramifications of Todd Bentleys revival be in the church what doctrines will they despise.
It is interesting to look at this in a future light aswell as a current one.
I doubt that Todd Bentley will not be the last of his kind! Will it increase further like this until the Antichrist is the end of the chain!

Another thing has been false speaking in tounges.

The Emergant Church, other movements have come out of the Toronto Blessing!
What heresy are we in for next!
These are just a few thoughts!
I have been trying to clarify them with the actual verses but need to find them and may update them!


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2008/7/18 21:42Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re: Is the current Todd Bently thing an avenue in which christian may be killed in th

Quote:

deltadom wrote:

In the book of Genesis Fallen Angels mate with humans.



In light of what Jesus said about angels not marrying or given in marriage what scriptures have you found to prove what you have stated.

I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong just would like to know how you validate your statement?

Thanks!

 2008/7/18 22:40Profile
deltadom
Member



Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 1826
Hemel Hempstead

 Re:

Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

from this statement! in the bible!


Re 18:2 - Show Context
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.


_________________
Dominic Shiells

 2008/7/18 22:56Profile
rbanks
Member



Joined: 2008/6/19
Posts: 1257


 Re:

But Jesus said the angels cannot marry or be given in marriage. How do you know they are not asexual?

 2008/7/18 23:01Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
In light of what Jesus said about angels not marrying or given in marriage what scriptures have you found to prove what you have stated.



I think Dom is referring to the Nepthalim. Keep in mind that marriage is a covenant and has nothing really to do with fornication. I think Dom is referring to Genesis 6 which lends very strongly to the possibility of fallen angels taking on human form. Satan, the anointed cherub, took on the form of a serpent and spoke to Eve. This is a radical transformation when you consider how the Cheribim are described in the Revelation.

We could be entertaining angels unawares. Angels ate food with Abraham. They can transform themselves into an angel of light. Yet there are some that left their [i]habitation[/i] and are now in chains of darkness. Noah was 'perfect' in his generations. The sons of God are referred to in Job 38 as the angelic host. This is likely why God destroyed the earth; all flesh had corrupted its way.

When the angels came to Sodom; what did the people do? You will recall also that they smote the people with blindness and then the people began to scratch at the door in their lusts. This was a supernatural move that had to show that they were not mere men. God DESTROYED them totally from the earth, as their sin had [i]reached to heaven[/i].

So we see a pattern here of lust driven people falling into unimaginably unspeakable and shameful behavior.

And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. [u]There were giants on the earth in those days[/u], and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:3-4)

This was the first instance of this phenomena.

There were giants on the earth in those days, and [u]also afterward[/u], when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

The second case is found when the spies returned:

There we saw the giants; and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)

I am of the opinion that Numbers 13:33 came about as a result of Lot asking God not to destroy ZOAR. The seed of wickedness was in Zoar as it was the other cities of the plain. Lot's compromise may have well allowed this 'leaven' to manifest again in the land as referred to again in Numbers 13:33.

It is a frightful warning, I think, of what wickedness without mixture can produce. The old world was destroyed for a reason. The only thing left at that point is the absolute unbridled judgment of God. I Josephus' works it is said to have been the view of antiquity that those spoken of in Genesis 6 were fallen angels.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/7/19 0:20Profile









 Re: Entertaining Fables

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (KJV)

Gen 6:4 The giants were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore to them; they were heroes which existed from ancient time, the men of name. (LITV...which is my preference of English translations of the Word of God)

The question whether the “sons of Elohim” were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. “It cannot be denied,” says Delitzsch, “that the connection of Gen_6:1-8 with Gen 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Mat_24:38; Luk_17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Exo_34:16; cf. Gen_27:46; Gen_28:1.) also favours the same idea.” But this “assumption” is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In Gen_6:2 it is stated that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” i.e., of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (Gen_6:4). Now אשּׁה לקח (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to πορνεία, or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Mat_22:30; Mar_12:25; cf. Luk_20:34.).

And in the second place, there is a considerable difference between the act of eating on the part of the angels of God who appeared in human shape, and the taking of wives and begetting of children on the part of sinning angels. We are quite unable also to accept as historical testimony, the myths of the heathen respecting demigods, sons of gods, and the begetting of children on the part of their gods, or the fables of the book of Enoch (ch. 6ff.) about the 200 angels, with their leaders, who lusted after the beautiful and delicate daughters of men, and who came down from heaven and took to themselves wives, with whom they begat giants of 3000 (or according to one MS 300) cubits in height.(Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament)

Gen 6:4
There were giants in the earth - נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, “he fell.” Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed , earth-born, and the latter, saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
The same became mighty men - men of renown - gibborim, which we render mighty men, signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gabar, “he prevailed, was victorious.” and אנשי השם anshey hashshem, “men of the name,” ανθρωποι ονομαστοι, Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim, gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.
(Adam Clarke)

 2008/7/19 1:26
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Although I think K&D and Adam Clarke are useful, I disagree with them in this case. Only in modern scholarship do men take the view that these were the sons of Seth. Josephus' gives us insight into what the Jews believed in the 1st Century about Genesis 6.

(Antiq 1.III.1) For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; [u]for the tradition is,[/u] that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.

On the Giants in the land...

(Antiq 5.II.3) For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.
------

There is a footnote in Josephus' works (11) that states that it was the constant view of antiquity that the sons of God were angels. That is what the people always understood Moses to mean. Again, only in relatively recent times has this been interpreted to mean the 'sons of Seth'. I think we do ourselves a disservice to underestimate both the fallen angels and fallen mans capacity for wickedness.

It is only significant to consider in our times because human beings are growing more wicked by the day and are beginning to overthrow the various measures God took to prevent the level of wickedness found in Genesis 6 and Sodom and Gomorrah.


Indeed angels are not married and given in marriage, but that is the design of angels. It was never God's design to violate this order. However,[color=000066]And the angels which kept not their [u]first estate, but left their own habitation[/u], he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and [u]going after strange flesh[/u], are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
[/color]

These are two basic categories of angels:

1) Faithful
2) Fallen

Of those that are Fallen there are two categories:

1) Bound
2) Loosed

The angels that are 'bound' are these spoken of by Jude. Why are they bound? [color=000066]And the angels which kept not their first estate, but [i]left their own habitation[/i][/color].

Habitation is oikētērion and it is only ever used in 2 places in the New Testament; Jude and II Cor. 5:2, [color=000066] For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our [u]house[/u] which is from heaven.[/color] here we see that the term means 'body'. K&D are quick to dismiss such a notion, but the evidence is not in their favor at all. Just because the pagans entertained bizarre notions of gods and angels is no sufficient cause for altering our interpretation of scripture.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and [u]going after strange flesh[/u]. Here 'strange' flesh is heteros meaning 'other flesh'. We get heterosexual from this word. Were these men that surrounded the city heterosexual? Why then did they reject Lot's daughters? What sense were they 'heteros'? This word usage is also odd because we think of Sodom as a city of sodomites. We would be looking for 'homo' (same flesh). It is my position that they knew they were angels and that is why they scratched at the door; they wanted to 'know them' carnally.

It has been my view that the reason for the dismissal is purely a desire to maintain an academic reputation so as not to be charged with superfluous ideas or something.

[color=000066]For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (II Peter 3:5-7)
[/color]


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/7/19 6:57Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7474
Mississippi

 Re: Is the current Todd Bently thing an avenue in which christian may be killed in th

Quote:
We live in a age of video games and tv violence.



I have been wondering whether this is the very thing that has desensitized Christian people to accept violence with no objection? Especially, as in the case of Bently kicking people in the head? Listen! If there would be any preacher in my presence who would brag about doing something like this, I would walk out and be very verbal about my dislike of him!!! This is cruel! Have people become so calloused they will just laugh at it??!!! Now I love humor and love to laugh - as all my friends know - but this stinks to high heaven! And it smells like kettle of fish that has gotten real ripe after sitting in the sun a couple of days! and from the sound of it they are eating it! uuuugggghhh!

ginnyrose

(PS: I keep saying I will not post any more about Bently...reckon I am a woman and therefore have the ability to change my mind and do so on occasion!)


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2008/7/19 14:00Profile
FireinmyBones1
Member



Joined: 2004/1/17
Posts: 219
Michigan

 Re: Is the current Todd Bently thing an avenue in which christian may be killed in th

I do have a very quick question that is not asked in sarcasm or with any intent to stir up trouble. I have listened to the sermon "The Gift of Faith" by Todd Bentley and have in fact known of many of these stories for about three years now. I am not an advocate of punching people in prayer or harming people in the name of faith. Do I believe that the Lord sometimes asks us to do strange things as an act of faith when praying for others. Of course. Paul's handerkecheif's and aprons were stranges mediums of prayer - for that is specifically what the Bible calls them. Jesus using his saliva on two different occasions while praying for the sick is likewise a strange medium of prayer. However, we need not ever make formulas out of the methods of men who were being led of the Spirit moment by moment. Certainly the main and most scriptural method for praing for the sick is through the laying on of hands and anointing with oil - as taught and demonstrated by Jesus and the apostles.

I do have to ask, however . . . the pictures of individuals, christians, and past revivalists that are kept on this site - I'm assuming that the moderator's and such are in support of these men and women. Are you aware, that there are images of Smith Wigglesworth, his birth place, his grave etc... on this site? Are you also aware that Smith Wigglesworth was also well known for employing violent methods in prayer? It is well known and documented that he punched a man in the stomach who was suffering with stomach cancer. It is also documented that he once kicked a baby back three rows of pews in a meeting. He is also known as picking a corpse up out of the coffin and slamming it against the wall three different times. These are just the more well-known accounts, but there are more.

How can we criticize Bentley's behaviour while ignoring the behaviour of men from the past who have done some of the same things. Certainly Wigglesworth was viewed through the sames lenses by some in his day as many today view Bentley. He was just as radical and offensive in his day. Is this an example of us sanitizing our past while demonizing our present?

Again, I am not saying this in support of what Todd Bentley has done. I'm just seeking an honest answer.

Thanks for taking the time to read and think on this...

-Jeff


_________________
Jeff

 2008/7/19 16:06Profile









 Re: Unwarily Entertaining Fables

Matthew Henry wrote:

Mixed marriages (Gen.6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness.

The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages?

(1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at.

(2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But,

(3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2Co.6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu.7:3, Deu.7:4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon's apostasy (1Ki.11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1-2.

Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.

This follows so much more closely to Biblical principles and Biblical teaching than that of fallen angels taking wives for themselves.

I admit, it seems more interesting that demons could take a wife, and it lends much more "credibility" to those fabrications of Hollywood movies whereby demons invade earth to destroy it.

It makes far more sense that Satan used the tactic of infiltration to destroy from within. A house on a bad foundation will always fall. And, as Henry pointed out, Solomon fell prey to that tactic as well. If at first you succeed, use the same tactic.

Furthermore, the concept that women and demons can engage in actual, physical sexual intercourse mus be rejected, for several reasons.

First, demons are nonsexual beings. As a unique category of non-material beings, they are incapable of having sexual relationships with corporeal sexual beings, producing biological offspring. As Dr. J. Sidlow Baxter put it, Let us be frank and explicit. The angels are bodiless, purely spiritual beings, and sexless. Being bodiless and sexless means that they are without sex organs, and that they are therefore absolutely incapable of sensuous experiences or sexual processes; nor are they capable of procreation or reproduction in any way whatever.

Nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to fallen angels being able to produce human bodies. And nowhere does Scripture affirm that the bodies Gods angels take on are capable of sexual reproduction. To say that demons can create real bodies with DNA and fertile sperm to say that demons have creative power, which is an exclusively divine prerogative. To create is the prerogative of the Creator, not of any creature, angelic or human. While a biblical world view would allow for fallen angels to possess human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon possessed person can produce offspring that are part demon, part human.

Second, if demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we have no assurance that they cannot do so in modern times. If demons do, in fact, have the capability of creating real bodies with real sperm, we have no assurance that the people we encounter every day are fully human.

Third, it is interesting to note that in the account of an event which occurred 800 years after the Flood, the term Nephilim was used to describe the descendants of Anak (Num. 13:33). While proponents of the mutant theory sometimes point to the phrase and also afterward (Gen. 6:4) to try to deal with this problem, they only succeed in transferring the same problem to another passage. Furthermore, Numbers 13:33 poses a special difficulty for the mutant theory. Moses authored both Genesis and Numbers, yet Moses gave no indication that Nephilim means something different in Numbers than in Genesis. This entails either that not all mutants were destroyed in the Flood, in which case the Scripture is in error with respect to the extent of the judgment, or that mutants were produced again after the Flood, in which case we actually have scriptural precedent by which we might hypothesize that such mutants are being produced again today.

Fourth, it is worth noting that Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of Gods living creations were designed to reproduce according to their own kinds. Mutants would have no place Gods expressed creative purposes. Some have argued that angels may have been created originally with an inherent capacity to become human, but the Bible nowhere teaches this notion and Genesis 1 militates against it. Others have argued that because demon-humans had no place in Gods expressed creative order, they would have conspired to contaminate the human race in order to thwart Gods plan for humanitys redemption. Therefore, God brought the Flood for the purpose of restoring the purity of the human bloodline. But this presupposes that Satan is capable of usurping Gods prerogative in creation, which is not possible as I have already pointed out.

Fifth, the scriptural perspective is that the Flood was solely a judgment on humanity, as opposed to a judgment on fallen angels or demon-humans.

Sixth, the mutant theory creates very serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of the demon-humans, and their relation to humanitys redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and no plan of redemption is offered to them in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. We have no biblical way for determining what category the demon-humans fit into whether they are to be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might be among those for whom Christ died.

Seventh, no other verses in Scripture explicitly support the view that demons can have sexual relations with women. While advocates point to 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6 to support this theory, a quick review of these passages demonstrates that they do not establish the position. In Jude 1:6,7 is a simple comparison, not angels and humans intermingling, but factually and historically both "indulged in gross immorality." It was man that "went after strange flesh." Angels don't have flesh. Reading the account of Sodom and Gomorrah you see there that actual human beings, not fallen angels, are involved. Just as the angels that fell and sin and will be severely judged, so will these men, also fallen and sinful, will be so judged. There's nothing to suggest here that angels can have sexual relations with human beings. Nor is that ever suggested anywhere in Scripture. The plain reading of the account in Gen. 6 is that it is speaking of human beings only - people (as has already be pointed out).

The better interpretation is that sons of God simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and daughters of men to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Dr. Gleason Archer explains,
What Genesis 6:1-2,4 records is the first occurrence of mixed marriage between believers and unbelievers, with the characteristic result of such unions: complete loss of testimony for the Lord and a total surrender of moral standards. In other words, sons of God in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to God and loyal to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were daughters of men that is, of the tradition and example of Cain.

Critics of this view say that sometimes the Bible refers to angels as sons of God; therefore sons of God in this passage may refer to angels. Yet, that term is explicitly applied to good angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). The only other references applying the term or a related term to angels are in Psalms 29:1 and 89:6 7. In all of these places the term appears to refer to angels who praise and glorify God. Archer notes, The term sons of God (ben elohim transliterated from Hebrew) is used in the Old Testament of either angels or men who are true believers, committed to the service of God. The use of the Hebrew term to refer to humans who love and worship God is well established in Scripture (see, for example, Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10).

Another objection is that the Nephilim are considered to be giants. But, the Hebrew is more often and contextually translated men of renown. The NlV Study Bible note for Genesis 6:4 says, In mens eyes they were the heroes of old, men of renown, but in Gods eyes they were sinners (fallen ones) ripe for judgment. Even if the Hebrew could be translated giants, there is no necessity of giving the Nephilim demonic paternity. While such concepts are common in Greek mythology, they are foreign to a Christian worldview.

 2008/7/20 0:01





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy