Here are my 2 posts and 1 reply again. Try rereading it and Don't assume something is said if it isn't said.

 

28 March 2012

Eve and sons of God

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2012/ernestp328.htm

 

29 March 2012
"Job"

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/march2012/ernestp329-1.htm

 

2 Apr 2012
"RE: Patti C"

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/apr2012/ernestp42.htm

 

 

I am sorry if by putting your name on that post, it appeared that I was directing that Blue Letter Bible study just to you, and to what you said in your letter. I was just presenting another side to what you were saying, not as an attack on what you said. Please forgive me for that confusion.

You, on the other hand, seem to be coming at me with more than what I had to say about the limits of Satan’s power. You object much more to my not believing that the sons of God are the fallen angels. In fact, you say this:(your words)

 

 

Another side of what? Nothing in your reply  addressed my post.

 

 

 

"You, on the other hand, seem to be coming at me with more than what I had to say about the limits of Satan’s power. You object much more to my not believing that the sons of God are the fallen angels. In fact, you say this:(your words)"

 

I Never posted anything about your post "Limits to Satan's Power"

 

I seen no need to post anything in response to it  Donna D is doing just fine.

 

 

 

"That is what is really bothering you. And, I guess I am to believe what I feel to be a lie, because for most people this is a settled issue??!!! I contend just the opposite, and will continue to do so, because I believe there is NO WAY THE SONS OF GOD ARE THE FALLEN ANGELS!!! I have not heard one valid argument that can convince me otherwise. In order for one to come to that conclusion one must go outside of Scripture to in any way begin to prove it!! I think the Truth can be proven without doing that!!"

 

I am puzzled as to how you think you know "what is really bothering me".

 

 

"I have not heard one valid argument that can convince me".

Ah no scripture, Translations or word meanings, History Old Scalars, Writings of Old Church fathers. Nothing well that's to bad really. Your choice.

 

 

 

"And talk about putting words in your mouth and saying things you never said, that is exactly what you do to me, here:(your words)"

“You believe no Angle (Fallen or not) or demon can not do anything without permission from God. If that is your belief then you believe God gave Satan and his followers (Fallen Bene HElohim) permission to sin and rebel before they rebelled. Then also Satan had to have God's permission to cause the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden before the incident.Then that would have other implications.”

Patty, Using the Obama shuffle?

 

 

My complete words.

 

"You believe no Angle (Fallen or not) or demon can not do anything without permission from God. If that is your belief then you believe God gave Satan and his followers (Fallen Bene HElohim) permission to sin and rebel before they rebelled. Then also Satan had to have God's permission to cause the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden before the incident.Then that would have other implications.
Or do you flip flop back and forth on this belief. If I misunderstood and that isn't your belief I with draw my question and apologize."

 

Notice I never talked about the son of God you you attack me as if I did.

 

 

Those are not my beliefs at all, and that was very much an assumption on your part!!

I believe that Satan and the fallen angels were called the sons of God before they rebelled and were kicked out of Heaven. There is no way that they would still be considered such after that!!! They had free will to rebel, but they do not have free will, in their fallen state, to tempt man, (without God’s permission) and are no longer to be considered sons of God.

My comment above has nothing to do with who is or isn't sons of God but again you run right back to that. Then give a brief answer "they do not have free will, in their fallen state, to tempt man, (without God’s permission)."

 

 So I was right that is what you beleave, but you try to shoot it down with a "sons of God" argument which I never addressed. 

 

 

 

"Therefore, Satan could not even mention Job’s name before God pointed him out to Satan".

 

Again where did you get this?

 

 

 

Did Satan ask God for permission to tempt Jesus (GOD)? If so show me.

 

 

 

" I think the Book of Job is a great reminder that neither Satan, nor his fallen angels, can tempt anyone without the Lord’s permission. Also, even though God threw Job under the bus, as you so aptly put it, God was still in control as to what Satan could do to Job"

 

Don't think I said "God threw Job under the bus" but that's OK. What I did say  to GM was"I am not so sure it was to minister to Satan as much as it was to used him as a tool to prove Jobs Fear of God." 

 

 

 

I did not say that Satan came to get permission from God to tempt Job, I said just the opposite that God had to mention Job first, and Satan could not just do it on his own. I think we agree on this point.

 

 

What I agree with is God's protect had to be removed first. Not that God "had to mention Job first" there is nothing to support this view.

Again the scripture shows no such thing. It does show that Gods protection was on Job and all he had and that needed to be lifted off by God first.

 

Job 1:10 Hast thou not made an hedge about him and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

 

 

 

 

Keep Looking Up

E.P