tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Question: is it not possible that there is a non-perverse relationship between mankind and angels?

The following discussion too place due to the Right Response Ministries YouTube channels’ vid How Fallen Angels Biologically-Engineered The Giants w Dr. Tim Chaffey when a certain @saintvanguard commented

I think that you are right; indeed, spot on. However, I think the term Nephilim extends outside of “Only” demonic influence i.e. angels of rebellion towards Yahweh.

I think there are angels of obedience towards Yahweh that also bind themselves (Spiritually) with humans that are born again new creations creating a hybrid like believer known as Nephilim. This in turn would point to the scripture where it says that they were “the mighty men of old, men of renown.” I think the term giant is broader than just a physical reality of large bodied individuals.

If demons take what is good from Heaven and God’s creation and pervert it, is it not possible that there is a non-perverse relationship between mankind and angels?

I, @kenammi355, replied

But by definition, “Nephilim” exclusively refers to offspring of sons of God and daughters of men, by definition.

I’m unaware of any indication in all of history that, “there are angels of obedience towards Yahweh that also bind themselves (Spiritually) with humans that are born again new creations creating a hybrid like believer known as Nephilim.”

As for, “the term giant is broader” well, the key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

@saintvanguard

(First i’d like to say i’m reading this mans book currently).

Now addressing your statement in order from top to bottom. I agree with the definition, but I don’t think it’s exclusive. It is very clear that just because something is in the bible, doesn’t mean that if something is not in the bible that it isn’t a reality. For example, a french fry is a reality, but not in the bible. Also, infant baptism isn’t “explicitly” mentioned in the Bible, but one could infer from other details that it is an accurate practice of blessing upon the children of God who obey His commands.

Next the usage of giant. Broader does not mean more generic. Broader, in terms of word usage, means there are more usages of a word specifically; it isn’t singular or explicit. Something can have a broad meaning yet still be specific!

I think giant refers primarily to the spiritual reality, not the physical reality. Angels can take human form, but they also can operate on earth in the spiritual realm. Who says that an angel explicitly must take human form to create offspring? Who says that angels that do such things are ONLY wicked? If demons take what is holy and righteous in Gods creation and pervert it… then that implies there is a right relationship between angels and men which also implies there could be Nephilim that are appropriate and right in the eyes of God.

I base this off of experience as well. I believe scripture supports each believer is prescribed an angel of protection. Once, I had a dream of my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub, and this cherub attempting to draw close to me, but in the dream the angel communicated my habitual sin of masturbation was hindering/impeding his ability to do so… so, I repented. Later that day, my chest began to burn with a ball of fire in my diaphragm and I felt like I had a stream line connection to the heavens…

 ”And there appeared to them tongues like fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.“

Acts 2:3 LSB

Ever wondered why this verse say “they” and “themselves”? In the plural?

we could continue to discuss this, but I will wait for your reply first.

I’d also like to state in Genesis 3:21 Yahweh covered Adam and Eve with “skins.” Now it’s long known that the second definition is “hide” or animal skin, i.e. leather, BUT the first definition is actual skin of man. Now, do I think Yahweh killed man and covered Adam and Eve with their skins? No, absolutely not. However, the first definition is more accurate with the root of the Hebraic word. Therefore, what does this imply? It doesn’t specify that it was animal skin, or man skin, perhaps it was angelic skin in the spiritual realm that they were covered by… why do I say this? Well what’s the difference between leaves and leather skins? One requires bloodshed and another does not. The physical reality of bloodshed of animal is a depiction of the spiritual reality that is at play. So, this could imply that an angel covered their spirits as a sacrifice, clothing their spirits. This wouldn’t be far off as we are called to put on the armor of God and clothe ourselves with the spirit, The Holy Spirit. So, it’s possible that angels could be filling in the gap symbolically acting as propitiation in the spiritual realm signifying that Jesus himself must die and rise acting as the ultimate propitiation for our sins satisfying the Holy Wrath of Yahweh. As far as whether there was leather from an animal, this easily would just be stitches to a heart surgery.

And where do I base the idea that angels sacrifice themselves for our safety and life?…. PSALM 91

@kenammi355

Since you’re reading his book, you will find my name mentioned favorably therein since I assisted him with the research.

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

As for, “Angels can take human form” there’s literally zero indication of that: Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. Thus, they not only don’t take human form, they don’t need to nor could they since they are already in human for ontologically.

As for, “my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub” that’s a category error that violates the law of identify.

I’ve no idea what it would even mean that, “it was angelic skin in the spiritual realm that they were covered by…an angel covered their spirits.”

Sorry, I’ve no idea what Psalm 91 has to do with, “angels sacrifice themselves for our safety and life.” But perhaps the issue is what you mean by “sacrificing themselves.”

@saintvanguard

5 days ago (edited)

1. When I say that angels take on human form I mean that they can appear as a human, which they have, multiple times.

2. By guardian angel I don’t mean classification of angel. I mean an angel that protects you personally. In fact I have dreams of MANY angels, and also have had visions of Seraphim and Cherubim. And in one instance had an individual Seraph protect me from  demonic resistance within a seance in a cult gathering.

3. Just like we clothe ourselves with the Holy Spirit, we are putting on His actual Spirit for Armor (Ephesian 6) Angels could potentially be the “skin” or clothing we put on, (By abiding in the wings of the Most High) but I cannot prove this.

4. By sacrifice I mean sacrifice.

@kenammi355

1. Angels don’t just, “appear as a human” that’s just how they look, ontologically.

2. If by “angel” you don’t mean “angel” then don’t say “angel.” You missed the point about that “my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub” is a category error that violates the law of identity since Angels and Cherubim and Seraphim are different categories of being. Thus, a “guardian Angel” can’t be a Cherub since Cherubim aren’t Angels by definition.

What did the Cherubim and Seraphim look like in your dreams (not that it matters but I’m curious).

3. That, “Angels could potentially be the ‘skin’ or clothing we put on” sounds like neo-theo sci-fi.

4. So, “angel covered their spirits as a” death offered up to God: whatever that means.

@saintvanguard

These are technicalities that I did not expect to get into. BUT nonetheless you’re correct. The average person doesn’t understand the classifications of Heavenly beings to the inth degree.

To my understanding angels don’t have wings. The cherubim and seraphim choose to reveal themselves to me in different ways regularly. The most common way they choose to reveal themselves to me is in the form of vehicles. From Lamborghinis, to semi trucks, to vintage fire trucks, to tanks these Heavenly beings reveal themselves to me in this way I would assume because I understand degree of glory and purpose of machine well according to their imagery. In fact the Heavenly being that protects me personally shows up to me as a beautiful vintage red fire truck with gold, silver, snd stainless steel straight exhaust pipes. However they also reveal themselves to me in literal form, in rare instances. For example I’ve seen an individual cherub in the form of a draught horse; Massive creature. It was all black with two wings and had multiple eyes. When he was communicating with me, he relayed that he was bound to me for protection. How do I know that? It was just understood in the dream. This is what I mean by Heavenly beings can bind themselves to humans.   I can talk more about what that implies as well. Another instance of seeing a Heavenly being a (Seraph) was in the unsuspecting seance. He descended from heaven in the form of a man with wings and had a heavenly diadem, he also cracked a whip. Which we can talk about as well.

@kenammi355

Correct, Angels don’t have wings but Cherubim and Seraphim do (what’s one way to distinguish those different categories of being).

There’s zero indication that, “The cherubim and seraphim choose to reveal themselves to me in different ways regularly” but if I missed something, please provide quotations and citations.

There’s no indication Cherubim or Seraphim, “choose to reveal themselves…in the form of vehicles” and claiming that you receive special, private, personal, unique revelations is just gnosticism.

And, friend, when you tell me that you see a car or truck and imagine that it’s a Cherub or Seraph who speaks to you, you appear to be suffering from some very, very serious problems.

You merely assert that the “literal form” of Cherubim is “a draught horse” but that contradicts Ezekiel chaps 1 and 10 so you’re wrong and Ezekiel and God are right.

What do you mean by, “unsuspecting seance”? Are you a necromancer on top of it all?

@kenammi355

I’m merely elucidating that box into which God put those beings—and did so only after familiarizing myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data which I published in my relevant books such as “What Does the Bible Say About Angles? A Styled Angelology” and “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology” and “The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon.”

So, please don’t disregard God’s created order and categorizations because of a love for man-made traditions from centuries and millennia after the Torah and Tanakh as a whole.

I’m unsure why you want to move the goalpost to things that have nothing to do with our discussion such as merely asserting I slandered when I merely asked a question about a seance that you referenced.

1. not relevant if you “did not say he looked like a draught horse alone” since that alone debunks our claim since it’s not “constant with Ezekiels account”: if it is then please quote and cite where he described them as “like a draught horse.” Also, it’s not about “If” nor about “If they could appear” but that such is just how they look ontologically. See, you keep finding ways to attempt to have your cake and eat it too but you’re really rejecting the biblical cake and opting for a cake made of artificial ingredients.

2. There’s no “talking horn” in Rev. Daniel’s “beasts” are just symbolic of nations/kingdoms: I mean, it tells you that right there in that book. As for, “angel or cherub or seraph by their classification through the symbolic nature of the visual of a vehicle” now you seem to be confusing them with Ophanim: the “wheels within wheels.”

3. Now who’s slandering? I never even hinted that that, “God only reveals Himself through scripture” but you merely asserted that I actually made that “claim” so that’s what, “inaccurate.” My point is that when God is very clear about His categorization and description of beings, you don’t get to come along millennia later with only admitted partial knowledge and water things down to mash them together and invent new fantasy things. God can do whatever He wants and He doesn’t bend the knee to the likes of “saintvanguard.”

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.


Posted

in

by

Tags: