Sex ( Why are Christians afraid to have honest discussions about it?)

[Pastor Michael Samuels]

Sex, historically has been a bad word in the body of Christ, I mean from the stand point of having real, honest and open conversation about it from a biblical, emotional, sensual and natural point of view. However, christians, including pastors seemingly have more problems with sex than those who practice sin as a lifestyle. We who are called to uphold a standard for the world have just as many if not more problems around sexual issues than the world.

We MUST have deeper, wiser and more real discussion, teaching and preaching concerning this issue so that people will be well informed so that each of us can make decisions that help us to marry partners that have the same sexual desires, appetite and inclination as long as they remain within a frame that God can honor. God does not want us to have frigid sexual relationships with a spouse but He also doesn't want an anything goes sexual relationships. He wants us to have balance yet more freedoms than the church has been willing to discuss. Hopefully this will decrease the number of divorces in the church.
+ What do you think?

[PASTOR CHARLES E BELL JR]

so what you are saying now is Jesus is not coming back james you can say what you want but God will have us caught up in the air.

[James Pierce]

Pastor,

I am saying.... research the pre trib rapture. You will be shocked to see what it will reveal. IF you dare.

[John]

Does this mean we have to get this from the Hebrew teaching? The Bible is pretty clear on this to me. I take it you go outside the Bible to gather your information on the rapture? Give us some education please.

[SisterLoveSister Ministries Inc.]

You know, I am so impressed when the real saints speak out. Part of having a successful marriage involves a healthy sexual relationships with each other and still be able to honor God in the same frame.

I am a firm believer that we must be able to be candid, open and honest about sex in the body of Christ. It seems to me that if there was more of it, we would have so much immorality as it relates to the leaders that have fallen because they have been caught up in some sexual exploit outside of their marriage.

Thank you for this blog.

Rene'

[Eric Hancock]

AGAIN
Brother Pierce is correct,,,the word of God/Yahweh is to be taught not argued or debated,,now I can show you all scripture and you can do the same but at the end..the truth cannot pass away,,so let me teach again
FIRST why was Angels created?We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

[Eric Hancock]

Angels very well could have had sex and some believ that they did ,,,this was mentioned in the book of Genses apparently the creator was not happy with the fact that they were ABORTING THERE ASSIGNMENTS ,,seeking to have a human experience for sexual contacts,,now if you would read the dead sea scrolls of ENOCH it will tell you more in tune what was really going ..Enochs job was to judge the falling angels,,while they had sex in human forms
Fragment A height 17.5 cm (6 7/8 in.), length 17.5 cm (6 7/8 in.)


Fragment B height 6.4 cm (2 1/2 in.), length 6.9 cm (2 11/16 in.)


4Q201(En ara)
Parchment
Copied ca. 200-150 B.C.E.
Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority (11)
One of the most important apocryphic works of the Second Temple Period is Enoch. According to the biblical narrative (Genesis 5:21-24), Enoch lived only 365 years (far less than the other patriarchs in the period before the Flood). Enoch "walked with God; then he was no more for God took him."
The original language of most of this work was, in all likelihood, Aramaic (an early Semitic language). Although the original version was lost in antiquity, portions of a Greek translation were discovered in Egypt and quotations were known from the Church Fathers. The discovery of the texts from Qumran Cave 4 has finally provided parts of the Aramaic original. In the fragment exhibited here, humankind is called on to observe how unchanging nature follows God's will.

The Book of Enoch is a pseudoepigraphal work (a work that claims to be by a biblical character). The Book of Enoch was not included in either the Hebrew or most Christian biblical canons, but could have been considered a sacred text by the sectarians. The original Aramaic version was lost until the Dead Sea fragements were discovered.


Reference
Milik, Jazef. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford, 1976) Printed book. General Collections, Library of Congress.
English Translation of Enoch (Hanokh)
4Q201(En ara)
Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority (11)
Ena I ii
12. ...But you have changed your works,
13. [and have not done according to his command,
and tran]sgressed against him; (and have spoken)
haughty and harsh words, with your impure mouths,
14. [against his majesty, for your heart is hard].
You will have no peace.

Ena I iii

13. [They (the leaders) and all ... of them took
for themselves]
14. wives from all that they chose and
[they began to cohabit with them and to defile
themselves with them];
15. and to teach them sorcery and [spells and
the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them
with herbs.]
16. And they become pregnant by them and
bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high ...]

[Eric Hancock]

It is fair to say that the patriarch Enoch was as well known to the ancients as he is obscure to modern Bible readers. Besides giving his age (365 years), the book of Genesis says of him only that he "walked with God," and afterward "he was not, because God had taken him" (Gen. 5:24). This exalted way of life and mysterious demise made Enoch into a figure of considerable fascination, and a cycle of legends grew up around him.

Many of the legends about Enoch were collected already in ancient times in several long anthologies. The most important such anthology, and the oldest, is known simply as The Book of Enoch, comprising over one hundred chapters. It still survives in its entirety (although only in the Ethiopic language) and forms an important source for the thought of Judaism in the last few centuries B.C.E. Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book of Giants.

Enoch lived before the Flood, during a time when the world, in ancient imagination, was very different. Human beings lived much longer, for one thing; Enoch's son Methuselah, for instance, attained the age of 969 years. Another difference was that angels and humans interacted freely -- so freely, in fact, that some of the angels begot children with human females. This fact is neutrally reported in Genesis (6:1-4), but other stories view this episode as the source of the corruption that made the punishing flood necessary. According to The Book of Enoch, the mingling of angel and human was actually the idea of Shernihaza, the leader of the evil angels, who lured 200 others to cohabit with women. The offspring of these unnatural unions were giants 450 feet high. The wicked angels and the giants began to oppress the human population and to teach them to do evil. For this reason God determined to imprison the angels until the final judgment and to destroy the earth with a flood. Enoch's efforts to intercede with heaven for the fallen angels were unsuccessful (1 Enoch 6-16).

The Book of Giants retells part of this story and elaborates on the exploits of the giants, especially the two children of Shemihaza, Ohya and Hahya. Since no complete manuscript exists of Giants, its exact contents and their order remain a matter of guesswork. Most of the content of the present fragments concerns the giants' ominous dreams and Enoch's efforts to interpret them and to intercede with God on the giants' behalf. Unfortunately, little remains of the independent adventures of the giants, but it is likely that these tales were at least partially derived from ancient Near Eastern mythology. Thus the name of one of the giants is Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero and subject of a great epic written in the third millennium B.C.E.

[Eric Hancock]

If you would read brother Pierce actual comment he is on point
I know it looks like that I am contradicting myself but it is the word,,,I admonish you all to go deeper into your studying by reading the actual dead sea scroll...Angels CANNOT PRODUCE OR MARRY WITH KIDS!!! Now it has been evident that they were having sex,,with weman according to the dead sea scroll and was PUNISHED for it,,God/Yahweh sent them for one reason and they took for another..BUT TWO SPIRITS HAVING PORN SEX....NO...NO...NO

[James Pierce]

Eric,

Provide evidence in the dead sea scrolls that actuall said ANGELS were having sex with women. Let me show you in Genesis 6, who these Nephilim were,"These were the mighty MEN who were of old, the men of renown." Notice it did NOT say "mighty angels."

[Pastor Sylvester E.Brinson IV]

because they don't want to really deal with it in the church

[Eric Hancock]

According to the Bible, Lamech was the son of Methuselah and the father of Noah. He was the ninth of the ten patriarchs of the antedeluvian world.

It is significant, however, that the Genesis Apocryphon mentions the Nephilim, and makes reference to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" introduced in Genesis 6. The Apocryphon also elaborates considerably on the succinct statements found in the Bible, and provides valuable insights into the way these ancient stories were interpreted by the ancient Jews.

The copy of the Genesis Apocryphon discovered at Qumran dates back to the 2nd century B.C., but it was obviously based on much older sources. When discovered in 1947, it had been much mutilated from the ravages of time and humidity. The sheets had become so badly stuck together that years passed before the text was deciphered and made known. When scholars finally made public its content, the document confirmed that celestial beings from the skies had landed on planet Earth. More than that, it told how these beings had mated with Earth-women and had begat giants.

Is this story myth or history, fable or fact? Specialized research has revealed that many ancient legends have a basis in fact. But to answer the question, let us consult the most authoritative document known to man--the Bible.

In Genesis 6:1-4 the "sons of God" are captivated by the beauty of the "daughters of men." They subsequently marry them and produce an offspring of giants known as the Nephilim. Genesis goes on to say that these Nephilim were "mighty men" and "men of renown."

"Sons of God"? "Daughters of men"? What sort of beings were these? Were they human or did they belong to an alien species from outer space?

[Eric Hancock]

IDENTIFYING THE SONS OF GOD
There is no problem in identifying the "daughters of men" for this is a familiar method of designating women in the Bible. The problem lies with the "sons of God." Three major interpretations have been offered to shed light on this cryptic designation.

First, a group within orthodox Judaism theorized that "sons of God" meant "nobles" or "magnates." Hardly anyone today accepts this view.

Second, some interpret the "sons of God" as fallen angels. These were enticed by the women of Earth and began lusting after them. Many reputable Bible commentators have rejected this theory on psycho-physiological grounds. How can one believe, they ask, that angels from Heaven could engage in sexual relations with women from Earth? Philastrius labeled such an interpretation a down-right heresy.

Third, many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) 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. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." (1)

However, in spite of the excellent pedigree of the proponents of this theory, their argument is not convincing. Their interpretation is pure eisegesis--they are guilty of reading into the text what is obviously not there.