Silly Jesuits, Theology’s for the Regenerate
How many discussions have you had about space aliens, UFO’s, and theology? I’ve certainly had my share. The best discussion came one day after listening to Dr. Walter Martin’s “UFO’s: Friend or Foe.” Dr. Martin argues for the validity of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports attributing them to extra-dimensional demonic life-forms. If you haven’t heard it yet, you should. If anything, you’ll get some good laughs out of it.
Then there’s Dr. Morey’s position that argues alongside the Talmuds and Midrash that interprets the “sons of God” (ben elohim) phrase found in Job, Genesis, *Deuteronomy, and the Psalms as the created angelic sentient life forms that witnessed the creation of the spatial universe. 
The heavenly scene in Job 1 out of which Satan emerges for the first time, Morey argues, is a judgment day, an actual day on the calendar, when the extra-dimensional, cognizant, sentient life forms (sons of God) appeared before God to give an account of the domains in the universe that they were assigned to tend. That is when Satan is spotted and asked where he’s coming from, iow, which domain are you reporting from?
But then we have Fr. Jose Gabriel Funes, a Jesuit priest that says that Astronomy is an “apostolic instrument that can bring us closer to God.” Funes, an adherent to the Big bang theory, believes that the “Big Bang theory about the origin of the universe…does not contradict the Bible.” Funes says there is no tension between the Catholic faith and the belief in aliens. So far, minus the Big bang business, he is in agreement with Martin and Morey. But here’s where we see a minor disagreement:
“Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there could be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contradiction with our faith, because we cannot establish limits to God’s creative freedom,” he told the [Catholic News Agency] newspaper. “To say it with St. Francis, if we can consider some earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ or ’sisters,’ why could we not speak of a ‘brother alien’? He would also belong to the creation,” he said.
The first question that should be raised here would be concerning Satan. Is the Jesuit saying that since these “aliens” would be part of the creation then they would be brothers or sisters? If so, since Satan is part of the creation, does the Jesuit consider Satan a brother? Most of us already know of the immediate family relationship between Jesuits and Satan (Jn. 8:44), it’s just shocking to hear such an outright affirmation. The journalist that interviewed Funes asked him, “But if the [aliens] were sinners?” The Jesuit answered:
“Jesus became man once and for all. The Incarnation is a single and unique event. So I am sure that also they, in some way, would have the chance to enjoy God’s mercy, just as it has happened with us human beings,”
I’m not going to even bother with the first statement about the Incarnation. But is the Jesuit implying that “fallen angels” may somehow “redemptively” benefit from the Cross? If so, this wouldn’t be the first time. Origen, Egypt’s most celebrated pagan theologian (185-254AD) believed in universal reconciliation (apokatastasis), which basically says that all will receive salvation due to God’s mercy, including devils and lost souls. Origen, along with Clement of Alexandria, were known for using Plato’s pagan philosophy to construct Christian theology – they obviously missed it on this one!
This doctrine was passed down and is found in other pagan theologians such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Jerome (although Jerome stipulated it was only for the baptized and later in life taught eternal punishment). Just like Origen’s other platonic heresies have emerged again (i.e. preexistence of the soul has been resurrected in Mormonism), it seems that another ancient sleeping heresy has once again been awaken by the mother of harlots, the apostolic Satanic instrument herself.
—————————————————–
*32:8 Compare Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text Israel
Source (HT: World Net Daily)
20 Comments, Comment or Ping
Denise
As far as the alien thing, Scripture doesn’t indicate that God has other beings on other planets. If He did, Jesus would have to take on their form as well (as He did humanity) to redeem some of them, because according to Genesis 1-3 and Romans 5 & 8, all of creation fell when Adam and Eve sinned.
In order to be a Substitution, the Lord had to become “like us”, Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
His death was once for all time:
Rom 6:10 For the death HE DIED he died to sin, ONCE FOR ALL, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since HE DID THIS ONCE FOR ALL when he offered up himself.
Heb 9:12 HE ENTERED ONCE FOR ALL into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has APPEARED ONCE FOR ALL at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the OFFERING OF THE BODY of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL.
Even now, 1John 2:1 says that when we sin, Jesus is our Advocate before the Father. Certainly Jesus Christ the Master is not shape-shifting into aliens then a man, then back. Scripture declares Jesus Christ the Master King, to be the Son of Man. Not Son of an Alien.
And Scripture also says that Hell is prepared for Satan and his angels. That destroys the notion of redemption for them. HE did not become like the demons to redeem them. HE is not their high priest. Their future is written in stone. Their eternal damnation is declared:
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
“Universal reconciliation” is nothing but Universalism, which attacks the Gospel, God’s justice, and calls Jesus Christ a liar, as HE has already proclaimed many shall go the way of the Broad road to destruction in Hell.
FYI:
The mother of harlots also holds another doctrine in common with LDS (emphasis, mine):
RCC Catechism #460 “For the Son of God became man SO THAT WE MIGHT BECOME GOD.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, MIGHT MAKE MEN GODS.” 81
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
But God says in Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.
Truly the RCC is satanic. Why any proclaiming Christian would claim the Harlot’s founding fathers, history, and creeds is beyond me.
May 14th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Stephen~
I LOVE your title!!
You know I gotta do it…one of my favorite Spurgeon quotes:
“I do not think I should care to go on worshipping the Madonna even if she did wink. One cannot make much out of a wink. We want something more than that from the object of our adoration”. –CH Spurgeon
When you go to ‘mother of harlots’ (above) there is a creepy drawing of Mary as the co-redemptrix…it shows her with nail holes in her hands!
Wow…”Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”. –2 Tim 3:7
May 14th, 2008
Fusion
Walter Martin…really? Wow. Good job Steve-O, and remember, keep watching the skies!.
May 14th, 2008
Denise
Reformed Mamma,
You reminded me of something that I think will be interesting to you, and perhaps others. I hope to not go too far off the topic here, but I wanted to share this with you.
The RCC is full of gnostic feminism. The RCC Catechism #975 and 511 states that Mary is the “new Eve”. RCC believes she is the source of our salvation (#494), & is the female Abraham #149 &144. Contrast this with Heb. 5:9 that says Christ is the source of our salvation.
John MacArthur on the history of Feminism: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/feminist.htm :
“So you can see that the first tenet of their system was a blasphemy against God–calling God evil, bungling, ignorant. The system also included (listen to this) lies that elevated women. Ancient Gnosticism focused on women, this is what it said, for example, “Eve was a spirit endowed woman who saved Adam.” They said, “Final salvation for the whole world from the imprisonment of matter will come through female power…and fulfills herself that she becomes fully divine, and as she becomes divine she will rescue the rest of these lame men just like Eve, fully divine, rescued poor Adam.”
In fact, convoluting the creation account, Gnostic texts tell us that Dame Wisdom was the heavenly Eve. There was a mystical heavenly woman named “The Heavenly Eve” who is the same as Dame Wisdom (she is the source of all wisdom). She entered the snake in the garden, and she taught both Adam and Eve the true way of salvation. ”
Psa 49:7 Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, 8 for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, 9 that he should live on forever and never see the pit…. Psa 49:15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Selah
May 14th, 2008
The BOC
Please look at the language before you condemn–
“Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there COULD be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contradiction with our faith, because we cannot establish limits to God’s creative freedom”
He never said there is life elsewhere-he simply says there is the possibility. Prove there isn’t life elsewhere in the universe if you can. God’s attributes are far too many for you to even try to list!
May 14th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
BOC, I am sorry to tell you that you have greatly missed the point. The post assumes that there *is* life elsewhere in the universe. How else could I have critiqued the position that affirms the salvation of fallen angels, lost souls, and devils?
You said: “Please look at the language before you condemn-”
Did you somehow miss the preceding:
“Funes says there is no tension between the Catholic faith and the belief in aliens. So far, minus the Big bang business, he is in agreement with Martin and Morey. But here’s where we see a minor disagreement:”
Obviously, I wasn’t taking issue with that statement, now was I? The disagreement comes next. Read it again, I think you’ll find that I’m right!
May 14th, 2008
The BOC
Stephen-
Where in God’s word does it say he didn’t create life elsewhere? Seems like the whole thesis is hypothetical anyway. At least that is how I am reading it.
May 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
BOC,
“Where in God’s word does it say he didn’t create life elsewhere?”
Where in this article does it state that he didn’t?
In case you missed it, I referenced certain passages that explicitly refer to created, extra-dimensional, sentient life-forms. So how you came up with the idea that the post is asserting that there is no life besides that found here on earth remains a mystery.
May 15th, 2008
the BOC
Sorry, read you wrong!
May 15th, 2008
Johnny B
This reminds me, of the whole, Chuck Missler, Dr. Mark Eastman, thing on UFO’s. They wrote a book on this subject, in line with dr martin’s view, it crashed and burned.
I don’t agree with Genesis 6, “sons of God”, being fallen angels, that had sex with, the “dauthers of men”. How would fallen angels, be call “sons of God”. I don’t see the, sons of God, in Job or Psalms, as fallen angels or am I missing something?
May 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Johnny, the view doesn’t limit (by definition) the “sons of God” to those “fallen” beings only.
Job 1:6 clearly states that the “sons of God” were presenting themselves before the Lord. Although the text does not state if they were fallen, we are told that Satan was among them.
Job 2:1 describes another scene perhaps a year later (if the day was “a” day on the calendar so to speak) with Satan among them again (1:12 and 2:7 says that Satan left the presence of the Lord to go to work Job).
Job 38:7 describes the “sons of God” as those that witnessed the creation of the earth. The text says they shouted with joy and sang together, implying an unfallen bunch, but not definitively.
The Hebrew of Psalm 29:1 and 89:6 that is rendered “heavenly beings” (ben el) in the ESV, “sons of the mighty” in the KJV and NASB. Interestingly, I just checked the LXX (BGT) and the Greek says sons of “Theos.” This is the same term used for the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 that took the daughters of men and created the hybrid breed of nephilim – which appeared *after* the flood, the catastrophic event that destroyed all flesh but the 8 (how did they reappear???).
Sounds like some kookie stuff, but it’s there in Scripture.
May 15th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Hey Denise…thanks for the link!
MacArthur has some excellent research on the RCC that has been very helpful to me. I haven’t seen much from him on the Eastern Orthodox church which is my current obsession.
Check out some quotes about Mary (by Palamas, one of the EO heroes):
“She (Mary) passed not a few years in the Holy of Holies itself, wherein under the care of an angel she enjoyed ineffable nourishment such as even Adam did not succeed in tasting; for indeed if he had, like this immaculate one, he would not have fallen away from life, even though it was because of Adam and so that she might prove to be his daughter, that she yielded a little to nature, as did her Son, Who has now ascended from earth into heaven”.
“The King of all ‘hath desired a mystic beauty’ of the Ever-Virgin, as David foretold…”
“For, as she co-operated and suffered with that exalting condescension (kenosis) of the Word of God, she was also rightly glorified and exalted together with Him, ever adding thereto the supernatural increase of mighty deeds”.
“For while she (Mary) alone stood between God and the whole human race, God became the Son of Man and made men sons of God;she made earth heavenly, she deified the human race and she alone of all women was shown forth to be a mother by nature and the Mother of God transcending every law of nature, and by her ineffable childbirth- the queen of all creation both terrestial and celestial”.
“The strips of linen and burial clothes afford the apostles a demonstration of the Theotokos’ resurrection from the dead, since they remained alone in the tomb and at the apostles’ scrutiny they were found there, even as it had been with the Master”.
…”thus she is worshipped and marvelled at and hymned by all the faithful”.
…”Yet it is meet to chant hymns of praise to thee, for thou art a vessel containing every grace, the fulness of all things good and beautiful, the tablet and living icon of every good and all uprightness, since thou alone has been deemed worthy to receive the fulness of every gift of the Spirit”.
“She (Mary) is both wondered at and praised by God Himself”…
“Do you see how the entire creation praises the Virgin Mother, and not only in times past, but ‘forever and unto the ages of ages’?”
“…and as many as hymn God praise her together with Him. She is the cause of what came before her, the champion of what came after her and the agent of things eternal. She is the substance of the prophets, the principle of the apostles, the firm foundation of the martyrs and the premise of the teachers of the Church. She is the glory of those upon the earth, the joy of celestial beings, the adornment of all creation. She is the beginning and the source and root of unutterable good things; she is the summit and consumation of everything holy”.
Wild stuff…
May 15th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen, I don’t understand how anyone comes to the conclusion that Genesis 6:4, would be talking about angels, and certainly not fallen angels. the context, is God’s anger toward men, I don’t see angels, in the context at all.
Genesis 6:1-3 “Now it came to pass, when MEN began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
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.”
The context is “men” and “flesh”, but we need to go back to Genesis 4:25-26, to get the full context of what is going on in chapter 6.
“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
Genesis 4:17-24, is the genealogy of Cain, notice, no mention of daughters being born to his line. Except for, Tubal-Cain, had a sister.
Chapter 5 is the genealogy of Adam, we see in verse 32, Noah, was born to this line, which was calling on the Lord. Since we know that Noah, found favor or grace in the sight of God. Notice, they had, sons and daughters. Then the beginning of chapter 6, brings out that they, Cain’s line, began to have daughters. The sons of God, being the righteous line that is part of the Promise, to bring forth the Messiah. I don’t see, anything that would lead to angels, in the context. Verse 4 “There were giants on the earth in those days, 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”
The giants were there before and after the sons of God came in to the daughter of men. Now the children they had were men of renown. If these giants, were part of a mixture of flesh and angels, we wouldn’t see more giants, in the Bible, because God judged this behavior. I know people say that those angel are, reserved in chains of darkness, for judgment. But that would mean a second fall, of angels. If these were angels, why would the Holy Spirit, call them sons of God? Wouldn’t the lust for flesh, be sin, which would disqualify them as sons of God?
I talked with Dr Ronald Youngblood about this, when Missler and Eastman, wrote their book. He said, these were not angels, in a book he wrote, on Genesis, I can’t for the life of me, remember what that book is called. I talked with Dr Mark Eastman, about their interpretation of these verses. All kept saying Chuck Smith and other names, believe this. That didn’t, mean much to me, I don’t think that is a good reason to believe anything, you can use whatever name you want. I just wanted to know, how he came to the conclusion.
May 16th, 2008
Johnny B
The Genesis Debate, that’s the name of the book.
May 16th, 2008
Johnny B
Come on guys, no one, has a comment on this?
May 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Johnny,
I am familiar with the position you are arguing for. It is actually one of the weaker arguments for that position. For instance, going back to 4:25 for context will not help in understanding the Hebraic phrase “sons of God.” The phrase was already a known concept among the Jews since it had been revealed prior to Genesis. I find the interpretation “flat,” as in the “flat Bible problem.”
It also does not reflect the earlier interpretations of “sons of God.” The Targums and Midrash prove that the Rabbinical interpretation was “angels.” The Septuagint (Alexandrian) translates “bene-ha ‘elohim” as “angels of God” in Gen. 6:4. Alexandian Septuagint is third century B.C. about the same time much Jewish apocalyptic literature was being written.
The post-Julian/Augustine debate should be between your (geneological line of Seth) view and the predeluvian magistrate (Nachmanides) view – both of which entered history for the first time around the third century AD (maybe late second century AD if you count Simeon ben Yochai’s curse as the marker).
Plus, Chuck Smith holds the “angels” view! That should settle it.
May 18th, 2008
agogley
I tend to side with Morey on this view, however, I am open to alternatives. I will say that I have yet to see any convincing evidence of spacecraft, alien abductions, or the like. I have however, in my career, seen people fool themselves into thinking something that is not true.
May 18th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen,
That wasn’t my argument, but it turned out Chuck, doesn’t believe that or he wouldn’t admit it, after the book came out.
My question is, if these are angels, why no mention of their judgment. The focus if on man and flesh. So by your interpretation, the son of God, in the new testament are angels as well, since the meaning has been established? Of course not. Jesus, says angels, done marry. How does a spirit, have sex with a women, and produce on spring? Isn’t the rule of reproduction, after it’s own kind?
I’m not trying to use an argument, because I interpreted this, in this manor, the first time I looked into this, with no outside help. I was completely surprised when I read, the people thought these were angels. The interpretation is not flat, isn’t any one that is in right standing with the Lord, one of His children? Israel was called His son, there’s is more to interpretation then a phrase. Angels in right standing with God, son. For this to apply to Genesis 6, that would mean that rebellious angels are, son, as well. That’s the problem I see with that interpretation.
Augustine, used allegoric methods, for his interpretation. All his ideas were not sound. Like his love analogy of the Trinity, the lover, the loved, and the bound of love, the bound isn’t a person. Augustine, Chuck, Fred, Johnny, whoever, all have things that are off. So just because someone believe whatever, isn’t a reason for me to believe it. The history of the Church’s interpretation of the Bible, have been wrong before. The history of the Jew’s interpretation of the Bible, have been wrong as well. The Reformation, was about, salvation issues. When it came to the end times, it wasn’t their, thing, so to speak. They brought us back to a Biblical faith. When ever there is a reformation of a doctrine in Church history. There is an over compensation.
Would you agree that persons in right standing with God, are His, sons (children)? The righteous are His.
May 19th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen, I really would like to work this out, it always seems, when I start asking question. About angel and reproduction, the order of reproduction. Is when the discussion stops.
Here’s something to think about, in Job the sons of God, come to present themselves and satan with them. Satan is not a son of God, so I can’t see his fallen angels, as being sons of God, either.
The one that gets me, is when they try to make the “strange flesh” of Jude 7, apply to the angels in Jude 6. When it’s talking about, Sodom and Gomorrah
May 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Johnny,
The angels in Jude 6 is a reference to the apocalyptic books of Enoch. The fallen angels in Enoch are the sons of God in Gen. 6. That’s usually where the strong argument comes from. The “unnatural desires” or “other flesh” or “strange flesh” in v. 7 is what was pursued lustfully in Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexual sodomite men with strong desires for the men in Lot’s house – which were angels that assumed flesh).
The significance of this is in Jude’s appeal to Enoch’s account of the fall of the angels which was believed at the time as what we read about in Genesis 6. Jude is saying “just as” Sodom… and “which likewise…” So if anyone is interpreting “strange flesh” as the angels in Jude 6 which (according to Enoch whom Jude quotes) are the angels in Genesis 6, then simply point out to them their error. The ESV translates this passage well:
And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— **just as Sodom and Gomorrah** and the surrounding cities, **which likewise** indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Because verse 8 continues the example by connecting the example to the real life situation of v. 4 (certain men crept in unawares) – verse 8 begins, “Yet in like manner these people (of v. 4) also…defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.”
May 20th, 2008
Reply to “Silly Jesuits, Theology’s for the Regenerate”