Daughters of Cain, Sons of Seth, Fallen Angels Oh My

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: TinfoilTP

There were the Watchers, a small group of angels which did come down to earth. They left their abode for an earthly one. They were chained and awaiting final judgement. Then there is their offspring which they produced during the 1500 years or so they were here, they are the Nephilim. It does not say if they reproduced or even could. They were killed.

Let me walk through this with you. You have great points to consider.
The Watchers in the Enochian story are the 200 angels who left the celestial realm in premeditated conspiracy to become procreationists of the Adamic seed. This union between humans and angels produced the nephilim (Giants). This reproduction of the nephilim became so great that life could not support their hunger or thirst for blood.
The 200 angels (Watchers) were then imprisoned in various places of confinement till judgment when they will be destroyed.

Not so quick, Seede. Seventy generations is not so long time.

==> 70 generations x 36 years per generation = 2520 years

This year here, 2014 AD is year 5775 years after Adam's birth according to the Hebrew calendar, and 1 AD was in 3761 after Adam. According to 'The Book of Records' in Genesis 5, Noah was born in 626 after Adam's birth, and according to verse 7:6, Noah was 600 years when the Flood arrived giving us a year for the Flood, 1226 after Adam's birth, meaning the Flood happened in:

==> 3761 - 1226 = 2535 BC

Now that number is very close to 70 generations. Compare with:

==> 1226 + 2520 = 3746 or 15 BC ==> meaning 70 generations after the Flood ended in 15 BC.

Now that's very near up to Anno Domine (1 AD) which is 3761, and even closer to the birth of Jesus, which I believe was in 6 BC, giving the end of the 70 generations just nine years before Jesus was born.

Now perhaps that could explain the religious chaos and the enormous religious awakening that occurred in the time of Jesus. And you can't but ask: Why was Jesus born 70 generations after the Flood? By the way, a nativity involving a young woman and an angel, go figure, sounds a bit like Enoch all over again if you ask me. And. Coincidentally? At almost the exact time when, according to the Book of Enoch and the Hebrew calendar, the fallen angels or "watchers" would be released from their chains? Hmmm....

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

Do you believe that sexual intercourse creates a soul? Does a soul emerge from sperm and egg? If so, wouldn't rape produce a demon?

Yes Windword i do believe that human sexual intercourse procreates a dead soul but that only God gives it life though a spirit.

This is a critical junction, at which we disagree.

When that life enters that soul is another matter of which I know nothing.

Life has always been with egg and sperm. They are not dead and there is no time when "life enters".

That is what all this abortion conflict is about. A soul does emerge from the union of sperm and egg but the spirit is instilled by God. Soul actually means body.

Obviously, I don't believe that sexual intercourse creates the spirit or soul. I don't think the Bible supports that notion either.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Adam's body, according to scripture, was created from the dust of the earth, and to earth it returned. If "soul" means body, then "body, mind and soul" means....? The body, the mind and the soul are completely different components of human existence.

Adam was created a dead soul and then God breathed the breath of life into that dead soul and it became a living soul.

Adam's body, according to scripture, was created from the dust of the earth.

Rape is no more sinful than adultery or prostitution or stealing a dime from another. All un repented sin is death. Makes no difference to God. Some religions have degrees of sin but that is not scriptural to my understanding. A child of God knows no Father but God and each person becomes what they will be by their own mind. Not simply because some one else trespassed.

Really??!! Rape is the same as prostitution in your god's eyes.

This is why I find Christianity to be most unethical and very immoral.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

This year here, 2014 AD is year 5775 years after Adam's birth according to the Hebrew calendar, and 1 AD was in 3761 after Adam.

So far I agree.

According to 'The Book of Records' in Genesis 5, Noah was born in 626 after Adam's birth, and according to verse 7:6, Noah was 600 years when the Flood arrived giving us a year for the Flood, 1226 after Adam's birth, meaning the Flood happened in: ==> 3761 - 1226 = 2535 BC

I disagree
I am not saying you are wrong but only that I use a different dating than you might be using. My source is The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. I have used this source for many years and the reason I do is that I want to keep everything in perspective. According to the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia I have Noah being born in 1056 AA (2705 B.C.E.)-- The flood being in 1656 AA (2105 B.C.E.)--

Before we go any further we have to fix our dates. How can we do this?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

This year here, 2014 AD is year 5775 years after Adam's birth according to the Hebrew calendar, and 1 AD was in 3761 after Adam.

According to 'The Book of Records' in Genesis 5, Noah was born in 626 after Adam's birth, and according to verse 7:6, Noah was 600 years when the Flood arrived giving us a year for the Flood, 1226 after Adam's birth, meaning the Flood happened in: ==> 3761 - 1226 = 2535 BC

I disagree
I am not saying you are wrong but only that I use a different dating than you might be using.

Well, I refer to the Genesis 5's genealogies. It may be wrong to use the modern Hebrew calendar for comparison, but according to the Bible. Not much to agree or don't agree with, it's how Genesis goes.

My source is The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia. I have used this source for many years and the reason I do is that I want to keep everything in perspective. According to the Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia I have Noah being born in 1056 AA (2705 B.C.E.)-- The flood being in 1656 AA (2105 B.C.E.)--

Before we go any further we have to fix our dates. How can we do this?

Well, I suppose the Flood was when the Bosporos broke. Start there. That day would be 1226 years after Adam, the first red Caucasian, was born. That's my take anyway.

a reply to: windword

Life has always been with egg and sperm. They are not dead and there is no time when "life enters".

Why then do we have still born souls?

Adam's body, according to scripture, was created from the dust of the earth, and to earth it returned. If "soul" means body, then "body, mind and soul" means....? The body, the mind and the soul are completely different components of human existence.

This depends upon your own personal belief.

Gen_2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

In order to be a living soul you must have been a dead soul. Right? There are two distinct actions here. The first is that God formed a soul from His created elements. That soul did not have life. Then God gave that soul life and it became a living soul.

As you read the NT you are reading both the Greek and English translators understandings. Not saying they are wrong but only that we interpret differently than that culture did. The term soul is used very loosely in translation but really is understood and not misconceived. An example is as follows--

Matthew_22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mark_12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
Luke_10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

By your understanding you could also ask what is meant by heart in Matthew? You could also ask what is meant by strength in Mark? Then you see heart, strength and mind in Luke. If you were to talk to the original Christian Hebrews they would use soul as body and likeness as spirit but the Greeks understood that the mind was independent of the body. Once the body died you still had remembrance or mind which was a portion of the spirit. If the mind perished with the body then there would be no justified punishment of the spirit. So in other words this was all used interchangeably.

Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Moses taught that image was the soul or body. Just as we have our image (body) so God had His image which was "The Word." Moses taught that likeness was the Spirit God just as we also have that portion of His likeness (spirit). Just as the image and likeness of God are one, so is the image and likeness of man one. B y this you can see that God has two portions of existence and man has the same. The difference being that the image of man is of the earth's elements and the image of "The Word" is of celestial substance.

But the secular Humanist believes that the mind perishes with the body and that is one reason the Greeks make it a point to distinguish that the mind is an everlasting portion and exists with the spirit or is the spirit. In some scribes and teachers the soul became an expression of what a person is. The entirety of a person is soul and spirit as well as simply soul. Some times a living person is called a soul and sometimes a dead person is called a soul. It is a complex expression but does not distract the message.

Really??!! Rape is the same as prostitution in your god's eyes. This is why I find Christianity to be most unethical and very immoral.

According to the doctrine of Jesus, all sin is sin and all sin must be forgiven through repented effort. When I say that adultery and prostitution is no less or greater than rape i am not referencing the church or man made law or "in my eyes." When any acts of sin remain unconfessed to God then they remain accountable sin. I'm not talking church here. I am talking between you and God and no one else. We may still be punished by man made law even after repenting of sin but that has no account to forgiveness by God. Some religions differ from others but that is the doctrine of Jesus. According to Jesus there is no sin too great to prevent salvation except the sin of blasphemy to God Himself.

Man made laws determines the degrees of sin and punishment and they do differ with nations and cultures and time. But the doctrine of Christ Jesus teaches that even Saul, the murderer, is forgiven and allowed to enter the kingdom of God. Would you say that a murder is a greater crime than a rape? So in effect you are inferring that you can be a judge of which crimes are the greatest and forgivable. That is what you had just inferred. Then you have just proclaimed yourself a judge. Is that immoral?

a reply to: Seede

Why then do we have still born souls?

What? Are you still insisting that the word "soul" means physical body?

This is what I believe to be the meaning of the word "soul"

the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever

In order to be a living soul you must have been a dead soul. Right?

No. There are no still born souls, no dead souls, and no souls were ever dead. Souls aren't born and they don't die.

Souls are not made of matter. Matter is animated by the soul/spirit, which give it the appearance of life.

Matthew_22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Heart=Body. So we have the construct of men, mind, body and soul.

Originally, I asked you, since you believe that sexual intercourse creates a brand new soul, I asked if rape creates a brand new demon, because, we reap what is sewn, and rape is a violent attack against a person's self determinism and personal space. It seems to me a soul created under the conditions of a violent violation of a person'a mind, body and soul, forcing their physical essence to fester and grow, unwanted, inside another person's body, would create an a bothersome soul, at the very least.

Jesus and God are immoral and unethical if they see prostitution, an agreement between to consenting adults to have sex for mutual benefit, to be the same as rape. But then again, your God did rape the virgin Mary, according to story. I guess the ends justify the mean?

Moses taught that image was the soul or body. Just as we have our image (body) so God had His image which was "The Word."

Moses taught no such thing. "The Word", LOGOS comes from Plato, not from Moses, and was later stolen by "John" who attributed "The Word" to Jesus, who was nothing more than a person, like you and me.

I'm unconcerned with salvation and repentance. I don't believe that Jesus, if he even existed, died for sin, let alone my sin. However, if you believe that Jesus died for sin, then it is done and no more magic ritual should be needed, not repentance nor forgiveness after the fact. If it's done it's done, regardless of whether I believe or not, or formally accept Jesus as my lord and savior, regardless of whether I get baptized, what is done is done.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

So, did he take away sin or not? Why is there still rape and prostitution?

a reply to: Seede

Hey, such an interesting thing you just said.

By your understanding you could also ask what is meant by heart in Matthew? You could also ask what is meant by strength in Mark? Then you see heart, strength and mind in Luke.

Such a simple proposal and yet so complex in understanding.

Matthew, the tax collector, also the one with more insight into the genealogy. He is associated more with the Gospel of preaching the heart transformation and knowing that where the treasure is, there your heart is also. His heart was changed when Jesus said "come and follow me" and Matthew got up and walked away from his table of money collecting, because his heart was no longer in the earthly treasures.

Mark, associated with the lion who both denotes strength of a lion courage that has been associated with lions. There is no coincidental reason that Richard was called "lion-hearted" because of his ability to not only achieve his goals, but to do it with courage. Joan of Arc falls under this as well, because in her final moment, she still had the strength and courage to say "lift up the cross so that my eyes can see". Stephen, while he was stoned, still had the courage and strength to say "I see Jesus". Courage is related to strength.

Luke, the physician, heart, strength and mind. You would expect this from a rational and logical person, to have the heart to stand on the convictions of your faith. Luke wrote to Theophilus to say that he was giving a true account, and in the face of opposition, still had the courage of conviction and the strength of mind to still believe.

I can see this in all of them.

The change of heart gives you courage to stand on your faith. Heart, strength, mind. All in there.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well, I suppose the Flood was when the Bosporos broke. Start there. That day would be 1226 years after Adam, the first red Caucasian, was born. That's my take anyway.

Now if the Watchers were bound for 70 generations (2520 years) and if the flood was in 1656 AA then that would mean they were loosed in 4176 AA. The Jewish time line says that CE started in 3761 as Jesus was born. So here we do have 415 years that says 415 years before Jesus was born the Watchers were loosed. My dates are unreliable so you could be right on the money. In either case the Watchers were loosed to play havoc wit6h mankind about the time of Jesus. I do see your well taken point and it is very interesting observation on your part. I wonder------

a reply to: windword

What? Are you still insisting that the word "soul" means physical body? This is what I believe to be the meaning of the word "soul"

Perhaps not to you because you have a different mind set than I do. What I did say that if you were to talk to a Hebrew Christian of the original Christianity that their understanding of soul is that which Moses taught. The original Hebrew Christians did not have your NT but had total Hebrew liturgy. Their source of learning and teaching was Torah and a few outside books such as Enoch. As they left the Jerusalem Synagogue and ventured out to preach and teach is when they wrote letters to various other communities. Those original letters are lost from their Hebrew scribes but the Christian Greek Hellenists made copies of which our bibles are copies. Getting back to the meaning of soul is up to you to accept or reject but the Torah understanding is not your understanding. Absolutely untrue.

Read this again and then tell me the last two words of that verse. Are they not "living soul"? I know of nothing that would even infer that it means a living spirit. I know of nothing in Greek or Hebrew biblical literature that tells of a dead spirit.

Moses taught no such thing. "The Word", LOGOS comes from Plato, not from Moses, and was later stolen by "John" who attributed "The Word" to Jesus, who was nothing more than a person, like you and me.

Do you understand that Plato was a polytheistic individual who had no logos such as John describes? You can't be serious when you accuse John of stealing logos from Plato. Plato had nothing in reference or understanding to the monotheistic God of Moses,Jesus and the Apostle John. It is like apples and oranges. It did not even exist. Plato was an insane Greek philosopher with strange assortments of gods scattered throughout his mind. He was totally Humanistic and severely handicapped mentally. But to accuse the Apostle John of stealing this type of philosophy is not only ridiculous but obscene.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Plato had no knowledge of this "Word" being a Creator. His mind was not even attuned to this philosophy. Simply because a translator translate this as "Word" being a "logos" is not attributed to the Hebrew John when you nor any one can produce the original Hebrew letter. You are greatly unfair to harbor such an accusation.

a reply to: Seede

Perhaps not to you because you have a different mind set than I do. What I did say that if you were to talk to a Hebrew Christian of the original Christianity that their understanding of soul is that which Moses taught.

The original Hebrew Christians were the Essene.

The Hebrews believe that the soul was like a flame, and like a flame can be passed, so are souls passed on generation to generation. The Hebrew tradition didn't acknowledge the presence of a soul until the body drew it's first breath. Birth, in Hebrew culture isn't a dead soul coming to life, it's the passing of a flame.

Read this again and then tell me the last two words of that verse. Are they not "living soul"? I know of nothing that would even infer that it means a living spirit. I know of nothing in Greek or Hebrew biblical literature that tells of a dead spirit.

I can't speak to this because I don't understand it. Read what again? What verse? What living spirit, what dead spirit?

Do you understand that Plato was a polytheistic individual who had no logos such as John describes? You can't be serious when you accuse John of stealing logos from Plato.

The Stoics took all activity to imply a Logos, or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, to them, the Logos was anima mundi, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.

Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.

-----------------------------

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[6] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[28] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Seede

Perhaps not to you because you have a different mind set than I do. What I did say that if you were to talk to a Hebrew Christian of the original Christianity that their understanding of soul is that which Moses taught.

The original Hebrew Christians were the Essene.

The Hebrews believe that the soul was like a flame, and like a flame can be passed, so are souls passed on generation to generation. The Hebrew tradition didn't acknowledge the presence of a soul until the body drew it's first breath. Birth, in Hebrew culture isn't a dead soul coming to life, it's the passing of a flame.

Read this again and then tell me the last two words of that verse. Are they not "living soul"? I know of nothing that would even infer that it means a living spirit. I know of nothing in Greek or Hebrew biblical literature that tells of a dead spirit.

I can't speak to this because I don't understand it. Read what again? What verse? What living spirit, what dead spirit?

Do you understand that Plato was a polytheistic individual who had no logos such as John describes? You can't be serious when you accuse John of stealing logos from Plato.

The Stoics took all activity to imply a Logos, or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, to them, the Logos was anima mundi, a concept which later influenced Philo of Alexandria, although he derived the contents of the term from Plato.

Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.

-----------------------------

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[6] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[28] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."
en.wikipedia.org...

Actually no, the Essenes began in the 2nd Century BC.

But they are again found in the writings of Josephus and Pliny, so if you take their writings about the Essenes then you are going to have to include Jesus in that.

And the concept of a flame, well, they believed God was a flame of fire seeking the inward parts of man. God is a consuming fire.

The Hebrew word for soul is

H5082 nĕdiybah ned·ē·vä' soul
H5315 nephesh neh'·fesh soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, himself, yourselves, dead, will, desire, man, themselves, any, appetite, misc
H5397 nĕshamah nesh·ä·mä' breath, blast, spirit, inspiration, souls
New Testament (Greek) for "soul"
G5590 psychē psü-khā' soul, life, mind, heart, heartily,

The Greek is probably what you are more familiar with, the psyche. I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to provide a link for that statement about the flame, because in an allegorical sense, the life of the body is in the heat the body generates and this is done via the blood.

The life of the body is in the blood, which means that if you are 98.6 degrees, you have that heat and you are well and alive.

The Hebrew lexicon is that man became a living nephesh.

Root Form (Hebrew)

And the LORD ( יְהֹוָה Yĕhovah) God ( אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym) formed (יָצַר yatsar) man (אָדָם 'adam) of the dust (עָפָר `aphar) of (מִן min)
the ground, (אֲדָמָה 'adamah) and breathed (נָפַח naphach) into his nostrils (אַף 'aph) the breath (נְשָׁמָה nĕshamah) of life (חַי chay); and man (אָדָם 'adam) became a living (חַי chay) soul.(נֶפֶשׁ nephesh)

So the Hebrew verse would read, but going left to right for English convenience

Yehova elohiym yatsar adam aphar min, adamah naphach aph neshamah chay adam chay nephesh.

The Greek Septuagint says

καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

Masoretic text

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַֽיְהִי הָֽאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

a reply to: WarminIndy

Actually no, the Essenes began in the 2nd Century BC.

But they are again found in the writings of Josephus and Pliny, so if you take their writings about the Essenes then you are going to have to include Jesus in that.

Jesus? How's that? Neither of them wrote about Jesus. (And don't tell me about the pious forgery penned in the name of Josephus!) And, even if they had mentioned Jesus, which they didn't, nothing they wrote would confirm the miracles or his "godliness".

Pliney lived, and wrote, between 20BC and 50AD and Josephus also lived and wrote in the 1st century. They both documented that the Essene were ancient.

The Greek is probably what you are more familiar with, the psyche. I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to provide a link for that statement about the flame, because in an allegorical sense, the life of the body is in the heat the body generates and this is done via the blood.

Candle flames are the Jewish ritual representation of the nature of the soul. For example, it is customary to light on the anniversary of a family member's death, a yartzeit (in Yiddish yar=year, tzeit=time) candle to commemorate the travel of their soul from this plane of being.

An ember glows and with a puff of our breath explodes into light, a candle burns and with that same out-breath can be extinguished. The Torah describes God's breath fluttering on the surface of the waters.Ê Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Even the flame extinguished has sent its influence forward as expanding heat and light. Is a soul only within the body - or is the body like the wick upon which the flame dances and when released where and how does the energy go?
www.templesanjose.org...

At a time of remembrance of this, the greatest possible personal loss, one can find tremendous spiritual strength in the knowledge that just as the departed loved one has touched us and lit up our life, so to it is now possible for us to light up the life of someone else. In this way the passing away of an individual from the word is not an end, but even in this physical world the good and godly light that was the deceased’s mission here can now continue. You can and indeed it is your obligation, so to speak, to pass on that torch of life for them to the next one and thus their flame shall burn on.
www.kosherfuneral.com...

a reply to: Seede

After I wrote that reply to you I sat down and put together a thread I called The Seven Millennial Days The Seven Days and God's Plan to share my view on the Plan of God or whatever we should call it. The numbers are rough estimates, I believe the different days vary in length, I simply put in rough estimates to show how I interpret this system. I'd love to hear your views on it.

a reply to: windword

Would you care to back up your claim about Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews?

a reply to: WarminIndy

No. Not in this thread. It's completely off topic. This thread isn't about Jesus being a real person or being mythological god. It'a about the daughter of Cain and the Sons of Seth.

It'a about whether some people are the seed of Satan while others maybe the seed of Adam, from God.

ETA: When you referred to Pliney, I was wrongly thinking of Philo, whom I cited as a progenitor of LOGOS. At any rate there's no need to consider Pliney, Josephus or Philo, when considering the Essene as having been the first Christians. One only needs to read their scrolls to know that they espoused exactly what Jesus did in the Bible, but they did so first.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Actually no, the Essenes began in the 2nd Century BC.

But they are again found in the writings of Josephus and Pliny, so if you take their writings about the Essenes then you are going to have to include Jesus in that.

Jesus? How's that? Neither of them wrote about Jesus. (And don't tell me about the pious forgery penned in the name of Josephus!) And, even if they had mentioned Jesus, which they didn't, nothing they wrote would confirm the miracles or his "godliness".

Pliney lived, and wrote, between 20BC and 50AD and Josephus also lived and wrote in the 1st century. They both documented that the Essene were ancient.

The Greek is probably what you are more familiar with, the psyche. I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to provide a link for that statement about the flame, because in an allegorical sense, the life of the body is in the heat the body generates and this is done via the blood.

Candle flames are the Jewish ritual representation of the nature of the soul. For example, it is customary to light on the anniversary of a family member's death, a yartzeit (in Yiddish yar=year, tzeit=time) candle to commemorate the travel of their soul from this plane of being.

An ember glows and with a puff of our breath explodes into light, a candle burns and with that same out-breath can be extinguished. The Torah describes God's breath fluttering on the surface of the waters.Ê Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Even the flame extinguished has sent its influence forward as expanding heat and light. Is a soul only within the body - or is the body like the wick upon which the flame dances and when released where and how does the energy go?
www.templesanjose.org...

At a time of remembrance of this, the greatest possible personal loss, one can find tremendous spiritual strength in the knowledge that just as the departed loved one has touched us and lit up our life, so to it is now possible for us to light up the life of someone else. In this way the passing away of an individual from the word is not an end, but even in this physical world the good and godly light that was the deceased’s mission here can now continue. You can and indeed it is your obligation, so to speak, to pass on that torch of life for them to the next one and thus their flame shall burn on.
www.kosherfuneral.com...

What does First Century mean? Josephus was born in 37 AD. That's three years later, but Josephus' FATHER was a member of the SANHEDRIN and his MOTHER was a member of the Hasmonean Dynasty, the same that Herod Antipas was in, Antipas was his cousin. All historical fact.

Not only that, as his father was in the sanhedrin that put Jesus on trial before Herod Antipas, they also gathered a sanhedrin to try James. Who was James?

But since you don't want to think that Jesus was real, even the Jews are saying He was, from their own writings that have been preserved

Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), those passages in which Jesus was mentioned, as well as other statements alluding to Christianity, were deleted from most editions of the Babylonian Talmud by the Christian censors or even by internal Jewish censorship. These deletions were later collected in special compilations and in manuscripts (cf. R.N.N. Rabbinowicz, Ma'amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud (1952), 28n.26). From the stories about Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, it is evident that he was regarded as a rabbinical student who had strayed into evil ways: "May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself like Jesus the Nazarene" (Ber. 17b; Sanh. 103a; cf. Dik. Sof. ad loc.). The rabbis were not certain of his time or his activities. Thus he is described as a pupil of *Joshua b. Peraḥyah (Sanh. 107b; see Dik. Sof. ad loc.).

Jewish Virtual Library documents about Jesus

Hmm, so the Jews do believe in the historicity of Jesus from not only Josephus but their own Talmudic writing. You know, those Jews are very good about preserving their doctrines, and even they say that Jesus was not an Essene, but of the school of Hillel.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Look if you want to talk about the historicity of Jesus the man, make a thread. It's off topic here, and I have no desire to argue it with you.

Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses, Jesus Christ, all mythic people in my view.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. He's dead now, and he's not a real live person now, and his flesh and blood matter not an iota to Christians anymore. He is same "Christ" today that was being worshiped by "Christians" long before his supposed birth.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Look if you want to talk about the historicity of Jesus the man, make a thread. It's off topic here, and I have no desire to argue it with you.

Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses, Jesus Christ, all mythic people in my view.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not. He's dead now, and he's not a real live person now, and his flesh and blood matter not an iota to Christians anymore. He is same "Christ" today that was being worshiped by "Christians" long before his supposed birth.

Well you brought Him up, so I was just rebutting your argument. You don't want to accept it, but even the Jews believe it. If you didn't want it brought up in the thread, you should not have mentioned it, but the moment you said that Jesus didn't exist, you just opened the door up for historical proof, which you have been given.

You don't have to accept it, but I don't have to accept that Socrates lived either, given your parameters of non-acceptance.

The Essenes were before the time of Hebrew Christians, they were all Jewish in the first place, then the Greek and Roman gentiles (which were faith systems of non-Christianity nor Judaism). And the Torah was NOT written by Greek pagans, but Hebraic Jews, and because of that, you need to look at it that context, throughout the whole Bible. The ONLY writer in the Bible, in all of it, that was not ethnic Jewish, was Luke. Everyone else was ethnic Hebrew and Jewish. But as Enoch was before the formation of Judaism as an organized religion, Enoch was still presented in the early Jewish sources, because Jews came from descent of Seth.

But as per the OP, the daughters of Cain...it was not all of the daughters of Cain, but the sons mentioned were also sketchy people. What the OP is saying regarding Enoch and the Bible, is that the entities were male figures.

So because it was written by Jews, then we must use their interpretations and historical context throughout, but in adding historical writings of events before the flood, which appears in all ancient texts, then we must question why this event of some entities reproducing with human women and making hybrid babies, we must think that if it shows up in later Jewish texts, then something must have happened and it is not coincidental that it appears within the texts of groups of people disconnected.

If all people came from an original source and then spread out as people moved, then the Tower of Babel explains how that happened and was a true event. If the events recorded were from people who were disconnected, then they must have gotten that knowledge from an experience that they directly saw.

I have already demonstrated that the Chinese have embedded in their culture that dragons came from heaven and mated with earthly people, and that they claim descent from those hybrids. That's the same event written in the Book of Enoch.

Did the Chinese get that from the ancient Hebrew writers, or did they know of the same ancient event?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well you brought Him up, so I was just rebutting your argument.

I was not the person who brought Jesus into this discussion. However, whenever the words and teachings of Jesus are introduced into a discussion by me, I always qualify my statement with "If he existed".

The Essenes were before the time of Hebrew Christians,

The Essene were the first Christians. They espoused exactly what Jesus was teaching, way before the advent of Jesus, if he existed. Jesus was not necessary for esoteric Christianity to exist, and if he existed, he was an Essene.

John the Baptist, who we know existed, (an early Christian, right?) was an Essene.

Before the advent of Jesus, "Christ" was worshiped as the Aeon of God (LOGOS). After the advent of Jesus, early Christian taught that Jesus "Christ" was the Aeon of God.

they were all Jewish in the first place, then the Greek and Roman gentiles (which were faith systems of non-Christianity nor Judaism). And the Torah was NOT written by Greek pagans, but Hebraic Jews, and because of that, you need to look at it that context, throughout the whole Bible.

I never said the Torah was written by Greeks. But, since you brought it up:

Jewish History

Torah translated into Greek (246 BCE)
In a second attempt to translate the Torah into Greek (after an unsuccessful attempt 61 years earlier), the ruling Greek-Egyptian emperor Ptolemy gathered 72 Torah sages, had them sequestered in 72 separate rooms, and ordered them to each produce a translation.

On the 8th of Tevet of the year 3515 from creation (246 BCE) they produced 72 corresponding translations, including identical changes in 13 places (where they each felt that a literal translation would constitute a corruption of the Torah's true meaning).

This Greek rendition became known as the Septuagint, "of the seventy" (though later versions that carry this name are not believed to be true to the originals). Greek became a significant second language among Jews as a result of this translation. During Talmudic times, Tevet 8 was observed by some as a fast day, expressing the fear of the detrimental effect of the translation.
www.chabad.org...

But as per the OP, the daughters of Cain...it was not all of the daughters of Cain, but the sons mentioned were also sketchy people. What the OP is saying regarding Enoch and the Bible, is that the entities were male figures.

Adam and Eve never existed as the Bible story goes, The science of genetics proves that. Therefore, Cain and Abel are also mythological characters too. The story of creation is to be taken allegorically, not literally.

So because it was written by Jews, then we must use their interpretations and historical context throughout, but in adding historical writings of events before the flood, which appears in all ancient texts, then we must question why this event of some entities reproducing with human women and making hybrid babies, we must think that if it shows up in later Jewish texts, then something must have happened and it is not coincidental that it appears within the texts of groups of people disconnected.

Many of the stories from the Bible are borrowed from other older cultures, like the flood story and the book of Job, etc.. Are we supposed to we to believe Homer's tales of cyclops and Medusa, Zeus, Hercules too?

There was no global flood, and Noahs' Ark is a scientific impossibility. The end of an ice age brought climate change and floods, naturally. There was no pissed off God punishing fallen angels. These stories are allegorical. They are myths, handed down through oral tradition for thousands of years, until someone put them in a book.

If all people came from an original source and then spread out as people moved, then the Tower of Babel explains how that happened and was a true event. If the events recorded were from people who were disconnected, then they must have gotten that knowledge from an experience that they directly saw.

That's quite a liberal imagination, you got there. The Tower of Babel must of pre-dated "The Flood" then, because we have ancient civilizations scattered throughout the globe, that date back farther than 6000 years. How long ago was this flood supposed to have happened? Clovis culture

I have already demonstrated that the Chinese have embedded in their culture that dragons came from heaven and mated with earthly people, and that they claim descent from those hybrids. That's the same event written in the Book of Enoch.

Did the Chinese get that from the ancient Hebrew writers, or did they know of the same ancient event?

You believe that dragons came down from heaven and mated with Earth women? Where's the DNA trail?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Very good WarminIndy - My regret in life is that I wasted my youth and did not learn Hebrew (Aramaic) or Greek. I admire your insight and intelligence and try to save your posts for references.

The point I was trying to make was that the original Christians were Hebrews but I did not clarify my statement. Regardless of their Jewish sect they were the founders of Christianity. I believe that (as you have said) they were Essenes but not all Essenes were Christians and not all Christians were Essenes. Christianity started and flourished as Hebrew throughout and that included the absence of the Hellenized Greeks. The Greek speaking Hebrews were allowed into the Christian Liturgy of Aramaic and Hebrew congregation at a later time. Now this is what I have been taught so correct me if I am wrong.

You stated that "And the concept of a flame, well, they believed God was a flame of fire seeking the inward parts of man. God is a consuming fire."

That is so true and the witness that it is true is in the book of Acts as the Apostles and disciples were filled with God's spirit. --

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

You speak truth.