Did Fallen Angels slept with the grandchildren of Adam & Eve?

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't disagree. Christians call Islam a pagan religion even though Christianity has 3 Gods to Islams 1. They also take a book they don't understand and instead of using for its intended purpose designed a Universal religion combining Babylonian and Semitic beliefs with Greek mysteries and Egyptian wisdom to control the masses. It works.

The only sensible approach was that of the allegorist so called Gnostics who were too intellectual for Rome to allow to exist. Which they don't and pretty much everyone who calls themselves Gnostic has no idea that the Gnostics didn't call themselves that and basically were rebelling AGAINST religious superstition and honestly didn't think the scriptures should be approached literally.

The Demiurge was just what they called the god of Israel and I doubt that they believed in a literal Christ either. The whole point was knowledge and wisdom over blind faith in grace.

Too bad they got exterminated.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Gnostics believed that this world(existance) is hell, possibly closer to the truth than the rest of the Abrahamic religions would have us believe?

Put it this way look what happened to the Cathars for having a difference of opinion.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: andy06shake

They did believe that the material world was a prison of sorts that only knowledge and wisdom could make liveable.

I do need to get into the Cathars, a subject I have not gotten to yet so will. I do think it was a sort of revival of Gnosis, didn't they also believe in female equality and admire especially Mary Magdala?

I really don't know much about the Cathars I am still just getting out of the first 400 years AD then I discovered Plutarch, Philo, Seneca and it is just a hard era to conquer historically I doubt I will ever get to read it all.

It seems like intellectual writing and philosophy was stunted around the time of Athanasius and Canon law.

Although Jewish philosophy went on to produce some great works, I like Kabbalist writings and was thinking about buying the Zohar because I read a portion of it and enjoyed it (some racist commentary though here are there) but the whole thing is not online or in public domain and it's pretty expensive.

I will get around to it, I love books. Hate religion. Odd considering I love scripture.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

Nobody really believed in female equality back then, think they had more respect for them all the same and entertained the notion of both the male and female divine.

Hence there annihilation by Peters church of Rome.

a reply to: andy06shake

I guess equality is not the correct word, but I did read the article and I guess they afforded near equality to women and held Mary Magdalene to be as important as Peter.

Though it was said a female would have to be reincarnated as a man before escaping the reincarnation cycle so that is not exactly equality.

Even today women only have legal equality even in America, but not equal opportunities or equal pay for equal work.

Crazy ass world.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

True dat!

In answer to the question that is the title to this thread the answer is simply no.

The reason is bene Elohim or Sons of the Gods is what the Bible says. Angels are NOT Sons of the Gods they are messengers or malak of God and not sons of the Gods.

I do mean Gods by the way as Elohim is a plural word that means Gods and the Irin are what the Sons are called or Watchers.

They aren't fallen angels, angels can't have sex. They don't have a gender.

a reply to: benZadok

It's a figure of speech in Hebrew, yes malak is the proper name for angels, but "sons of God" is a colorful metaphor for them, no different than "heavenly hosts", "princes of the air" et cetra. The term bene ha'Elohyim means a direct creation of God.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I respect your opinion, but I travel back to (in my mind) at the time it was written and not modern reinterpretation.

The Sons of God are just not angels and you say figure of speech but the Bible does not. I would refer you to the writing of the Book of Enoch as the point in time where they become known as Watchers/Irin/Grigori.

The fate of these so called fallen angels is imprisonment for their transgressions. The angels are still free to be messengers of God and the Demons are the souls of the dead Nephilim.

The term fallen angels is a misnomer. The book says literally Sons of the Elohim/Gods, no mere figure of speech.

It's Christianity who believes in fallen angels, Jews reject the concept entirely and it is they who wrote the Tanakh and passed down the traditions that Rome turned into Christianity.

That new religion doesn't negate the traditions of the old just because it says that they are angels. When that story was written they believed in many Gods and sons of Gods, a product of them being Canaanite.

Monotheistic beliefs only formed after contact with the Persians beliefs which were dualistic yet Monotheistic as they only worshipped Ahura Mazda.

The post exilic Jews took it a step further and denied the existence of an evil god but assigned all good and all evil to Yahweh.

To cut it short if the Sons of God were fallen angels there never would have been the school of thought in Judaism that Sons of God where the children of Seth and the daughters of men the seed of Cain.

This school of thought still exists in certain circles of Christianity and Judaism, because the concept of the fallen angel is just not in the Bible unless you misinterpret it.

I get the popular view of this is as you say, I am just correcting it with years of research and not going by what someone told me something means. It involves reading the old myths of the Ras Shamra tablets, the Bible, almost every Apocryphal book in existence as well as scholars comments.

Ask a Jew if there are fallen angels they will tell you no because the Tanakh doesn't have fallen angels.

It has Sons of Elohim or Gods and while publicly Judaism is monotheistic the truth is far from public.

Christianity has its own traditions that are just not accurate from a Jewish perspective and one is the myth of fallen angels.

The difference is in definition of terms. Christianity defines them as angels while Judaism does not. Angelology in Judaism is different than in Christianity and doesn't have a class of fallen angels.

And the Tanakh is a Jewish book so if you want to talk Tanakh I am not going to believe the religion that "borrowed" the book but the one that created it.

originally posted by: benZadok

In answer to the question that is the title to this thread the answer is simply no.

The reason is bene Elohim or Sons of the Gods is what the Bible says. Angels are NOT Sons of the Gods they are messengers or malak of God and not sons of the Gods.

I do mean Gods by the way as Elohim is a plural word that means Gods and the Irin are what the Sons are called or Watchers.

They aren't fallen angels, angels can't have sex. They don't have a gender.

Everything that God creates would be of God. Even the angels. So they would be the sons of God.

If God is infinite and everything there is. God must of formed the angles. If not thee god is not infinite and does not take up all Space there is.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: benZadok

In answer to the question that is the title to this thread the answer is simply no.

The reason is bene Elohim or Sons of the Gods is what the Bible says. Angels are NOT Sons of the Gods they are messengers or malak of God and not sons of the Gods.

I do mean Gods by the way as Elohim is a plural word that means Gods and the Irin are what the Sons are called or Watchers.

They aren't fallen angels, angels can't have sex. They don't have a gender.

Everything that God creates would be of God. Even the angels. So they would be the sons of God.

If God is infinite and everything there is. God must of formed the angles. If not thee god is not infinite and does not take up all Space there is.

Then you would have to consider trees as sons of God using that line of reasoning as everything includes the tiniest grain of sand.

You missed my whole point, angels are angels/malak and not the equivalent of the Sons of the Elohim. Basically you oversimplified what I said in order to make me seem incorrect but you didn't actually touch on specifics and the intricacies that I did that are quite true from a scholarly perspective.

I wasn't talking about what you are thinking, or thinking what you are talking about.

I was talking about the actual teachings of Judaism, the religion that is the Tanakh or Old Testament and not New Age pantheistic teachings.

a reply to: benZadok

The Tenakh says that the Bene ha'Elohyim sang for joy when the Earth was being created. Tell me who was present to witness the Earth being created other than God? Man wasn't present, so who are the sons of God it says who sang for joy?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It says that they sung for joy not that they are angels. The fact that they sung doesn't transform the type of creation they are.

I totally get that Christianity teaches they are because it's to complicated to explain why God can make something that would turn against him and cause the destruction (almost) of mankind, punish them in Sheol for the Nephilim fiasco physically by incarceration because they are physical beings and not angels. God has only one Son in Christianity so naturally the term itself is problematic as clearly they are referred to his Sons, actually Their Sons (the Elohim) so they came up with the term "fallen angels" to explain it but it's not from Judaism that idea is strictly Christian and if you are Christian they are fallen angels but it is a Christian "revelation" because Jews don't believe in "fallen angels."

a reply to: benZadok

I'm asking you to use logic. Man was created after the Earth, and the Tenakh says the Bene ha'Elohyim sung for joy as the Earth was being created. Therefore, who was singing for joy? It wasn't man, they weren't created yet, and it wasn't God.

Who else is left?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Listen, I have been using logic now this conversation ends as I don't feel like talking to someone so one sided the other guys opinion isn't logical even though it is a fact, I already explained why Christianity created the term "fallen angel" and realize it is a thing with Christians it just isn't Jewish.

That's my point, it is Christian not Jewish and that is true so live with it or get frustrated and accuse people of being illogical all you want. Doesn't matter.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Besides your whole logic was because they were mentioned and singing they were angels, even though it says Sons of Gods so...

originally posted by: benZadok
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Besides your whole logic was because they were mentioned and singing they were angels, even though it says Sons of Gods so...

You tell me who was present to see the world created. Answer the question. Who sang for joy when God created Earth?

a reply to: benZadok

I mean use simple deductive reasoning, that type of logic. Adam was created on day 5 after the Earth and heavens were created, therefore tell me what beings/entities were singing for joy as God created the Earth?

That's the logic I mean, simple deductive reasoning. What is your answer?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: benZadok

I mean use simple deductive reasoning, that type of logic. Adam was created on day 5 after the Earth and heavens were created, therefore tell me what beings/entities were singing for joy as God created the Earth?

That's the logic I mean, simple deductive reasoning. What is your answer?

Not quite true. Adam was either formed gen,2. or obducted/taken by Lord God according to what is said in Genesis Chapter 3.

If Adam was formed or obducted Depends on how you read geneses Chapter 3 verse 23.

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

It is specificaly stated in genesis Chapter 1. That God formed man (male and female). And that they were to have dominion over all of Gods creation, even all the trees. There were no acceptions.

Lord God formed a Garden eastward in Eden called: Eden Cherubims. That is not even on Earth.

Lord God either formed or tok man from Earth after God had created man as male and female. This must have taken Place after the seventh day when God rested.

a reply to: spy66

Adam was taken from the ground, he was created by God forming dirt of the Earth and breathing life into it. Adam wasn't "taken" TO somewhere on Earth, the text is saying Adam was "taken" FROM the Earth. The human body is made up of elements found in the Earth. And people always get tripped up thinking there are two different creation accounts of man in Genesis, but in Genesis 2 man is created, and Genesis 3 is a detailed account of the 5th day. Newspapers all over the world write articles in the same manner, there is a brief headline then the body of the article gives the full details of the headline. Remember, he chapter and verse partings of the text were 13th century additions, they don't appear in the Hebrew of he Torah.