It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satan and his Decendants

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Hello Shane,

I just read everything you posted, however if im reading what you said correctly you believe the floods did not cover the whole earth. However, in the kjv of the bible genesis chapter 7-21 on says ALL flesh died upon the earth. it did not say only the flesh in certain area and not other area it said upon the earth. what am i missing here.


there isn't enough water to cover ALL of the land in the world...

also, kjv is a highly flawed translation (though it was a good translation for its time) and should only be used to cross-reference.




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Im going to have to think about this one a while. I take it for it says the whole land was covered and all flesh not upon the ark died..... so much water that a bird could not even find a tree. The ark landed on top of the tallest mountains.

Hasnt anyone notice one day of heavy rain is flooding even today. This was 40 days and nights of nothing but rain. The heaviest of them all.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Im going to have to think about this one a while.


While you are doing this, (Thinking of course), I would ask for your to also consider the framework within the Bible itself.

Genesis 1, clearly is encompassing the Whole of Creations, from time unknow (the First Earth Age) in the past, until the 7th day (The completion of the Recreation of this Earth Age), which was the day of rest.

Genesis 2, pickups a specific personage, Adam, and deals with him in detail

Genesis 3, Discusses the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Genesis 4 Discusses the Result of that Fall, CAIN and his offspring.

Genesis 5, and onwards, maintains the story of Adam and his lineage, thru to Noah, and then Abraham, David and ultimately Christ.

We do see, interaction of the Sixth Day Man, in the day to day events in the lifes of Adam's Bloodline, but the emphasis does remain true.

With this said, is it not far to believe this is what was being discussed in the "Flood" story. The Situation is specific to Noah, (Adams Decendant) and therefore still within the realm of these people specifically.



Hasn't anyone notice one day of heavy rain is flooding even today. This was 40 days and nights of nothing but rain. The heaviest of them all.


But would it be fair to also account that today, man has altered the environment to the point where any notable amount of rainfall, will result in flooding due to the Sewer Diversions, and Ashaplt Jungles with no drainage aside from runoff, all funneled through emormous collection channels leading ultimately to the same diversion spots, which become overflowing if not flooding rivers or worst?

Just some comments for you to include in your considerations of this further.

And thanks for the questions. If there is nothing asked, then there is nothing learnt.

Have a good evening

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I apologize for my lack of reply. Been away.

It was stated by Shane, in reply to my post:



But this does not mean, they lack a Physical form, nor does it mean they are UNABLE to procreate. We are made in the Image of God and the Angels. We are "Like" them in appearance.


This is incorrect. We are not anything like God in "appearance" for God has no physical shape. He is Spirit.

John 4:24
24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
NASU

madnessinmysoul stated:



this exhaustive argument on the creation mythos is what happens when people try to make the first and second stories of creation, and make them into a singular story.


This is an unfounded claim based on ignorance. There is no evidence within Genesis to suggest that there are 2 creations stories.



the first story comes from pre-abrahemic henetheistic jewish tradition in which there were more gods than 1 (hence god refers to godself in the plural, but in fact is referring to a group of gods)


This is also incorrect. There is no evidence of more than 1 God in the Genesis account. It is Monotheistic from the start. The Egyptian religous system was henotheistic.

God is not the God over many lesser gods. The bogus "theology" being spewed out here is ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
I apologize for my lack of reply. Been away.

It was stated by Shane, in reply to my post:



But this does not mean, they lack a Physical form, nor does it mean they are UNABLE to procreate. We are made in the Image of God and the Angels. We are "Like" them in appearance.


This is incorrect. We are not anything like God in "appearance" for God has no physical shape. He is Spirit.


God is anything and everything he may wish to be.


Genesis 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness..................................
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him
; male and female created he them.


And in the Physical, Angels have interacted many times in the Bible.

Lot? He had two in his Home, and the Neighbours wished to have "Known" them.

Genesis 19
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in
the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them;
and he bowed
himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you,
into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your
feet
, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they
said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto
him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and
did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the
men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young,
all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are
the men
which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto
us, that we may know them.


Man, for something with no physical form, these two angels, where seen by Lot and the Inhabitants.

Lot could


  • See them.
  • Talk to them.
  • Interact with them.
  • Invite the to Stay over at his home.
  • Notice they had dirty feet, and needed washing
  • Get them up early to move on their way in the Morning.
  • And make them dinner, which they ate.



And then theres is this matter of Food. Manna or Mana is a "Bread of Heaven", that sustained the Israelites through the Exodus. It stopped, they day they ate of the First Fruits of their New Crops. Exodus Chapter 16

So this suggest Angels eat as well. They had/have a Bread afterall.

Then who else has saw Angels? Mary, The Other Mary (Mirovingian Mary).


Zacharias ?
Luke Chapter 1
11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.


Scared the crap out of Zacharias. Fear was the result, and I would guess so.

No, I would suggest they have physical form, but If you implication is suggestive it they are spiritual, yes they are as well.

This is ETERNAL.

Reflect upon the Flood of Noah. The Genesis 6 account of things was very lite on specifics. We have quite the Descriptive offered in Enoch's fist 10 or so Chapters. Here's a Link to Enoch's Index.
www.sacred-texts.com...

In Chapter 10 we find the following


1. Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: 2. '〈Go to Noah〉 and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. 3. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.' 4. And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. 8. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.' 9. And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have. 10. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.' 11. And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. 12. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated.


So, review cleary notes that the Fallen, or Watchers and sometimes refered to as Gregori, can do some thing's, and they require physical restraint in being Bound.

Uriel is advised to HIDE himself.
Raphael and Michael are Binding Azazel and Semjaza, their Physical Form, using their own physical form.

And Poor Gabriel is sent off to cause chaos amoungst the Nephilium, (The Spawn of the Fallen). They also have some physical attributes that are out of the realm of Human.

So I would think it could be agreed upon, Bibically, (which is all I am concerned with) A physical form is also part of the makeup of Angels.



John 4:24
24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
NASU


And this IS correct, but there is Reason. God once inhabitated earth. His Throne WAS here at one time. But due to the Fall, God removed his Physical Form from the earth, in an effort to ensure it's survival. The battle between God and Satan would break this globe apart.



madnessinmysoul stated:
this exhaustive argument on the creation mythos is what happens when people try to make the first and second stories of creation, and make them into a singular story.


This is an unfounded claim based on ignorance. There is no evidence within Genesis to suggest that there are 2 creations stories.


Genesis 1:26 / 27 = First Creation

Read the balance and think carefully what they are being instructed to do. I'd like a Report on this to ensure you did read it carryfully. Just Finish the Day Six though. That's more than enough.


Gensis 2

2:5 .................... and there was not a man to till the ground.
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the ........


Now, here I noted what man is created here. "there was no a man to till the ground". So we have alternative instructions and duties noted previously, and suddenly, we need a Gardener.

This is the second Creation which has no bearing on the first.

And neither the First or Second Creation, should be confused with First or Second Earth Age.

More later

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   


God is anything and everything he may wish to be.


This is again you reading INTO Scripture your preconceived notions. In other words you have formed an idea and sought to place it upon Scripture. This is "eisogesis" or reading into. If you were to perform a proper "exegesis", or read OUT from Scripture, you would not come to this conclusion.



And in the Physical, Angels have interacted many times in the Bible.


In every case where angels interact with men they do so because God WILLS it...He allows it. It is not their flesh but they take on the appearance of men. No angel or demon ever takes on flesh on their own for none of them can do anything without Gods permission.

As for Enoch, it is not part of Scripture hence it has no bearing on doctrine. It can be used for a nice read, perhaps has some historical references to it but it can't be used for doctrine.

Lastly, you are arguing a non-issue in terms of doctrine. If one wants to think there were angels that had sex with earthly women to produce some sort of evil race of people....that's fine BUT it leads to esoteric beliefs and teachings, heresy and is done so out of ignorance.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   


And this IS correct, but there is Reason. God once inhabitated earth. His Throne WAS here at one time. But due to the Fall, God removed his Physical Form from the earth, in an effort to ensure it's survival. The battle between God and Satan would break this globe apart.


Missed this one....

Based on what evidence, from Scripture, did God ever inhabit earth? There is no battle between God and Satan. God is in complete control over Satan. Satan can do nothing without asking God first. He is on a leash.

In regards to the creation....Gen. 1 is a wide panoramic view of creation. Gen. 2 is a more intimate, zoomed in view of creation. Same story.

Think of it like a movie.....the scene opens with a wide shot of a sea scape and lighthouse. The camera then zooms in and we now focus on the lighthouse and its doings. The sea scape is still there but now our focus is more central.

Again you MUST read into Scripture a second creation.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
This is "eisogesis" or reading into. If you were to perform a proper "exegesis", or read OUT from Scripture, you would not come to this conclusion.


No, God is a Spiritual Being. I am not reading anything into anything. You are just refusing to accept this. That's your choice.



In every case where angels interact with men they do so because God WILLS it...He allows it. It is not their flesh but they take on the appearance of men. No angel or demon ever takes on flesh on their own for none of them can do anything without Gods permission.


Again, there is the free will YOU have been granted. That is you choice. You opt to disregard the Scripture. That's fine. I do not care, one way or the other, how YOU percieve things. Your above note statement is contrary to Scripture, as previously noted.

But now, you state those scriptures are not accurate based upon what????


As for Enoch, it is not part of Scripture hence it has no bearing on doctrine.

If one wants to think there were angels that had sex with earthly women to produce some sort of evil race of people....that's fine BUT it leads to esoteric beliefs and teachings, heresy and is done so out of ignorance.


And the Inquistor casts judgement. Nice!!!


You bitch about a Post, and offer YOUR OWN VIEWS, with no supportive material, and then proclaim I am a Heretic. Hahahahaha. That's rich.

I hope I get you in the Millenium


Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
In regards to the creation....Gen. 1 is a wide panoramic view of creation. Gen. 2 is a more intimate, zoomed in view of creation. Same story.

Think of it like a movie.....the scene opens with a wide shot of a sea scape and lighthouse. The camera then zooms in and we now focus on the lighthouse and its doings. The sea scape is still there but now our focus is more central.

Again you MUST read into Scripture a second creation.


Again, NO. You must stop being a Film Editor scanning and screening a Film you have no part in producing.

I know that allows for your Precious Doctrine to become questioned, dosn't it? You loose the grip of ingorance over the sheep if you allow them to reflect upon GOD's WORD rather than making sweeping statements based upon nothing but the statements.

Pal, I must admit, you are funny. Like waking up and being reviewed by the 700 Club or Jim and Tammy, in the good ole days. Or as you clearly demostrated eariler, from under the Rock of the Dark Ages and the Inquistition.

Well, it is clear, the Dogma associated to the DOCTRINES of some Religious SECT/CULT you embrace, take priority over the word of GOD, and if that is what turns your crank, then so be it.


Your dis-ingenous interpetations of those TWO VERY UNIQUE AND SEPERATED OCCURANCES OF CREATION, THAT EXPRESS COMPLETELY DIFFERING INSTRUCTIONS, and claiming they are the same thing simply nutty. There is no proof that has been offered to show your premise is Biblical. Nothing but the words of UnrealZA.

The Word of God apposed to the Word of UnrealZA?


Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by UnrealZA
This is "eisogesis" or reading into. If you were to perform a proper "exegesis", or read OUT from Scripture, you would not come to this conclusion.


No, God is a Spiritual Being. I am not reading anything into anything. You are just refusing to accept this. That's your choice.



In every case where angels interact with men they do so because God WILLS it...He allows it. It is not their flesh but they take on the appearance of men. No angel or demon ever takes on flesh on their own for none of them can do anything without Gods permission.


Again, there is the free will YOU have been granted. That is you choice. You opt to disregard the Scripture. That's fine. I do not care, one way or the other, how YOU percieve things. Your above note statement is contrary to Scripture, as previously noted.

But now, you state those scriptures are not accurate based upon what????


As for Enoch, it is not part of Scripture hence it has no bearing on doctrine.

If one wants to think there were angels that had sex with earthly women to produce some sort of evil race of people....that's fine BUT it leads to esoteric beliefs and teachings, heresy and is done so out of ignorance.


And the Inquistor casts judgement. Nice!!!


You bitch about a Post, and offer YOUR OWN VIEWS, with no supportive material, and then proclaim I am a Heretic. Hahahahaha. That's rich.

I hope I get you in the Millenium


Ciao

Shane


Excuse me shane, but did I NOT offer up John 4:24 in a previous post as evidence that God is Spirit? So your first rebuttal is out of line for I have never once stated contrary. I AGREE FULLY with Scripture, "God is Spirit".

As for "free will". Please deomonstrate to me where God says you and I have "free will"?

My statement about angels never taking on flesh of their own is based on Scripture. NO WHERE in Scripture can you show me where an angel or a demon takes on flesh of their own free will. I await your reference since you claim it is contrary to Scripture.

Again on Enoch, the Jews never considered it "God-Breathed" hence it is not Scripture. It has no bearing on doctrine.

I only used Scripture and logical arguements to demonstrate that anegls cannot have sex with earthly women. It may be a good time to review my very first post in this thread.

You on the other hand need to look outside of Scripture to support your idealogy, your theory about all this non-issue stuff.

As for "judgement", you also judge, in fact it is Biblical to judge. Does not Scripture state:

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
NASU

To claim that one should never judge and then chastise those who do is a hypocrite for they themselves have cast judgement upon others. Jesus said not to judge in a HYPOCRITICAL manner (Matthew 7) so you claim I was wrong for my judgement and then end with this statement -



I hope I get you in the Millenium


Boy, that sounds like a threat of some sort. Is it? Just what is suppossed to happen in the future that you may "get me"?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Did I miss something?
I don't see where UnrealZA replied to the scripture about a plural God "Let us make man in Our Image and in Our likeness. This sounds pretty plural to me. How are we expaining the Elohim with the notion of a singular being?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   


This is not a simple snake, but the coniving ole devil himself. Satan.


Shane - still making up your own Narrative I see. Shane - I hope that you realize that your posts on this Thread are just your own personal Interpretation of Scripture - Not the "Definitive Truth".
Other people have their own Interpretations & any individuals Interpretation is just as valid as the next!

As for big bad Satan - it looks like Christians have been making up their own Narratives for a WHILE now - here is another take on the topic:

www.rense.com...


If you ask me personally - I feel that the Dualism on which Judeo-Christianity & even Islam is based (i.e. God vs. Satan - Christ vs. Anti-Christ) is a WEAK CONSTRUCT (as is more than Evident from the Silliness seen right here on this Thread).

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Declaring the Book of Enoch as heretical because it is not in the mainline Christian Bible is a matter that needs examined.

Firstly, Christianity, as we know it, is a religion that places its foundation on the writings of Moses and the propehts. All whom where decendants of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.

Quick Wiki:

In classical Rabbinical literature, there are divergent opinions of Enoch. After Christianity and Judaism had completely separated, the prevailing view regarding Enoch was that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which thought of Enoch as a pious man, taken to heaven, and receiving the title of Safra rabba (Great scribe). However, while Christianity was in the process of detaching itself from Judaism, the Jewish view was often highly negative.


Wiki on Enoch Lit.

In context, the Christian Canon was was 'ordered' into place at the Council of Nicea as an effort to unify what Constantine viewed as the unifying force of his roman empire. It has never been established, firmly, that Constantine was truly a Christian:

Constantine and Nicea

With the proofs aside it is critical for us who believe in the person of Jesus as the Son of the Most High and ascribe Him the title of Messiah and Lord that we "rightly divide the Word of truth".

This forum is fantastic in its tradition of proofs, context and evidence to support our points.

Shane has dug up a wealth of information and challenged a great deal of people. Thank you Shane.

Let me throw out this question. If God created Adam and Eve, placed them in a garden which allowed them to eat from the Tree of Life, what need would they have had to copulate but pleasure? They would have been able to enjoy a relationship with the Holy One and walk with Him.

Theologians have also pointed to the issue of the lack of marriage in heaven as the result of immortality and the lack thereof for recretion. Below is a good article from Gospelcom.net on this:
aibi.gospelcom.net...

So, intercourse is within the realm of possibility within this theolgical framework that Shane has constructed.

As far as the 6th day man. I'm not sure on this. The genetic issue of mutations and possibility of deformaties can be tackled in that Adam and Eve were created, perfect. For a number if generations their decendants could have married and not had any genetic difficulties. The issue of marriage with close relatives was brought into the bible well after Adam who married a near relative and Issac who married his cousin.

Great thread. Not sure if I can agree with the sixth day concept but I do see were you are coming from.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente


This is not a simple snake, but the coniving ole devil himself. Satan.


Shane - still making up your own Narrative I see. Shane - I hope that you realize that your posts on this Thread are just your own personal Interpretation of Scripture - Not the "Definitive Truth".


I'll stop you here Seraphim.

Tell me what is the definitive truth!

AND YES, I agree with what you are noting. I ask anyone who wishes to think otherwise to feel free. But I am not twisting scripture, nor editing it down. I am noting what the scripture says. If between the facts such as,

1: it is in the Bible.
2: it is accurately translated
3: it speaks to the Topic

I'll use it. But of course, if you do not think (as UnrealZA), the Bible states, on the Sixth Day, God and the Angels created man, both male and female, in the image/likeness of God and the Angels, then what can I say. Ignorance is bliss.


If you pickup a Bible, to review it for yourself, then thats the best thing I can ever hope for.


Other people have their own Interpretations & any individuals Interpretation is just as valid as the next!


My concern about this is the accuracy of what you have expressed.

Other people do have Interpetations, but I really wonder if they are their own, or something spewed from a pulpit, while the Bible is still closed, and not be reviewed. Are they being taught Bible Teachings, or Doctrines of Man.

I'll pickup a Bible and go verse by verse. I do not care, as long as it's being used.

Look UnrealZA has responded with questioning. I use his example now.


1 John Chapter 4

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


Now this is fantastic. UnrealZA has a flair for questioning, and suggesting, by this juicy little tidbit, I am a False prophet.

This is part and parcel of the Sells Job from within the confines of a Doctrine Church. Sound bite Scripture.

Now, if UnrealZA was to note, the following, which completes the thought John is noting, then this offers clarity for all.



2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


Now, what have I offered in this Topic?

I am doing my best, to expose the Antichrist and his schemes. Using Scriptual Teachings, Using Secular Confirmations, Using Historical Evidence, and consversation.

It will always fall back to this though. TWO Chruches Taught God's Word and God is quite clear in expressing who passed, and who did not.

But I will admit, the Cainite does not make for enjoyable conversation. I see it is NOT your cup of tea anyhow.



As for big bad Satan - it looks like Christians have been making up their own Narratives for a WHILE now - here is another take on the topic:

www.rense.com...


And you think a person who is on a Conspiracy Site is going to believe Kelly? And I quote.


Kelly started his academic career at a Jesuit seminary and was ordained in four of the seven holy orders on the way to the priesthood, including the order of exorcist.

"It was at that time that I started my campaign to rehabilitate the devil - to deliver him from evil, as it were,"


Isn't that just the Jesuit thing to do?
Next you'll be suggesting Darwin had something relevant to point out.
(Just having some fun)


If you ask me personally - I feel that the Dualism on which Judeo-Christianity & even Islam is based (i.e. God vs. Satan - Christ vs. Anti-Christ) is a WEAK CONSTRUCT (as is more than Evident from the Silliness seen right here on this Thread).

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]


You see, you can refer to things in this manner. This is your free will being expressed.

If you asked me personally, I feel the Judeo, Christian and Islamic faiths have done a great disservice to God. This maybe the Real silliness Seraphim.

Thanks for your thoughts and have a good day.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SherlockX
Great thread. Not sure if I can agree with the sixth day concept but I do see were you are coming from.


Thank you for you contributions.

In respects to Enoch, there is the aspect of what Enoch eventually became "IN THE EYES OF MAN".

I know the Verse indicated Enoch was 365 Years Old, and was no more. He walked with God. It does nothing to address his death.

Enoch, (My Personal Belief here) did not die, as the "others' had, and seems to have become an important figure in several cultures, under "Other" names.

The Hebrew teachings that came thru a Monothesistic Abram, would likely not embrace Enoch, as a wholesome individual, due to the "Dogma" and Doctrine's placed upon him since those days. Abram is ten generations removed from Noah, or 13 from Enoch.

But as for his writing, or those attributed to Enoch, whether Channeled or Inspired, I think his message is still relevent, and does not reflect some adoration or worship cult as has occured through time, by bastardization and degredation of man and his need to worship deities and lessor gods. Enoch become one of these, in the eye's of the various worshippers.

Also, I did not see it noted, but I will look for the site again, and post it if I find it. I understaood, when they sat to amass the Bible, 153 Books where considered Scripture. (Enoch was one), but as well can all see, not everything made it in. Difficult things may have been considered hard to include in a simple text or set of books, and in some cases, may have actually be highlighting the problems with the Doctrines or Theology of the Church itself.

Much like Revelations notes.

But again, many thanks for stepping up, and maybe we can work on the Sixth Day Man more for you. I do not mind.

If you have a Bible Fine, If not here's the good one.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
shane,

When will you actually read something within its context??

You wrote this in reagards to my post:




Now this is fantastic. UnrealZA has a flair for questioning, and suggesting, by this juicy little tidbit, I am a False prophet.

This is part and parcel of the Sells Job from within the confines of a Doctrine Church. Sound bite Scripture.

Now, if UnrealZA was to note, the following, which completes the thought John is noting, then this offers clarity for all.


First, if I believe you to be a false prophet, I would state it.

Secondly, my use of 1 John 4:1 was to demonstrate that Believers are to TEST all things. You read into it that I have judged you as a false prophet. If I believe you to be false I would have no problem being blunt and stating so.

So shane, please no longer place a meaning upon my statements that is not supported by the context they are found in.

Lastly, I ask again what you meant by



I hope I get you in the Millenium


Thank you



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
Did I miss something?
I don't see where UnrealZA replied to the scripture about a plural God "Let us make man in Our Image and in Our likeness. This sounds pretty plural to me. How are we expaining the Elohim with the notion of a singular being?


I believe I did respond to this, yet perhaps it was in another thread. Thank you though for asking, great question.

Now as for the difference in names for God, "Elohim", "Yahweh" and "Lord"....well each name signifies how God is interacting with His people....how He is being portrayed within Scripture.

Elohim is found when Scripture speaks of God interacting on the material level, as in creation itself.

Yahweh is used to describe the more personal, one on one, relationship that God has with His creation. To see this we can read from Psalm 19 where it uses the singular form, if memory serves me correctly, "Elohim" (plural is used when describing false gods) in the first part as it describes Gods creation and His interaction within it. Then in verse 7 or 8 the subject switches to the "Law of the Lord" and because it is now on a personal level the name "Yahweh" is used.

To further stress this we can turn to Exodus 6:3 where God Himself pretty much explains this.

Ex 6:3
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.
NASU

So to the early fathers God was known to them as "Elohim" (El Shadday), even though they also knew the name "Yahweh", it wasn't until Moses time that God revealed Himself (more fully in nature) as "Yahweh".

The use of "Our" does not indicate that God was seeking the counsel of angels nor did they participate in creation for they themselves were a part of creation. Nor does it mean or suggest that we have more than one God.

The phrase, "Let US make man in OUR image" has within it plural pronouns (US and OUR) and they are needed because of the plural ending of "Elohim". Without it it would make little sense.

Notice that the theme of plural gods does not continue into the next passage?



Gen 1:27
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASU



Notice it states "in HIS own image"? If it were plural Gods then it would read again, "in OUR image".

Also consider how verse 29 ties in verses 26 and 27.


Gen 1:29
29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
NASU



The personal pronoun of "I" is used here but if the misplaced theory of multiple gods is correct then it should read as, "WE have given you every plant yielding......"

The use of "our" is called by grammaritans the "Cohortative mood". In a nutshell it states that God, the single speaker, is stating or proclaiming these things to or with those present at that time. It does NOT suggest more than one God nor is it evidence for the Trinity.

I am a Trinitarian but this passage is wrongly used by people to defend the Trinity.

Thank you

[edit on 20-8-2006 by UnrealZA]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   


If you pickup a Bible, to review it for yourself, then thats the best thing I can ever hope for.


Yes Shane I have read the Bible - Thanks for asking!



Other people do have Interpetations, but I really wonder if they are their own, or something spewed from a pulpit, while the Bible is still closed, and not be reviewed. Are they being taught Bible Teachings, or Doctrines of Man.


OK - given what the Roman Catholic Church has gotten away with - a Legitimate Concern - I will give you that one.



I'll pickup a Bible and go verse by verse. I do not care, as long as it's being used.


I am not sure that this is a "Superior Method" of Spirituality per say - Actually I would probably say the Opposite. But hey to each their own - you could read the Bible all day - every day if you wanted! You can even sleep with it under your pillow if you wish!

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA

Originally posted by interestedalways
Did I miss something?
I don't see where UnrealZA replied to the scripture about a plural God "Let us make man in Our Image and in Our likeness. This sounds pretty plural to me. How are we expaining the Elohim with the notion of a singular being?


I believe I did respond to this, yet perhaps it was in another thread. Thank you though for asking, great question.


And that is a fair try at a difficult topic UnrealZA.

Then of course, the Text may just mean what it says.


I do not believe it has been suggested "Creativity" was within the realm of the Sons of God, nor do I think anywhere, we are suggesting they "partook" in respects to this. They certainly have powers over such things as the Elements and Forces on Earth, but I agree it was God, that was the source of all creation.

If this has not been clear previously, I apologize for that. That is not what is being discussed here.

And Grammaritans aside, there should be no way to confuse the Pluralism of God and the Angels into meaning anything in relation to the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are distinctly different topics.

As for your disbelief about what it is I have presented, here's something to chew on. It's basis is Biblical, and it starts to push this whole matter into the next area of concern. These Days. The Days of Noe.


www.mt.net...
For who in the sky (the atmosphere),
shall be ranked with Jehovah,
who among the sons of the mighty
is like Jehovah? Psalm 89:6

While the New Testament uses the Greek word "demon" to refer to these "sons of the mighty", the Old Testament uses revealing descriptive names. Words which describe these beings, such as b'nai Elohim, "sons of God", Zophim, "the watchers", and Malakh, "messengers", (translated angel in English), are used for the "aerial host" often regardless of alignment. New Testament demons were understandably associated with evil, since originally the Greek term diamon meant "any deity", and the Bible consistently portrays only one God. There are three main terms for demons in the New Testament: daimonion (demon;60 times, 50 in the Gospels); pneuma (spirit; some 52 times) usually witha qualifying adjective such as akatharton (unclean; 21 times) or poneron (evil; 8 times); and angelos (7 times of demonic agencies). Daimon (demon), the term commonly used in classical Greek, appears only once (Mark 8:31) (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Walter A. Elwell(Ed))

Scripture explains that Satan and his host of fallen angels rule over this planet, it also details a hierarchy of demonic echelons.

Jesus Christ explained to his apostles what events would immediately precede his second coming,"It shall be exactly as in the days before Noah entered the ark". Matt24:38 , Luke 17:27. What is the significance of this statement and how does it relate to Ufos? The Flood epic Gen. 6 begins with a strange account of the "sons of God" (b'nai Elohim), taking wives from among the daughtersof Adam.


"In those days giants [nephilim] were in the earth, the men of renown of whom ancient tales are told".

The word which is translated, "giants", in the King James version of the Bible is, in Hebrew, "Nephilim", which means, "Those who fell, or ... the fallen ones". Jude, the brother of Jesus describes them as "angels, having left their first estate in heaven". These fallen angels came to earth for a serious purpose.

The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.


The mating of human beings with angels resulted in hybrid creatures, evil spirits with human bodies. The human \ angel hybrids began to corrupt and destroy the humanrace, resulting in the Deluge, "the end of all flesh" except Noah and his family.

Scripture uses other names to describe these degraded fallen angels and their descendents in addition to the word Nephilim, they are. . . .


Rephaim- from the root rapha= spirits, shades Gen. 14:5
Anakim - race of giants Num. 13:33 descendents of Nephilim
Emim- the proud deserters, terrors, race of giants Gen. 14:5
Zuzim- the evil ones,roaming things Gen. 14:5
Zamzummims- the evil plotters, Deut. 2:20
Zophim- watchers, angels who descended Num. 23, distinct from "holy watchers" aligned with God
Sepherim- the many. . . .


I found this when I was going to reply to this question of the Elohim, and was reviewing the premise, when I saw you had responded.

It does echo your thoughts, on the topic, but I am not sure how the UFO association will fit in. This Link suggests, if I understood it correctly, the nephilium, are the UFO's we are seeing in these days. The Days of that Parable of the Fig Tree.

My personal view is it is the Fallen themselves, since they are to return, but that is not important right now. One day, we will be spanning that concern in depth.

The usage of the terms of reference are quite accurate, for the purpose here.

All in all, it is a good review, although not all of the views offered are something I would tend to agree with. But again, for the purpose here, this is fitting.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
This is very good read.




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join