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.

 

I Would Side With the Serpent

page: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


The unnamed angel was said to be God, by Jacob himself. If you don't want to take his word for it -- that is up to you. It is written right there in Genesis. There is no cross reference there. You either believe Jacob, or you don't.

Gabriel and Michael are titles, too. The translations of the names will tell you that. All the names of angels are titles, much like all the names of the deities they are based on. My understanding is not flawed. It is simply far deeper than yours.

But you are correct in one thing, we have dragged this off-topic again.

I apologize to the OP.

Back to the serpent.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Everyone is taking their own interpretation on of free will.
If we can come down to one good meaning to this term, we may follow a different course. If the original poster mentions the bible's story, and we are assuming it's a true story, then we can also cite other chapters from the same book.

A thread about your free will vs. God's omnscience is a pointless and endless argument.

How would we define free will? It does not take a master's degree to do that.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

reply to post by DaisyAnne
 


I meant to convey the concept of angels as we have them today: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel. These chaps are very specific entities, with specific attributes. These are the chaps I am referring to when I say that Babylonian deities were demoted and rewritten as angels. I meant specific angels.

For instance, we can trace the Archangel Gabriel. By using attributes, duties and symbolism we can see The Archangel Gabriel as Ningishzidda, Anubis, Hermes, Mercury, Lugus. We can even find it on old Abraxas gems, which depict "Gabriel Sabaoth," (Strong God of Hosts) on one side, and Anubis on the other.


DaiseyAnne,

Maybe I'm missing something wrongly in your posts (which I have taken to rereading several times, to avoid assuming that you are saying something that you are not), but your original mention of the absence of the angelic reference in Jewish mythology, prior to Daniel, was in response to the theory that I posted, regarding fallen angels presenting themselves as a pantheon of deities, setting the stage for usurping Yahweh's authority, prior to His revealing Himself, in response to Israel's pleas in Egypt.

Now it seems that you have changed that claim of a lack of angelic reference, to say that you meant that angels were referred to, but not given specific identities. Is that what you are saying? If so, then that still allows room for what I had put forward to be possible (however unlikely you consider it to be).

Miriam made mention of the "sons of God" (Heb: b'nei elohim) mentioned in Genesis and Job. The reference in Genesis appears to refer to a "fallen" angelic being (consider Mark 12:25, Mark 12:25, and Matthew 24:38), leading to an event (the union of angel and man) which inspired God to shorten man's lifespan and flood the earth. Job's reference places a being in their midst, who is given the identity of "Accuser" (Satan). What is interesting is that God, at no point, notifies Job of Satan's involvement in his sufferings. If this serves as an example of how God addresses fallen angelic involvement in the affairs of men, perhaps He would be silent as they went on to set themselves as "gods" ("..the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now.." Acts 17:24-30).

I'm bracing myself for your response.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tungus

Originally posted by Joecroft



Interesting thread S+F

I thought I would play devils advocate here (no pun intended) and throw this question into the mix.

How did Adam and Eve commit the original sin, “fall of man” sin, if they had no knowledge (prior to eating the apple) of “good or evil”?


- JC


The Devil made them do it!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. It is by imparting the knowledge of good and evil one recognizes one's actions to be either good or evil. So by eating the apple they immediately knew that they have sinned. I don't subscribe to that view but that's what the Yahwehists say.



Yes, they new they had sinned after eating the apple. The point of my question is that just about most sins, are first committed in your heart and only then acted upon. If you have no knowledge of “good or evil”, how can you commit a sin, if you do not know, that what you are doing, is wrong. You might commit a sin but you would not know that it was a sin (at the time). i.e. there would essentially, be no evil intent behind it.


- JC



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas

Noted above how you acknowledged the possibility of the symbolism in the tree, yet you take the word "God" to be more literal, which denies the possibilities of symbolism in the word. If you know the bible contains symbolism, then why deny the possibility that it all is symbolism? When you pick and choose what is symbolism is what is not, then that choice, on a word for word basis, isn't something pre-determined and written in the bible. Therefore, those "interpretations" of the bible are not of the bible.


Please reread my post. I actually said that I believe that the trees are literal, but that they represent something symbolic. The issue wasn't the "tree", but the fact that God said don't eat, but they did anyway. In other words, they decided that they knew better than God. If they would transgress in this area, then what other area would they do it in, with their new found "knowledge of God and evil".

The writer of the Epistle to Hebrews wrote, "without faith it is impossible to please (God); for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). In emergency situations, it is not uncommon for rescue workers to demand that the one they are trying to save trust them implicitly when barking orders at them. The assumption is that they are keenly aware of the dangers of the situation, and one wrong move can have catastrophic implications. Often times the instructions given defy the logic of the untrained victim., but they would be wise to "have faith" in their rescuer, if they want to get out of their situation. This is the logic presented.

The symbolic implications of Adam and Eve's disobedience, could be compared to an abductee choosing to follow the directions of their kidnapper, over that of the police trying to free them, once they are outside of their clutches. Legally, it could be compared with conspiring with the enemy of their home nation, during a time of war. Whether the choice is morally right, or wrong, it is still an act of treason.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Selahobed
 


What does a dying star have to do with anything??

Ever heard of the cycle of life....its based on a law of order...cause and effect...its actually a science. One thing emanate from another....

Just as stars are dying, the number being born is no more or no less.....

Just as though people die and are born...the law exists throughout the entire Universe of energies!

It means nothing of any ending. The world is meant to be this way and you were meant to be born here. There are no mistakes.

And for the OP....

The garden is symbolic of what our purpose is as spiritual beings. The trees, the fruit, the two genders, the earthly nature, the spiritual nature....it all is symbolic.

The simple man needs Genesis to be literal. The deeper seeker doesn't need anything from Genesis but will understand its about wisdom....not knowledge of literal understanding.

They will cling to the literal words for thousands of more years....but....there is a light at the end.

Bottom line for the entire Bible....

Offer your Earthly nature back to the Earth....transform the Earthly body into a spiritual body. Genesis contains much wisdom...but the simple reader will not see it because its not what they are seeking. Knowledge can be very misleading....

Even Jacob wrestling....with God...is likely also more symbolic then literal. We all wrestle with our higher nature every single day. The offering of wisdom is there....but many dont take it.

LV



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
[

DaiseyAnne,

Maybe I'm missing something wrongly in your posts (which I have taken to rereading several times, to avoid assuming that you are saying something that you are not), but your original mention of the absence of the angelic reference in Jewish mythology, prior to Daniel, was in response to the theory that I posted, regarding fallen angels presenting themselves as a pantheon of deities, setting the stage for usurping Yahweh's authority, prior to His revealing Himself, in response to Israel's pleas in Egypt.

Now it seems that you have changed that claim of a lack of angelic reference, to say that you meant that angels were referred to, but not given specific identities. Is that what you are saying? If so, then that still allows room for what I had put forward to be possible (however unlikely you consider it to be).

Miriam made mention of the "sons of God" (Heb: b'nei elohim) mentioned in Genesis and Job. The reference in Genesis appears to refer to a "fallen" angelic being (consider Mark 12:25, Mark 12:25, and Matthew 24:38), leading to an event (the union of angel and man) which inspired God to shorten man's lifespan and flood the earth. Job's reference places a being in their midst, who is given the identity of "Accuser" (Satan). What is interesting is that God, at no point, notifies Job of Satan's involvement in his sufferings. If this serves as an example of how God addresses fallen angelic involvement in the affairs of men, perhaps He would be silent as they went on to set themselves as "gods" ("..the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now.." Acts 17:24-30).

I'm bracing myself for your response.


No need to brace yourself


As I said to Miriam, I am at fault for not making myself clear enough. I will attempt to again. Bear with me, if you will.

Firstly, as to angels. These malakhey elohim are vague creatures. They are messengers of Yahweh. They are not given names. They are not given attributes. Only after the captivity, when the Talmud states that the names of the angels came from Babylon, do we see Gabriel in all his glory. Only then are we told of Michael, in all of his righteous fury. Only then, did the Jewish systems of angelology become so intricate and specific. So, we can now look at these specific names, duties, attributes. We can see these same names, attributes and duties in the Gods of the Sumerian pantheon. We can also trace Yahweh himself back to this pantheon, in his function as head of this pantheon (we can do this through his sending of the flood among other things). Other Gods had huge followings. In Babylon, Marduk had been claimed supreme. Yahweh claimed vehemently his function as head of the pantheon, the one true God, the God of Israel, you shall have no Gods before him etc.

In the time-tested and true practice of religious politics, the battle to be the supreme God was waged. To coincide with the claim of the one true God (a claim made similarly by Marduk in Babylon), the other Gods were relegated as servants of Yahweh. In this, they became, to the Jews, unimportant, and not to be worshipped or revered. Thus, they were nothing more than malakhey elohim. Ben elohim was a term used to define the Kings of the Davidic line. B'nai ha-elohim, a term for the heavenly hosts. During the captivity, the full power of the entire pantheon could be felt and no longer ignored. The names of these other Gods became apparent, as did their functions, attributes and duties. A popular Philistine God, became the Lord of Hell Beelzebub. Ningishzidda became Gabriel. Marduk became Michael. Stories were changed, allegiances were strained, everything was rewritten to the glory of Yahweh, much as it was done for Marduk in Babylon.

Now, to your theory. How about I put it to you this way: if I was looking at it from your perspective, I could see where your line of thinking comes from. My line of thinking is thus: These "fallen angels" are not angels, but other Gods of the same pantheon. They too were trying to assert their supremacy. Because the pantheon existed prior to Yahweh revealing himself in Egypt, it would seem that they went back in time and set up false religions. I will concede your point. But, from my perspective, it was all the same religion, with differing deities vying for control. The different God cults had differing practices of worship, and differing views on supremacy, hence it would seem a different religion when that is not the case.

So, you may ask why, if these named angels were Gods, would they be carrying out the will of Yahweh? Well, you have to remember that he was head of their pantheon, and therefore you will find them doing his bidding at times. But just because they would carry out orders from the head of the pantheon from time to time, it does not negate the fact that they were Gods in their own right and that they had differing views on humanity.

And so we come to the Serpent. The Sumerian representation of the Serpent falls to Enki. Enki, the brother of Yahweh. No, he was not head of the pantheon, but he was his brother and was the God of civilization and science. It was he who believed that humans should receive the fruit of knowledge, it was he who rebelled and gave it to us. Whatever we have called him over time: Enki, Samael, Prometheus, the story is the same. When Yahweh found out, he flipped his lid, if you will. He vowed to set man against Enki. And, his propaganda has done an incredibly good job of it.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 


Awesome post!

Question, I'm wondering if perhaps the pantheon existed *in* Babylon in peace.
A group of Gods living over a slave-race, of sorts. The Serpent tries to "wisen" them up. And for it, the entire pantheon is forced to take sides.
An internal war, of sorts. Those siding with Yahweh strictly following orders and those opposing becoming the propaganda enemy.

It was then that our knowledge was confused.
In the "real world" Babylon is where it was at. What we have left of this culture is absolutely amazing.

If so, I don't want to be around when they come back. But if I must, I side with the Serpent.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 


Truly informative post. Thank you.
Do you have a website or a blog so we can read more?
I accidentally deleted all my 2U2 messages and I don't know if you sent me the info on the truth will be revealed soon stuff.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tungus
 


I'm quite sure the truth will be revealed soon also.
I just hope that the "gods" have decided to let us decide our fates ourselves without warfare.

I'm hoping that the entire "four horsemen" crap is more of the propaganda and the "gods" (being vastly intelligent beings) would just sort of let us figure it out.
Either way, we get "divine" intervention. But if we get the wrong kind, all hell will break loose, literally.

Problem is, with intelligence like that, I don't see cyblings holding a "grudge" long enough to pick up a fight they left off thousands of years ago. I think they would reason it out and the winner gets to teach the subjects (us).



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DaisyAnne
 

Great post DaiseyAnne!!! Who says the "Christians" and "Hethens" (or "Free thinkers" and "Sheep") can't get along, without having to agree?
There are a few point you raised that I wish to highlight, but I have one question, in order to sek clarification, regarding the following comment:

And so we come to the Serpent. The Sumerian representation of the Serpent falls to Enki. Enki, the brother of Yahweh. No, he was not head of the pantheon, but he was his brother and was the God of civilization and science. It was he who believed that humans should receive the fruit of knowledge, it was he who rebelled and gave it to us. Whatever we have called him over time: Enki, Samael, Prometheus, the story is the same. When Yahweh found out, he flipped his lid, if you will. He vowed to set man against Enki. And, his propaganda has done an incredibly good job of it.


In the this Sumerian pantheon, did Enki and Yahweh have a father, or were they just pre-exist in their fraternal relationship? I guess what I am asking is were they eternal beings, without beginning, or were they the spawn of an even "Higher Being"?

I do know that Greek mythology traces its pantheon's lineage to an unknown god, who preceded Zeus. In fact, the Olympians were preceded by gods like Terra, Cosmos and Chaos, which were also preceded by the unknown god (possibly even a mother and father).



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
I meant to convey the concept of angels as we have them today: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel. These chaps are very specific entities, with specific attributes. These are the chaps I am referring to when I say that Babylonian deities were demoted and rewritten as angels. I meant specific angels.

For instance, we can trace the Archangel Gabriel. By using attributes, duties and symbolism we can see The Archangel Gabriel as Ningishzidda, Anubis, Hermes, Mercury, Lugus. We can even find it on old Abraxas gems, which depict "Gabriel Sabaoth," (Strong God of Hosts) on one side, and Anubis on the other.


then i did misunderstand you. and to some respect, i agree.

the problem lies with apocryphal books. im my own research, i havent found much evidence that apocryphal books are inspired nor have any sort of "harmony" with the bible itself. so i tend to take what they say with a grain of salt.

when it comes to archangels, i find that the talmud and the bible are in somewhat of a disagreement. there is quite abit of evidence that the "archangel" is one, not four. and the bible doesnt mention much of anything about gabriel besides his name. the other 2 "archangels" are not even mentioned in the bible.

so did rabbis enter information into the talmud that was not from the bible but instead taken from babylon? totally possible and since the info is not in the bible, likely.

most of today's christendom gets its doctrines and ceremonies from babylon (two babylons by rev. hislop, if you havent read it, please do as its really interesting)

the thing is, these babylonian additions i dont think necessarily mean that the bible itself was taken from babylon (or other cultures for that manner). i think that the foundation for this argument is that alot of times the bible disagrees with the babylonian beliefs and mythology.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJaKfOrEsT
In the this Sumerian pantheon, did Enki and Yahweh have a father, or were they just pre-exist in their fraternal relationship? I guess what I am asking is were they eternal beings, without beginning, or were they the spawn of an even "Higher Being"?


Don't expect a direct answer for your question. Simply, it would be hard to give a single answer to that in a way that is true where everybody would agree. At least, accept what DaisyAnne has offered to bring to the table. Sometimes, it isn't about disagreement or secrets yet rather deliberation.

To see one's faith suddenly diminished into a personifications may be hard to grasp.

Good to see some love shared in this thread. Made my day!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

reply to post by miriam0566
 

when it comes to archangels, i find that the talmud and the bible are in somewhat of a disagreement. there is quite abit of evidence that the "archangel" is one, not four. and the bible doesnt mention much of anything about gabriel besides his name. the other 2 "archangels" are not even mentioned in the bible.

so did rabbis enter information into the talmud that was not from the bible but instead taken from babylon? totally possible and since the info is not in the bible, likely.

It is interesting that you bring this up, regardign the Talmud and the Bible. We just began a study of the Parables of Jesus, beggining with the one about the "New/Old Garment/Wineskin". We observed in the account, as delivered in all of the Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus' telling of the parable (two combined into one) was in response to the Pharisees' demands that Jesus observe their traditions (ie, the Talmud). What was interesting to note, was that Jesus quoted the words of Hosea, saying to them, "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'."

Immediately after, the Pharisees questioned Jesus and his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, to which Jesus recounted the story of King David and his men eating th eshewbread, which was unlawful for any but the priests to eat. I only raise this to say that it would appear that Jesus placed little value on the Talmud. The apostle Paul, who as a former Pharisee would have been well versed in the Talmud, seemed to reject the Talmud in his Epistle to the Romans, when he wrote of Israel, "..being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God".

most of today's christendom gets its doctrines and ceremonies from babylon (two babylons by rev. hislop, if you havent read it, please do as its really interesting)

Amongst other things, it was Hyslop's observations that helped me form the theory that I put forward earlier.

Great post Miriam.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Glad to see you have enjoyed my thread.


In General: I knew this sort of thing would happen. You have the position of the people who follow the Church in matters and then you have the people that are bold enough to question the Church.

A hint, whenever you actually beome determined enough to question a system, you can rest assured that it is failing.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

reply to post by dzonatas

To see one's faith suddenly diminished into a personifications may be hard to grasp.


Care to explain this comment? Was it directed at myself personally, or meant generally?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

reply to post by JayinAR
 

In General: I knew this sort of thing would happen. You have the position of the people who follow the Church in matters and then you have the people that are bold enough to question the Church.

A hint, whenever you actually beome determined enough to question a system, you can rest assured that it is failing.

I feel much the same way as someone who is bold enough to believe God, when speaking to people who buy into the demonic world system.


It could be argued that when one desires truth, they will question everything. If they believe something, they would not be afraid to question it, as it would stand up to scrutiny, if it deserves to be believed.

JayinAR, I get in more trouble from people in the "Church" regarding the points I bring forward from the Scripture, than I do from the kind of people I talk to here. Most people "in Church" are there in order to feel powerful, and often overlook statement that will remove that "power" from their hands, when it belongs in God's. - And I'm not the only Christian out there who obeys the Scriptural mandate to question the church and its leadership.

(BTW - I hope you take my opening comment as it was intended. A tongue in cheeky parody of your opening comment, put in terms that would be as offensive to a "freethinker" as yours are to a "believer". I certainly meant no malice by them)



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

reply to post by JayinAR
 

YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL.

A man exersizes free will when he decides whether or not to jump off of a cliff. His is choice to continue standing on the cliff's edge, walk away from the cliff's edge, or facing impending destruction. Based on your logic, there is no free will, in reality, and neither I or you have it. There is an inevitability with you continuing to declare that we have no freewill, just as there is with us defending our Scriptural worldview, which you defaced in your OP.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CJaKfOrEsT
 


As I told the other one, you don't have free will.
Yes, you may FEEL as if you have the choice to jump off that cliff, but you only did so in accordance with God's plan.

Jeeze, I liked this thread much more when people were arguing points with a goal of understanding.

Maybe I'm demanding, but if you can't understand this, there isn't much for us to talk about.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

reply to post by JayinAR
 


As I told the other one, you don't have free will.
Yes, you may FEEL as if you have the choice to jump off that cliff, but you only did so in accordance with God's plan.

Jeeze, I liked this thread much more when people were arguing points with a goal of understanding.

Maybe I'm demanding, but if you can't understand this, there isn't much for us to talk about.


Ok, so if I've gotten this right, you were raised a Christian, and gave up blindly believing what your parents and the Church told you about God, the Bible, etc, and now you're liberated into a free thinking life, able to rationally discern reality, free from imposed restrictions. Well, I was raised agnostic, and gave up blindly following what all the teachers, scientists, philosophers, peers, etc who insisted that God isn't real, and that Jesus never came, let alone died for my sins, and now I'm free to live a life in God's service.

I always thought this understanding thing was intended to be a two way street. I grow as tired of ex-Christians believing that they know where I am coming from, in these kind of discussions, almost as much as I do with "Christians" who have apparently never even opened the Book, judging by the ignorant comments that they make. We come from differing perspectives, as two people who are heading in "opposite directions", in regard to "belief in Christianity" (you heading out, so to speak, and me heading in).

My understanding of what you have said, is that because the alternative was between obedience and death, there was effectively no choice. What I am unclear of, is whether you believe that you have free will or not, from your perspective. If you don't, then where is the problem? If you do, then how is your definition of free will any different to ours, and how can you claim that you have it, when we don't?

The issue of predestination crops up into all this, also. For a Christian who leans on the Calvinist side of the fence, they would answer, "Yeah, so what?" if you told them that they had no free will. There is certainly much to understand here, but I assure you that it is a two way street, my friend.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join