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.

 

If the "Nephilim" (Fallen ANGELS) are ET's, then how aren't Angels (and Jehova) ET'S?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I will make a short list to work this out.
______________________________________

First off there were Fallen Angels before Noah,s time.

Then the Watchers but became corrupt, maybe deceived again or seduced.

They produce giants.

Once the giants died out in the floods their spirits wonder the earth.

Then you have the new generation during Moses times.

The Gaza strip is an infestation of these spirits and hybrids, the last of the Nephilim in which King David failed to eradicate.

Also we have the Serpent seed theory, which could be the Cannites, but it is hard to tell, maybe the land of Nod is a sub-dimensional plane and they want to mingle with out seed.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by The time lord]




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Angels vs Fallen Angels and ETs

Satan was cast out into the earth along with his followers, not allowed in heaven anymore. This maybe suggests they lost their ability to transport like a regular angel.

So they devised ships, ufos that could carry them and this is their transportation. This is the difference between ET and Angels imo. Angels are still allowed full access to heaven and earth, fallen angels have no place in heaven anymore.

Angels usually present themselves in human form and I'm sure even fallen angels still can too if they want. The reason for them showing themselves as little greys or reptilians are due to their 'fallen' natures.

Angels do not marry matthew 22:30

Fallen Angels mingle but do not cleave.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
First off, there were never any "Fallen Angels". There were, however, "Fallen" DemiGods. Loosely, from the top, there is God, Archangels, Elohim, Demigods, Celestials, Angels, the Ascended Beings, and 3d land.

Next, your definition of "Angels" is too narrow. The original Archangels are unique in that they have never incarnated into a non-Angelic form from their original God Spark and thus remain the closest entities to God.

However, "Angels" in general can certainly be ETs. They can be ex-humans, they can be members of the "Other Kingdoms", etc.

There is basically no "reincarnation" above the 4th dimension. And reincarnation is the fastest path to spiritual growth and progress in the 3rd dimension. So how does one grow spiritually in the higher dimensions? Be becoming an Angel, for one thing. Or a Spirit Guide or spiritual Teacher, etc.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
angel=alien concept
I'm not even going to waste my time.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tungus

Originally posted by Jordan River
But we are indeed the gem of the universe. we live on the greatest planet.


Kidding aside, but how can you say that we live on the greatest planet? That would preclude that after visiting at least several other planets you indeed can confirm that we live on the greatest planet.
I have read accounts of yogis who say that the moon is much better place than the earth. They do out of body travel and although I cannot verify their statements there is a way to check their claim.



For example, looking at a gray antatomy would suggest that they are a low gravity creature that can go through space and is use to the hostiility of outer space. We are not. I love them too as much as I can. aliens that is. But were seprated for a good reason.


I agree that we were separated for a good reason but that reason is to keep the rest of the universe from us. We are separated the same way the maximum security prison population is separated from the rest of humanity.
Our separation is a little more complicated though. We are separated from others by dimensions rather than by space, there is space separation but mostly is dimensional. That way, no matter where we look we don't see anything and all the planets seem like dead rocks to us. The outer space is hostile only because we are in meatbags and gravity makes sure that no one is going anywhere anytime soon. No need for ball and chains made of iron when you have a thing like gravity, eh?
Think of this planet more like the "Count of Monte Cristo" scenario and you will get the idea. Of course, if you were born in a prison it is very hard to realize that you are in a prison.

If your god loved any of us he wouldn't keep us locked up on this planet. You only have the word of the bible to tell you that you live on the greatest planet. Good for you.


Were not designed for space travel nor inter dimensional travel. We are weak. I'm not saying that there are better planets. but God loves this planet earth for a reason than other planets, majority of aliens are jealous that God loves us more than them. Seeing how their smarter obviously. If you had a btu of 2500 brain power combined with millions of years of technological advancement and seen some dirt bull of a mammal receive Jesus, prophets, angels and other wonderful things wouldn't you be jealous? You do believe in different dimensions most people on ats do anyways. Than why not a dimension of the spirit, for this is the true reason we are here is to teach ourselves and better ourselves in our soul. no matter what fulfills you.
You sound so much like the people of greek who thought their gods were better than the hebrew God. Much will happen to you on a positive spiritual level I will make sure of it you will believe



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
You sound so much like the people of greek who thought their gods were better than the hebrew God. Much will happen to you on a positive spiritual level I will make sure of it you will believe


I don't know if I would call the Greek gods "better" than Yahweh but there were many gods and at least one of them was good, meaning he took up the human cause. His name was Prometheus who sacrificed himself for the betterment of humanity, way before Jesus.

I think that the Hebrew god must be one of the worst gods around. There could always be worse gods than Yahweh, I suppose.
Any god that claims he is the One and not only that but that there is no other god is a dictator and that is never good.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by tungus]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The Nephilim are hybrids, they arent the fallen angels, they are offspring of The Watchers. They are creatures of earth.

The Elohim (the race that makes up the angels, fallen angels and god) are not from this plane and are therefore alien by definition.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by gYvMessanger]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.


So...heaven couldn't possibly translate into...oh say...heaven? I am sure ancient man knew other words that they could use to portray "the sky".



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.


So...heaven couldn't possibly translate into...oh say...heaven? I am sure ancient man knew other words that they could use to portray "the sky".


If I'm not mistaken, it's used in a plural sense a lot. But that's not even it.
People back then did not know what was beyond the sky. This was due to limits in the knowledge of physics and astronomy. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that there was only one generic word for the sky. There wasn't "space". Couldn't have been. Space wasn't discovered back then.

If you take the bible literally, you are using THEIR vernacular (whoever wrote it back then) and seeing it from THEIR perceptions AND perspectives back then. Now we know a little about science, physics, and astronomy. Why is it so hard to interpolate the stories by using a more modern form? Why does it have to be taken literally the way it was written? It was written thousands of years ago. Why not plug astronomy and physics and all of that into the story of the bible? Why not read in-between the lines? Is this allowed?


[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

If I'm not mistaken, it's used in a plural sense a lot. But that's not even it.
People back then did not know what was beyond the sky. This was due to limits in the knowledge of physics and astronomy. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that there was only one generic word for the sky. There wasn't "space". Couldn't have been. Space wasn't discovered back then.

If you take the bible literally, you are using THEIR vernacular (whoever wrote it back then) and seeing it from THEIR perceptions AND perspectives back then. Now we know a little about science, physics, and astronomy. Why is it so hard to interpolate the stories by using a more modern form? Why does it have to be taken literally the way it was written? It was written thousands of years ago. Why not plug astronomy and physics and all of that into the story of the bible? Why not read in-between the lines? Is this allowed?

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]


Perhaps they didn't say "space" but heavens could still mean heavens in every sense of the word. Explain these if man didn't have that much astronomical knowledge.

"'I will make the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister before Me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.'" (Jeremiah 33:22)

Note: Only about 3,000 stars can be seen with the naked eye.

The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. (1 Corinthians 15:41)
(I'm probably guessing that you'll say splendor means that they "shine" differently when in all actuality it can be interpreted as different compounds and elements.)

"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31)(Really? Gravitationally bound star groups when most others, with the possible exception of the Hyades, are not bound? That's odd.)

By the way, I don't think it matters if they say "heavens" or "heaven" it all comes down to the same thing. If you interpret it as plural then you think they are saying there are multiple "skies"? You lost me...

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 



Am I crazy, or does this sound probable????


No, you are not crazy, or else I am too, for that is almost exactly what what I said in a post the other day. I too think that are all ETs, playing God with the poor humans.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by impaired

If I'm not mistaken, it's used in a plural sense a lot. But that's not even it.
People back then did not know what was beyond the sky. This was due to limits in the knowledge of physics and astronomy. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that there was only one generic word for the sky. There wasn't "space". Couldn't have been. Space wasn't discovered back then.

If you take the bible literally, you are using THEIR vernacular (whoever wrote it back then) and seeing it from THEIR perceptions AND perspectives back then. Now we know a little about science, physics, and astronomy. Why is it so hard to interpolate the stories by using a more modern form? Why does it have to be taken literally the way it was written? It was written thousands of years ago. Why not plug astronomy and physics and all of that into the story of the bible? Why not read in-between the lines? Is this allowed?

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]


Perhaps they didn't say "space" but heavens could still mean heavens in every sense of the word. Explain these if man didn't have that much astronomical knowledge.

"'I will make the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister before Me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.'" (Jeremiah 33:22)

Note: Only about 3,000 stars can be seen with the naked eye.

The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. (1 Corinthians 15:41)
(I'm probably guessing that you'll say splendor means that they "shine" differently when in all actuality it can be interpreted as different compounds and elements.)

"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31)(Really? Gravitationally bound star groups when most others, with the possible exception of the Hyades, are not bound? That's odd.)

By the way, I don't think it matters if they say "heavens" or "heaven" it all comes down to the same thing. If you interpret it as plural then you think they are saying there are multiple "skies"? You lost me...

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]


No - not multiple skies. Heaven is supposedly a singular place with a beautiful town - made of gold. Referring to a single place in a plural fashion doesn't make sense. Perhaps "The Heavens" was simply "beyond the earth" and "Sky" was just the earth's atmosphere.

It says in Genesis 1:1 that God (Jehova) created the heavens and the earth. Just because something (where's HIS proof?) tells you something to believe it? We're talking about a "omnipotent" being that can tell the future but also has an ego problem and other seemingly imperfections (for a divine and perfect being). The bible is written from HIS side of the spectrum, told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time. So it's incredibly biased from his side.

What I'm getting at is I don't believe this guy is the creator of the multiverse. That's one hell of a job to be carried out by such an imperfect being, and that contradicts the very nature of the word "God".

It's also written with subjective AND objective views. But like I said, plug in the existence of ET into the bible. ET would have to be more evolved than us if they created us. Either way we're the bible is already 3rd-hand knowledge. A story of a story.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by impaired
 



We're talking about a "omnipotent" being that can tell the future but also has an ego problem and other seemingly imperfections (for a divine and perfect being). The bible is written from HIS side of the spectrum, told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time. So it's incredibly biased from his side.


You said it yourself, "told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time." How then can you say that God is the imperfect one because WE are the ones that can't describe HIM. We are the imperfect ones my friend.

edit to add: Would you think your Dad or Mother had ego problems because they wanted you to obey them and not some other person?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by impaired
Once again, folks: Heavens translates to "The Sky". I don't understand how much more cut and dry it can be. I mean... Really.


So...heaven couldn't possibly translate into...oh say...heaven? I am sure ancient man knew other words that they could use to portray "the sky".
Not necessary.
According to ancient man, the sky was made of a substance capable of supporting a "heaven", including a god and his entourage.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I am not sure I understand what your point is. I am sorry.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by impaired
 



We're talking about a "omnipotent" being that can tell the future but also has an ego problem and other seemingly imperfections (for a divine and perfect being). The bible is written from HIS side of the spectrum, told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time. So it's incredibly biased from his side.


You said it yourself, "told to man to be written in a language that didn't have enough words to really describe what was going on at the present time." How then can you say that God is the imperfect one because WE are the ones that can't describe HIM. We are the imperfect ones my friend.

edit to add: Would you think your Dad or Mother had ego problems because they wanted you to obey them and not some other person?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

I wouldn't want my mom or dad to send me to hell for eternity because I got derailed in life. All life is valuable - alot of creatures - including us feel pain. Why make things so nasty? It really seems like an alien ant-farm, if Jehova is really the all-seeing-eye of past, present and future.

Jehova creates everything, knowing his right hand man would get kicked out and be his biggest adversary (and ours!) Why impose eternally agonizing punishments on us because of HIS mistake of creating the script in the first place if he already knew the out-come? If we're imperfect, than the one(s) who created us should take responsibility and fix THEIR problem for us. We shouldn't have to pick up (and deal with) someone else's wreckage. What ever happened to a warranty? Jehova doesn't give them out anymore?





[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

I wouldn't want my mom or dad to send me to hell for eternity because I got derailed in life. All life is valuable - alot of creatures - including us feel pain. Why make things so nasty? It really seems like an alien ant-farm, if Jehova is really the all-seeing-eye of past, present and future.

Jehova creates everything, knowing his right hand man would get kicked out and be his biggest adversary (and ours!) Why impose eternally agonizing punishments on us because of HIS mistake of creating the script in the first place if you already knew the out-come? If we're imperfect, than the one(s) who created us should take responsibility and fix THEIR problem for us. We shouldn't have to pick up (and deal with) someone else's wreckage.

Things are nasty because we are nasty. He offers His love and compassion and yet we refuse. We see it yet we deny it. We hear it yet we block it out. Why impose eternal suffering? Because you refused eternal peace. What else is there? Peace or suffering...it's your choice to make. Refuse one and by default you win the other.

HIS mistake? It's your mistake for following the ways of sin. Do you not have a choice? Trust me, the satans(yes plural) judgments shall be much more severe than yours. You were deceived and have willfully continued. They(satans) are the ones that have deceived you. They will pay for that, and you too will pay if you continue in your ways of rejecting God.

It is NOT someone elses wreckage. It is OUR wreckage. We were deceived yes, but we CONTINUE on in the blasphemous ways of man. We know now what we do, and so we are to be accountable for our actions.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Things are nasty because we are nasty. He offers His love and compassion and yet we refuse. We see it yet we deny it. We hear it yet we block it out. Why impose eternal suffering? Because you refused eternal peace. What else is there? Peace or suffering...it's your choice to make. Refuse one and by default you win the other.


Where's his love? Is this a fact? It's just info coming from his mouth to a transcribist's ears. Then even manipulated though out the many years.

There is more than one-way to peace. You can follow the rules and be a good person (service to others) and not have to have this guy as you're "God". Why not?

What if I do the right thing to the best of my ability? Does that cut it?



HIS mistake? It's your mistake for following the ways of sin. Do you not have a choice? Trust me, the satans(yes plural) judgments shall be much more severe than yours. You were deceived and have willfully continued. They(satans) are the ones that have deceived you. They will pay for that, and you too will pay if you continue in your ways of rejecting God.


I don't reject "God" (Whatever that word means, anyway). I just reject Jehova.

What if I don't accept him personally but still follow the code by doing the right thing anyway?



It is NOT someone elses wreckage. It is OUR wreckage. We were deceived yes, but we CONTINUE on in the blasphemous ways of man. We know now what we do, and so we are to be accountable for our actions.



And what are some of the blaphemous ways of man? Do they include questioning an ultimateum that is given to us by many other religions? How are we supposed to know that your religion is any more right than the Koran, or the Torah, or the Sumerians? The egyptians? Why is your God one of many OTHER God's? Why is he in competition with them? Very insecure. What are the implications of these other god's existing and religions proclaiming the same thing? That Jehova isn't the only "God".

It seems like a pretty desperate and unecessarily brutal punishment to get us to follow something. Why would a parent do that to their special kids? The kids seems pretty expendable.

Alient ant farm...

Bottom line is, you're believe a book with translation-issues from a 3rd-hand source that is from HIS perspective and his influence. What about them apples??

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by impaired

Where's his love? Is this a fact? It's just info coming from his mouth to a transcribist's ears. Then even manipulated though out the many years.

His love is right outside, waiting for you to open the door. What do you mean is this fact? How can you even prove love exists if not for feeling it?


There is more than one-way to peace. You can follow the rules and be a good person (service to others) and not have to have this guy as you're "God". Why not?
What if I do the right thing to the best of my ability? Does that cut it?

No, that does not cut it. How can He welcome you into His arms if you don't believe His arms are there?



I don't reject "God" (Whatever that word means, anyway). I just reject Jehova.

And I thought all evil is the influence of satan and his possee?
Also, what if I don't accept him personally but still follow the code by doing the right thing anyway?


"Evil" is the influence of the satans. However, sin gets easier and easier. Your flesh makes it into habit. Sometimes only one temptation lasts a lifetime. Addiction to porn? Cleptomaniacs? These are examples....They continue because of their own free will.

Again, how can He accept you if you do not accept Him? If He is nonexistant, then so must you be to Him.



And what are some of the blaphemous ways of man? Do they include questioning an ultimateum that it given to us by many other religions? How are we supposed to know that your religion is any more right than the Koran, or the Torah, or the Sumerians? The egyptians? Why is your God one of many OTHER God's? Why is he in competition with them? Very insecure. What are the implications of these other god's existing and religions proclaiming the same thing? That Jehova isn't the only "God".


"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Use your sense, reason, and intellect and find the answers in your heart of hearts. Why wouldn't there be "other god's"? Of course there is going to be competition for souls. Lucifer did want to be worshipped didn't he? Did he not want to be just like God? Use what has been graciously given to you and seek Him diligently.


Bottom line is, you're believe a book with translation-issues from a 3rd-hand source that is from HIS perspective and his influence. What about them apples??

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]


The bottom line is that you worship your own wisdom and knowledge and dare not seek beyond yourself. Bind your ego and live a life beyond yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join