A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 17 of 17
well.. thats not completely true DT; it illudes to it in so many ways.
besides the scattered references in the bible, i think this is where the book of Enoch, which was found among the dead sea scrolls, helps to shed some light on what the Israelites believed to have happened during the pre-flood period. Enoch was written during what is called the intertestamental period, which is about 400bc-ad, so it is fairly removed from the flood, but there is little doubt that these were the general beliefs passed down through jewish customs, and was also central to the early christians(since it speaks heavily about the "day of the Lord" or the coming judgement(Jesus' return)
Enoch was the 7th generation of Seth prior to the flood, when the fallen angles were busy corrupting man; Gen 5:21 says
Quote:( now they are making a distinction by 'took him away' rather then died, since Enoch was considered a prophet). other references to Enoch say
"altogether Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, becase God took him away"
Quote:which kind of implies that Enoch was considered a credible source
"by faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. for before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God" Heb. 11:5
now this is relevant because the book of Enoch deals almost specifically with Gen. 6(fallen angles) and the coming of the messiah. the bible doesnt really devote itself to what happened prior to the flood, but clearly its an underlying theme, and there is no denying it
2 Peter
Quote:
"for if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment"
Jude 1:6 says
Quote:
"and the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abondonded their own home, these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chaings for judgment on the Great Day"
both these quotes are referring to Gen. 6, when the 'Sons of God', or the angels, left their domain(the heavens) and came unto the daughters of man and had offspring by them, called the nephilim, or "fallen ones".
Numbers 13:28-33, when the Israelites were reporting about their exploration of Canaan (the tribe which inhabited their promised land) says this
Quote:
"the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. we even saw the descendants of Anak there. (31)but the men who had gone up with him said "we cant attack those people; they are stronger then we are." and they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. they said "the land we explored devours those living in it. all the people we saw there are of great size. we saw the Nephilim there(the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). we seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them"
this is a direct reference to the descendants of the fallen angels, and notice how they are affiliated with the Canaanites(which is where the bohemian grove moch sacrifice to Molech is derived from). these people worshipped these beings as gods... now this was also after the flood, as Gen 6 says
Quote:
"their were nephilim on the earth in those days; and also afterward, when the Sons of God came into the daughters of men and had offspring by them".
now Enoch goes into greater detail 1 Enoch 7
Quote:
"It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. 2And when the angels, (3) the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children."
Quote:
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and madNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Antimason, if you say "all gods are fallen angels according to my religion" then I don't argue. But when you say "all religions are a warped form of my religion," which you have said before, then I argue because that is factually incorrect, because religions spread across the earth as a historical fact.
DT- i never said that specifically, although i may have implied that
look i fully understand these multi-deity beliefs pre-date my own.. but think about this for a second: we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture. but judeo-christians maintain that their is a most high creator God, which created even these beings, who sent the flood to established a covenant with Noah and Abraham to displace this angelic influence, and to bring the belief in Yahweh back into focus; this was among civilizations which were heavily envolved in occult god worship. while the Sumerians cuniform tablets may pre-date the bible, Genesis and the book of Enoch are describing the same events.. only from the perspective of the creator, whos influence had been weakened by the intervention of these beings.
the bibles distinction is that it makes an attempt to provide the backdrop for the angelic intervention, claiming that God created even the angels(or Annunaki to the Sumerians). now the sumerians claim that it was these gods who created man; both share many of the same stories, but the polytheists have no explanation for Jesus, his claims to be the son of the Creator,(or manifest)and his ressurection and plan for redemption of mankind from our fallen state. if you take the accounts of Jesus into consideration, he supports the creator God thesis along with the angelic intervention. IMO, at this point* i believe this to be the more complete picture.. color me biased
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text, but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.
Quote:
we all share the fallen angelic thesis, although it is described through the lens of each individual culture.
Not so. My faith has no fallen angel, no angel, and no God.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.
The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain.
Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.
It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.
The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.
But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation. When taken that the original genesis creation myth, from a historical perspective was most certainly not written about Yhwh, that assigning the proper perspective, Yhwh becomes the deity who claims to be God but isn't. Thus Yhwh worship becomes its own worst nightmare, the worship of its own Satan.
It would be a paralyzing thought if it were my faith, and I can see why you would balk at the concept. But you also should seriously consider the possibility that what I say is true, just as an objective outside perspective on the development of things in the christian faith. I think that such a development would go a long way to explain the schitzophrenic nature of the christian character, loving of peace and thirsting for war. If it were my faith, I'd want to be very sure that the God that I was worshipping was the God of Jesus Christ, and not a horned creature which lived in a fiery pit. Just a thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by DreamTrove-
I'm completely unconvinced. I think there is a possibility to deliberately misinterpret the text,
regarding the fallen angels and their hybrid offspring, we have to understand what happened in Eden to caus our fall from the heavens into a sinful mortal state. the book of Enoch and its contents just further emphasizes the post-eden invasion of these angels and the aftermath(which was the flood-recorded also by the epic of gilgamesh)
Quote:
but this is more than that, it's also taking the textual perspective and using it as the basis for a historical account to say that religions essentially spread from israel and mutated, which we know historically to not be the case.
well hold on..im not saying that at all. what is believed is Abraham is influenced to leave Haran (or Ur), in what is roughly accepted as 2000bc(neo-sumerian period). at this time he is living in the region of the babylonians and canaanites, cultures centered on 'pagan' fallen angelic worship. Abraham is selected by YHWY because he believes in a creator, perfect and unseen, not these ego-central deities with human-esque frailties which had presented themselves to man since the Seth and Cain bloodlines.
Quote:
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the original hebrew creation myth was El-centric, and that Jesus was an outlander who worshipped El, who he addresses in the text by name. As not a servant of Yhwh, he has a very different picture of divinity, with peace and forgiveness, instead of vengeance, jealousy and war.
im not sure.. i dont see why Jesus woudlnt tell his disciples this, rather then quote OT verses and honor prophets like Elijah and Moses, or identify with himself as sitting at the right hand side of the Creator. now Lucifer is considered the angel of light, the prince of this world and god of this age, and was a present physical being.. it could be possible that it was these kinds of angelic influences coupled with our sinful nature and free will that allowed for a deception of the israelites, but i dont know. quote me the verses you find questionable and lets go through it
Quote:
The original god of the heavens is not Yhwh, but rather that would be El, the high one, god of the heavens, who married the god of the sea, and became god of rain. Yhwh was born in his earliest myths in a cave of fire inside of or under Mt. Sinai, also known as he who shall not be named, the nameless one, and Yahoveha the God of War.
so you dont believe YHWY to be the Creator God, but a lesser god(Or rather an 'angel')? quote me the scriptures and we'll scrutinize them
Quote:
It's possible, from a christian perspective that their is a fundemental inconsistancy here, and that historically, I think this is caused by Paul, and his crowd, who forced the merger of Yhwh+Jesus and of OT+NT to try to bring conversion to the jews, but instead infected his new religion with Yhwh, God of War.
well heres the thing.. the jews of the pharisee sect who killed Jesus, by his own words were of the synogogue of Satan.. much of israels history in the OT was a result of the heretical babylonian influence of the kabbala. id like to hear your references though and go through them
Quote:
The religion is split into warring factions because such is the will of God. As God of war he would thrive on conflict, and would deliberately split his followers and pit them against one another. Nothing seems more natural for a God of war.
i cant see how the Creator could be anything less than perfect, as Jesus implies..but maybe one of the deficient personalities of the various mesopotamian pantheon gods
Quote:
But the adoption of the creator title could be seen as totally malicious, and deceptive. Yhwh is the creator according to the cult of Yhwh, because Yhwh says that it is so. But an objective read of his book shows Yhwh to be basically evil, maybe evil without restriction or reservation.
i guess i need you to give me some specifics so i can see the contex
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason,
You surprised me with the openminded response. Okay, I agree, we'll dig through this stuff and see what we find. Sure, of course I'm open to all sorts of possibilities, just trying to find what *is*.
I have some links to some stuff, I was doing this research a year ago or so, I need to dig this stuff up. I get that you're open to the speculation of the pre-judean world view since you keep bringing in the sumerians.
But give me a few days. I have a ton to do, and I need to find the time to find the links and the articles I read, dig through all the agenda-driven stuff for the pure research.
Thanks for taking me seriously.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- *thanks.. we're both just trying to find what is the truth. you know im not a know-it-all, i do make mistakes and am not perfect etc; but i genuinely study biblical related history, which to me includes everything of the ancient world.. since i find it all very relevant. im studying the OT some more, and the 'controversial' texts.. so im willing to put it to the test, but maybe in a religious thread, since this one was supposed to be about the in-debatable stature of 'Darwinian Evolution'..
with that in mind i think you should check this site out- KANEMAN i think you would appreciate this
Quote:
http://www.biped.info/index.html
BIPED MANIFESTO
This website has no religious leanings. It has been created as a resource to collect various writings of Darwinian Dissent and to link to similar sites to share information. The projected aims of this website - to be collectively fulfilled by any who want to be involved - are the following:
1. To teach what evolution is and what it isn't. To assist those interested in gaining an understanding of Darwinian evolution and, more specifically, to teach them to distinguish between what Darwin proposed as the science behind the evolution of forms, and what his followers, so-called neo-Darwinists, have misinterpreted in popular writings as Darwin's thesis. Read the articles and you will learn.
2. And you thought there was only Darwin vs. God? To show that there are valid scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution other than "creation," although we are not particularly opposed to that term ("if it walks like a duck"). Among other alternatives, variations and meldings of "creationism" and "evolution" that will be introduced, along with the proponents of these theories, are the following: Intelligent Design Theory, Gaia Hypothesis, Theory of Formative Causation, Vitalism, Astrogenesis, Panspermia, Ballistic Panspermia, Information Theory, Systems Theory, Extraterrestrial Seeding, Genetic Manipulation and some crossing, blending or borrowing between these theories.
3. The Catastrophic pre-history of Earth To look at the facts of Catastrophism (which Darwinists avoid because it messes up their peaceful little world as it is evolving) as a system of cyclic destruction and creation of life forms on Earth. We will discuss the bearing this has on Darwinian evolution, as many scientists come forth to admit the universe, the cellular world and the fossil record all implicate intelligent design.
These statements about Darwinian theory may surprise you:
Evolution is a Rag Hypothesis.
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts. - Charles Darwin to Asa Gray
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of species.
Darwin did not really explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one species might proliferate into many. - Douglas Futuyma
Evolution is Defective.
The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. - Dr A. Fleishmann, Zoologist
Evolution is Pure Fantasy.
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet, the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. - David M. Raup, Geologist
Evolution is based on Ideology.
There is no evidence for a primeval soup… The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology. - Hubert Yockey, Information Theory
Evolution is Vague.
The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds. - LudwNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not at all. It was a thread about debates. I used evolution as an example., but there's a whole bunch of deceptive debate tactics. Send me an email at dreamtrove -at- gmail.com, and we'll talk god. i'm not really interested in the flame wars which would ensue here on the board on such a topic. I'm not really guessing, I dimly recall a holy war in the not to distant past.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME