Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Alleged Sons of God


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#91    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 June 2012 - 07:08 PM

View PostErudite Celt, on 02 June 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

I am surprised that you have usurped the Aramaic word Child for the Greek word Baby! You rather unbelievably quote Josephus from Book 8 of the Testimonium.A book which you have publicly labelled under a heading as THE BOOK THAT JOSEPHUS DID NOT WRITE!!! I am well aware that book 8 has been modified to suit the political ends of the early Catholic church and as such I am loath to use it as a reliable source. So am I to understand that you no longer believe the book to be a pure invention  or are you prepared to abandon your scruples and quote sources to meet your own anti-Christian (Antichrist) ends?

Antichrist. That's the first time I am referred to as antichrist. I'll take the chance to explain to you what antichrist really means. "Christ" comes from the Greek word for anointed or Messiah, which in Hebrew means also "anointed" or Mashiach. If you read Habakkuk 3:13 it says that the Lord comes out to save His People His anointed one. Within that context, the Jewish People is the anointed one of the Lord; aka, the Messiah. Now, what is the right definition for the word "antichrist?" That's anyone who stands against the anointed one of the Lord. Any one who stands against Israel.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 June 2012 - 07:08 PM.


#92    SCFan

SCFan

    ISA 62:2; 65:15; HOS 1:10; 2:23; MATT 21:43; ACTS 11:26

  • Member
  • 2,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2012 - 11:31 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 02 June 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Antichrist. That's the first time I am referred to as antichrist. I'll take the chance to explain to you what antichrist really means. "Christ" comes from the Greek word for anointed or Messiah, which in Hebrew means also "anointed" or Mashiach. If you read Habakkuk 3:13 it says that the Lord comes out to save His People His anointed one. Within that context, the Jewish People is the anointed one of the Lord; aka, the Messiah. Now, what is the right definition for the word "antichrist?" That's anyone who stands against the anointed one of the Lord. Any one who stands against Israel.
Ben

Which would include the Lord Himself?

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#93    Erudite Celt

Erudite Celt

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Joined:17 May 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2012 - 05:09 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 10 May 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Hey Bella, there is no need to persuade me that Jesus was a son of Mary with Joseph. That's exactly what I have chosen to believe in. The problem is based on the Christian stiff necked attitude to deny that Jesus was NOT a biological son of Joseph's. That's why they are the ones, not us, to blame for the suspiction that Jesus could have been the result of a Roman rape.
Ben
It,s not based on stiff necked Christian attitudes! Isaiah clearly gave the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Why would anyone who calls himself a believer choose to ignore the word of Isaiah?

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version[NIV])


#94    deerslayer

deerslayer

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Joined:05 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:kentucky

  • Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that! (George Carlin)

Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:01 AM

Ben,

I have been told that "the sons of God" written about in Genesis refer to fallen angels (demons) whom were able to take on bodies and have human women as wives.  The offspring of this unholy union were called nephilims and tended to be giants (Goliath etc.)

Also, the reason for the flood was because only Noah and his family were free from nephilim genes.  Most Christians and Jews are not aware of this because the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever language Genesis was written in has been mistranslated to indicate Noah was the only good man left.  Some of this demon - human women contact also occured after the flood.  This is interesting to research.


#95    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:16 PM

View Postdside, on 02 June 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

Which would include the Lord Himself?

Yes, which includes Jesus, if this is what you mean. As far as Lord is concerned, he himself, in answer to a question about the greatest of the commandments, he declared that Adonai is absolutely One and the only Lord. That's in Mark 12:29 in answer to Deuteronomy 6:4.
Ben


#96    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:36 PM

View PostErudite Celt, on 03 June 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

It,s not based on stiff necked Christian attitudes! Isaiah clearly gave the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Why would anyone who calls himself a believer choose to ignore the word of Isaiah?

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version[NIV])

Erudite, let us try to find Jesus in Isaiah 7:14, will ya?

Isaiah 7:14 - "The virgin shall be with a child and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." Now, let us see if the virgin was Mary and the child was Jesus, and how about this  Immanuel?

Amos 5:2 - "She is fallen, to rise no more, the virgin Israel." From here, we already know that the virgin was not Mary but Israel that fell before the Assyrians.  Let us continue.

Isaiah 7:15 - "The child shall be living on butter and honey." Now, let us see what reference the child here is pointing to as living on butter and honey. Proceed.

Isaiah 7:22 - "Butter and honey shall be the food of all who remain in the Land."  Who remained in the whole Land when Israel was transferred to Assyria? Judah, right? Right. History is evidence of the fact stated in Isaiah 7:22. But let us proceed to strengthen the evidences, although the child has already been identified with Judah.

Isaiah 8:8 - "The Assyrians shall pass into Judah, and spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel." Now, we are sure from Prophet Isaiah that when he talks about Immanuel, he means Judah; and that the virgin was Israel, and the child was Judah. As you can see, there is nothing about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14. Only by faith which sees things in empty spaces.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 08 June 2012 - 08:41 PM.


#97    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:48 PM

View Postdeerslayer, on 05 June 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Ben,

I have been told that "the sons of God" written about in Genesis refer to fallen angels (demons) whom were able to take on bodies and have human women as wives.  The offspring of this unholy union were called nephilims and tended to be giants (Goliath etc.)

Also, the reason for the flood was because only Noah and his family were free from nephilim genes.  Most Christians and Jews are not aware of this because the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever language Genesis was written in has been mistranslated to indicate Noah was the only good man left.  Some of this demon - human women contact also occured after the flood.  This is interesting to research.

I have researched about this text. I found out that the Nephillim is part of a fragment from Babylonian myth of fallen evils angels in the desert. By some reason, Ezra found convenient to include this fragment just prior to the Flood to enhance the corruption of the people of that time. And this happened when he was still in Babylon where he completed the Tanach.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 08 June 2012 - 08:49 PM.


#98    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:23 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 08 June 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

I have researched about this text. I found out that the Nephillim is part of a fragment from Babylonian myth of fallen evils angels in the desert. By some reason, Ezra found convenient to include this fragment just prior to the Flood to enhance the corruption of the people of that time. And this happened when he was still in Babylon where he completed the Tanach.
Ben

You have got to be kidding. The Nephilim are merely the descendents of the fallen angels. Haven't you even read the book of Enoch? it goes into great detail about the history of the world prior to the flood. It gives great detail concerning the fallen angels and how they were involved with Eden. It even gives the name of the fallen angel which tempted Eve witht he fruit of the tree of knowledge. Eden traditions are HEBREW creation accounts. Ezra was drawing upon Hebrew Enochian traditions when he included the mention of certain things in Genesis. Your babylonian "fragment" stuff is pure bombast and buncombe.


#99    lozaleibou

lozaleibou

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2012

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:46 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 21 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Why is a late 2nd Century writing (appearing only in history because of a 3rd Century Christian author quoting him) seen by you as reliable while other 1st Century texts are ignored as forgeries?


Excellent question!!!!!


#100    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:20 PM

View PostVatic, on 18 September 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

You have got to be kidding. The Nephilim are merely the descendents of the fallen angels. Haven't you even read the book of Enoch? it goes into great detail about the history of the world prior to the flood. It gives great detail concerning the fallen angels and how they were involved with Eden. It even gives the name of the fallen angel which tempted Eve witht he fruit of the tree of knowledge. Eden traditions are HEBREW creation accounts. Ezra was drawing upon Hebrew Enochian traditions when he included the mention of certain things in Genesis. Your babylonian "fragment" stuff is pure bombast and buncombe.

You must be a member of the literal interpretation club. Listen Vatic, the whole Genesis account of Creation is nothing other than a huge allegory as the Jewish contribution for the creation of man among all the cultures of the world. Besides, this so-called book of Enoch is not part of the Jewish Canon of the Tanach. Therefore, without significant meaning as the Jewish Scriptures are concerned. We are already having a hard time to harmonize what is extant, and you are bringing more legends. You are not making it any easier that way.

Ben


#101    lozaleibou

lozaleibou

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2012

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:07 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 25 September 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

the whole Genesis account of Creation is nothing other than a huge allegory as the Jewish contribution for the creation of man among all the cultures of the world. Ben

You might have to explain what you mean here Ben.  Are you saying that your own Jewish texts are not accurate or literal?


#102    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 26 September 2012 - 05:36 AM

Ben Masada: You must be a member of the literal interpretation club.

Vatic: You must be a pigeon holer. You just said something absurd.

Ben Masada: Listen Vatic, the whole Genesis account of Creation is nothing other than a huge allegory as the Jewish contribution for the creation of man among all the cultures of the world.

Vatic: You are such a phoney. You obviousley know next to nothing about Genesis. Genesis is a condensed compilation of many more elaborate Hebrew traditions. On top of that there is not one whole creation account in Genesis. There are elements of the Hebrew Eden tradition as well as a second Creation account reflecting the JEBU-SITE traditions. In fact, Genesis begins with the JEBU-SITE traditions.

It is the Hebrew Eden traditions from which we have the Hebrew "Fallen Angels" traditions which are engrained and reflected in the Hebrew culture. For instance the comment is made in the Epistles, that women should cover her hair "because of the angels", which comment by the Jewish author reflects his awareness of the Fallen Angels (Sons of God) being tempted by the beauty of the hair of women.

The mention of Abraham meeting Melchisedek in Genesis is obviously included by Ezra because he sees that account as important. Why? Because for Ezra it was a fulfillment of prophecies of Enoch in which Melchisedec would return after the flood and meet a descendant of the families of Noah and Methuselah.

I seriously doubt you have the slightest clue to the meaning or background on a tenth of what is touched upon briefly in Genesis. Obviously you have no clue about the "Sons of God" even though I'm handing you the proper information on a silver platter. And you jsut want to argue and be disrespectful of your theological superior. You would be an embarrasment to Gamaliel with this "alledged sons of God" display of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Ben Masada: Besides, this so-called book of Enoch is not part of the Jewish Canon of the Tanach. Therefore, without significant meaning as the Jewish Scriptures are concerned. We are already having a hard time to harmonize what is extant, and you are bringing more legends. You are not making it any easier that way. Ben

Vatic: Only brainwashed simpletons believe others have a right to tell us to confine ourselves to their approved text. Those who compile "canons" are arrogating an authority they don't have. Jews get brainwashed to just read Tenach, and Christian to the 66 books. Nonsense! It is the perpetuation of ignorance.

You can't possibly understand the Tenach or the Christians canon without the background text and traditions from which they draw upon very frequently. They have everything to do with the defining meaning of Jewish scriptures. They don't make it harder to define scripture, they clarify scriptures because the scriptures referance those other writings and traditions. I am making it easier for you if you only weren't so head copped.

Edited by Vatic, 26 September 2012 - 05:47 AM.


#103    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:04 AM

View Postdeerslayer, on 05 June 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Ben,

I have been told that "the sons of God" written about in Genesis refer to fallen angels (demons) whom were able to take on bodies and have human women as wives.  The offspring of this unholy union were called nephilims and tended to be giants (Goliath etc.)

Also, the reason for the flood was because only Noah and his family were free from nephilim genes.  Most Christians and Jews are not aware of this because the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever language Genesis was written in has been mistranslated to indicate Noah was the only good man left.  Some of this demon - human women contact also occured after the flood.  This is interesting to research.

You are absolutely correct and on track Deerslayer. What you are putting forward is reliable information. Here's a couple of links to some scholarly editions and invaluable resource and very enjoyable reading.

http://www.amazon.co...=pseudepigrapha

http://www.amazon.co...=pseudepigrapha


#104    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 26 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 21 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD
  

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father?
Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

You mentioned the Roman soldier, and here is what Wiki says, about a Roman grave found in Germany:

Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera
from Sidon, aged 62 years
served 40 years, former standard bearer(?)
of the first cohort of archers
lies here



http://en.wikipedia...._Abdes_PanteraT


So, it's not just Celsus, an anti-Christian pagan, who claimed Jesus to be the illegal son of a Roman soldier, but there actually was a Roman soldier with that name, and who came from Sidon.

Sidon, where Jesus went to, and didn't want anyone to see or recognize him....

No proof, but indeed a possibility.


#105    The Gremlin

The Gremlin

    Gnawing at the ankles of Falsehood

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,015 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cymru

  • sniffing the finger of truth

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 25 April 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

Not that it be my wish or belief that any thing of that sort ever happened to Mary. I would rather sustain that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's than to have such a tragedy happened to Mary. If there is someone here to blame for, Christians are the ones for promoting the Greek myth of the demigod.
Ben
I would suggest that Mary was neither raped by a roman soldier (although prostitution cannot be ruled out), nor was miraculously inseminated by any deity or alien.

Rather the origin of Jesus was rewriten for the Hellenistic world to bring his 'legend' in line with other prominent men.....who had this virgin birth attributed to them, and the demi-gods of the myths and mystery religions.
It was the only way to compete.

I rarely talk about such things but I once shoveled 18 tons of material in 11 min-
utes. It was under ideal conditions which allowed use of the legs and gravity
but I know no one who could have matched it and I do know work
.
...Cladking
If you were a dragon wouldn't you rather eat fat, alocohol fill, Nordic giants, than stringy little Chinamen?   Draconic Chronicler.
You claim you do research and then disregard the fact the Pyramids were built by God, which is why no man-made computer can replicate it.  The Interpreter




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users