Demons and God did the same thing *gasp*

by ESTEE 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ESTEE

  Interesting thing I read in Carolynn Myss:

  Among God stories, the Jewish tradition is unique because Yahweh is never depicted as being sexual. . . . When Christianity appeared on the scene, however, its then-still-Jewish followers gave their God a human body, calling him Jesus, the son of God. The Christians’ great heresy, for other Jews, was to cross the biological divide and begin their new theology with a biospiritual event—the Annunciation. In the Annunciation the angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary that she has shown great favor with the Lord and is to bear a son and call him Jesus. The implication is that God is the biological father of this child. Suddenly the abstract Divine principle in Judaism called Yahweh was mating with a human woman.—Anatomy of the Spirit, p. 65.

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses condemned the Nephilim claiming these were children born to Angels who came down to marry the daughters of men that Genesis Chapter 6:2-7 speaks of. The religion condemned the angels, saying they were disobedient. They were to be sexless. So why is God any better than the "disobedient" mating angels who came down to earth?

  2

  the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

  4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

  5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

  I still have questions about religious philosophy, I can see. I’m sure there is an easy explanation. Perhaps "intent" is a qualifier. The "disobedient" angels came to earth to enjoy the beautiful women. This was not part of God’s plan for them. God’s purpose, on the other hand, was "pure": salvation of mankind being his motive.

  Another question arises as a result of the issue of God and the "disobedient" angels. The angel babies were Nephilim, who were hybrid giants. God’s baby was a perfect man.

  Can anyone explain this to me?

  ESTEE
• 

  Terry

  I don't for a minute think any of it actually happened, but; just for the sake of argument we'll pretend it did.

  Angels would have to possess the innate ability to CREATE a human body and transform their own self into such a manifestation. Think about what this would actually mean.

  1.A human body is the result of the uniting of previous genes and DNA from parents. An angel has no DNA or genes from parents. Consequently there would be no genetic code.

  2.Human sexuality is the result of the human brain's stimuli to hormones and thinking patterns embedded in the behavior by genetic schema developed over millions of years. Angels are immaterial spirits according to scripture and would not be subject to the physical sensations or hormonal stimuli.

  3.While we might take it as a "given" that Jehovah could manufacture a genetic history and DNA code as a parental contributor to a child with a physical earthly woman, there is no reason to expect that angels would have any such ability.

  4.The mythology of surrounding pagan nations for hundreds of centuries make it clear that a demi-god and the union of a human and a god were common imaginary tropes. That the Hebrews concocted one right in the the same template and applied their own mythos to it is understandable.

  5.That we living today in the wake of science, logic, higher education and common experience would ever consider accepting ancient mythology as fact is inexcusable and neurotic in the extreme.

  It only serves to inform us how deeply susceptible we are as a society to the impressionable manipulations of our childhood. Parents have an agenda to brainwash our thinking into accepting god-think as a normal and preferable (and superior!) manner of consideration. But, in fact, it is sick and destructive and retards our maturation.
• 

  Arthur

  Not all Biblical scholars are in agreement regarding the accounts of the angels having sex relations with women. Many scholars have written it off as mythological or metaphorical. Other scholars who believe in OT inerrancy have a different take on it. Biblical scholar Gleason Archer does not believe that the account is even talking about angels at all.

  Archer believes that the account; when talking about "sons of God", is actually refering to young men from the godly line of Seth, while the daughters of men were women of the polluted line of Cain. Here's what Archer wrote:

  "In other words, the 'sons of God' in this passage were descendants of the godly line of Seth. Instead of remaining true to their spiritual heritage, they allowed themselves to be enticed by the beauty of ungodly women who were the 'daughters of men' - that is, of the tradition and example of Cain. The natural result of such marriages was a debasement of nature on the part of the younger generations, until the entire antediluvian civilization sank to the lowest depths of depravity . . . The inevitable result was judgement, the terrible destruction of the Great Flood." - Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties
• 

  ESTEE

  Thanks Terry.

  Agreed. So, say it really happened . . .

  Simply put, God is the "creator" and the demons are his "creation" because God made a baby, it was okay. But when the demons did ---it wasn't . . .? Some might say that since the demons did it first, it gave God "ideas"

  I believe that what the religion taught serves only those in the religion. Their beliefs do not serve anyone on the outside.

  Makes the door-to-door work redundant.

  Thanks, Arthur:

  Not all Biblical scholars are in agreement regarding the accounts of the angels having sex relations with women. Many scholars have written it off as mythological or metaphorical. Other scholars who believe in OT inerrancy have a different take on it. Biblical scholar Gleason Archer does not believe that the account is even talking about angels at all.

  Hmmmm . . . Believe it or not, I think I might want a copy of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties. I bet it makes for some interesting reading.

  ESTEE
• 

  Arthur

  Hmmmm . . . Believe it or not, I think I might want a copy of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties. I bet it makes for some interesting reading.

  Just to let you know, Gleason Archer; who wrote the above volume, is an Evangelical who believes in Biblical inerrancy. I believe his analysis of the above account does make some sense; but his views regarding other Old Testament accounts are downright silly in my opinion. He is one who is very creative and (i.m.o.) intellectually dishonest in his attempts to prove the global flood as literal history. His is also a scholar who is quoted quite extensively by the Watchtower Society; which should tell you something. His quote that I cited was actually lifted from the book: Secret Origins Of the Bible written by Tim Callahan. Callahan included several quotes from Archer's encyclopedia as part of his work.

  Callahan's book on the otherr hand, is extremely fascinating. His research is quite impressive. When he explains various Old Testament accounts and their mythological origins; many of the account's anomalies begin to make sense. For example: why does Yahweh take a rib from Adam to create Eve? Why did Yahweh station a cherub and a flaming sword outside of the Garden of Eden upon Adam & Eves expulsion? Why did Samsopn tie the tails of foxes together to burn the Phillistine fields? Etc. Etc. Callahan's book is one that I strongly recommend; and is one you will probably enjoy.
• 

  myelaine

  dear ESTEE...(beautiful name btw)...

  Jesus was the only immortal that was willing to be born of woman ...which made him Perfectly obedient...all the other immortals wanted to enter woman... you know... the other way, thats why their babies were not perfect...

  that's why we are asked to believe in Christ as the Perfect Lamb of God.

  Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is Spirit.(John 3:5)...

  so all those "bad angels" that wont believe that Jesus was THE Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world are simply not Spirit begotten sons of God...just flesh from flesh...imo.

  love michelle
• 

  ESTEE

  Hi Michelle,

  dear ESTEE...(beautiful name btw)...

  Thanks. It's what my friends call me . . . my real name being Esther. Named after the Bible character.

  Thanks for your explanation.

  Lately I'm searching for explanations that are "outside the box".
  I'm curious about a possible metaphysical meaning to this issue . . . anyone out there?

  *hugs*

  ESTEE
• 

  greendawn

  The early Christians clearly did not exactly identify Jesus with the God of the Jews that is God the Father though they called him Lord and occasionally God in the sense of one with a unique divine rank. That was a later development as the Trinity dogma was formulated. For them he was under the headship of God the Father.
• 

  Leolaia

  Demons and God did the same thing *gasp*

  The Jewish and early Christian belief, btw, is that the demons are the offspring of the fallen angels -- the spirits of the dead Nephilim still roaming the earth (who lost their fleshly bodies through drowning; that is why they continue to seek bodies to possess and that is why they drown themselves in Mark 5) -- not the fallen angels themselves, who were put into an infernal prison (cf. Jude 6, which is directly dependent on these traditions).

  Many scholars have written it off as mythological or metaphorical.

  Arthur....I would say that most scholars recognize the mythological stratum in Genesis 6:1-4, which is even more overt in the Enochic literature (cf. the references to Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim, for example).

  Archer believes that the account; when talking about "sons of God", is actually refering to young men from the godly line of Seth, while the daughters of men were women of the polluted line of Cain.

  The Sethite interpretation of this passage -- once popular in Protestantism owing to its adoption by Luther and Calvin -- is today generally rejected since it imposes itself rather than explains the language of the pericope itself (e.g. the meaning of bny h-'lhym elsewhere in the OT and similar terms in Ugaritic literature, bnwt cannot have a narrower reference in v. 2 than it has in v. 1, etc.), it was unknown in all Jewish interpretation which very early onward interpreted it as referring to divine beings (cf. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the LXX, Josephus, the NT, etc.), it did not arise until fairly late in Christian tradition (it was first proposed by Julius Africanus in the third century AD), and it has a clear apologetic motive (avoiding the sexual scandal of angel-human intermingling which poses theological probems).
• 

  Undecided

  What purpose did God have in destroying all those people back in Noah's day, it just came back just like it was supposedly before the flood. Maybe so he could kill billions this time by Armageddon.

  Ken P.