So will the Nephilim get a resurrection?
Sure.... we can always use someone really tall to pick the apples from the top of the trees.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
46
Nephilim...Only desired females
by RULES & REGULATIONS inbible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
-
-
-
46
Nephilim...Only desired females
by RULES & REGULATIONS inbible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
-
-
peacefulpete
Ray...reread the wiki excerpt you posted. It specifically says what I did.
As far as little people legends:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_people_(mythology)
I have no desire to argue the point. It's not hard to understand legends of large or small people or ugly or evil or wise or fast or invisible etc. Human imagination is pretty predictable. Take what you see and overlay what you wish or you fear.
When you need to make that what you fear seem powerful you endow it with size or magic. Kinda like how the Christian who wrote Gospel of Peter who wished to make his heroes (angels and Jesus) powerful described them as giants:
40) And the heads of the two reached as far as heaven, but that of the one being led by them reached beyond the heavens.
-
6
Temple Talk
by peacefulpete inrecall the famous charge made against jesus in his trial in the gospel mark: .
“we heard him say, ‘i will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days i will build another, not made with hands.’”.
matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of mark:.
-
-
peacefulpete
Vidqun.... I don't know but another thread had an issue also. It posted then disappeared for about a day then reappeared without the comments. It's all above my head.
Regarding your comment. I wasn't looking for religious interpretation of Rev or the Paulines. The post was about the historical expectation of the messiah rebuilding the temple and how to deconstruct the Gospels with that information.
I guess I can add that 2 Baruch a first century Jewish work has similar language, the temple was not the real temple, it was in Paradise in heaven. So the thoughts were circulating, I imagine even more widely outside Israel.
-
6
Temple Talk
by peacefulpete inrecall the famous charge made against jesus in his trial in the gospel mark: .
“we heard him say, ‘i will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days i will build another, not made with hands.’”.
matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of mark:.
-
-
peacefulpete
Googe chrome
-
6
Temple Talk
by peacefulpete inrecall the famous charge made against jesus in his trial in the gospel mark: .
“we heard him say, ‘i will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days i will build another, not made with hands.’”.
matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of mark:.
-
-
peacefulpete
First a technical question. I tried 3 times to post this thread and each time it appeared to get stuck in que. I was just repeating that this morning and discovered it had posted a few hours before. Is it a known issue? Is it my computer?
I agree G.Mark was written post70. In fact I'm persuaded the original form of G.Mark was written as a play for public performance and subsequently adapted as a narrative with a bunch of additions. However the thread was focusing on the language of the charge, to destroy the temple and rebuild it. It doesn't seem that that would have been necessarily controversial for someone claiming to be the Messiah. I find it too coincidental. Maybe the story reflects some historical kernel regarding a claimant to the title that was an embarrassment to the next generation, requiring the writer of Mark to assert it was a false claim and later G.John, to not deny, but reinterpret as symbolism. The 3 day motif plausibly appeared in an early revision of Mark that the writer of Matt had. The last part about, 'not made with hands' a still later addition post G.John. These were hand written copies and easily susceptible to harmonizations and interpolation.
Regarding Zechariah, yes at least 2 authors are now recognized by critical scholarship, but what is relevant is how this work was perceived by the first century Jews. They saw 'prophecy' or dual meanings in texts that on their face did not present as prophecy or suggest a dual application. The NT writers were hardly original in doing this. It's basically recycling. You have only so many holy texts so you make them fit new situations.
-
6
Temple Talk
by peacefulpete inrecall the famous charge made against jesus in his trial in the gospel mark: .
“we heard him say, ‘i will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days i will build another, not made with hands.’”.
matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of mark:.
-
-
peacefulpete
Recall the famous charge made against Jesus in his trial in the Gospel Mark:
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of Mark:
“This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”
Whether the authors understood Jesus as having actually said that is uncertain as both say this charge is brought by false witnesses. G.John on the other hand takes places the line in Jesus' mouth and offers an explanation as a symbolic metaphor. Temple=Jesus's body. (theological problems aside).
Regardless, something I had never learned as a JW was the second temple period expectation that the Temple would be destroyed and subsequently rebuilt by the Messiah. The primary text lending to this is Zech 6:12
12Then say to him, ‘The LORD of armies says this: “Behold, there is a Man whose name is [f]Branch, for He will [g]branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. 13Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the majesty and sit and rule on His throne..."
While a lot from that period has been lost sometimes we get lucky. The famous and renown first century Rabbi Yohana ben Zakkai is quoted as declaring after the doors of the Temple opened by themselves:
"O Temple, Temple, why dost thou frighten thyself? I know of thee that thou shalt be destroyed; Zechariah the son of Iddo [Zech. xi. 1] has already prophesied concerning thee: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars'"
The same R.Yohanan is said to have spoken with general Vespasian, addressed him as Lord Emperor to which Vespasian objected given he was not the emperor to which R, Yohanan announced:
"If you are not the king you will be eventually, because the Temple will only be destroyed by a king's hand".
As we know soon later he did become the Emperor so millions of Jews see him as a prophet. But note the resignation with the Temple being destroyed.
There is more on this topic, but what do you think? If one of the most influential Pharisee of the time interpreted Zechariah as foretelling the destruction of the Temple so that it could be rebuilt by the Messiah, why the accusation in Mark? Was it evidence that he was declaring himself the Jewish Messiah? Why does Mark seem to be insisting the charge was a lie? Was the writer indicating Jesus was not the Messiah they were expecting?
As for the author of G.John he seems to be in his own way also distancing Jesus from the charge by reinterpreting it as a prophecy of Jesus's death and resurrection. Maybe feeling the need to after the many years the Temple was not fully rebuilt. (btw. they did start) (G.Mark was likely interpolated to harmonize with John's spiritual take.)
Discuss.
-
46
Nephilim...Only desired females
by RULES & REGULATIONS inbible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
-
-
peacefulpete
Ray....your argument that if a mythology crosses cultures they must be historical means not only giants but elves fairies etc must be. Surely you are not suggesting that. Wouldn't it rather make sense to understand commonality in folklore as the result of common human psychology and cross cultural influences? We can often trace that exchange through linguistics for example. If you haven't, please carefully read the thread I linked to and pick up the discussion if you wish.
-
6
Something that bothers me personally
by Blotty in(i apologise if this is the wrong section for this - its the one i think suits best)this may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, which i will list as questions in the near future)i recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - i find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. they wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.
i.e on the divine name, i listed scholars such as george howard - i got the answer "try a real scholar"or another example i cited beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "he doesn't teach greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)once again i apologise if this is wasting anyone's time.
-
-
peacefulpete
Blotty, no doubt you've been around people who hold what's often called "fringe" ideas. Sometimes those ideas have merit but, as yet, not gotten the attention of the experts in the field. More often however the ideas have been reviewed and discredited or at least dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence. Humans in general have a hard time with changing, especially if the idea has emotional importance to the person. In the internet age fringe ideas run wild and are spread rapidly. The good thing is the responses to these ideas are also available. It generally takes 10 minutes of googling to get a perspective.
Those who wish to retain discredited ideas give lip service to the value of fact checking but seldom really pursue it. In fact often the believer in a discredited idea insists everyone else is guilty of ignoring evidence, the evidence they see as persuasive.
Learning how to detect bias, think critically, and openness to disproof are more important now than ever.
When it comes to deep religious history, the evidence may be inconclusive or not even heavily favoring one position. That is hard to accept, but disciplined minds have to.
Sometimes not having sufficient evidence for something can in it's own way be evidence.
eg. Since you seem to be focusing on the Jewish name for God, consider what the lack of evidence suggests. Maybe the name isn't all that relevant.. It apparently wasn't important to the writers and editors and manifestly not important to the God, assuming you see God involved in the writings.
-
46
Nephilim...Only desired females
by RULES & REGULATIONS inbible questions answered.
who were the nephilim?.
the bible account says that “the sons of the true god began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (genesis 6:2) those ‘sons of god’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against god when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”—jude 6; genesis 6:2.. the hybrids born from this unnatural union were no ordinary children.
-
-
peacefulpete
The enigmatic mystery of the Nephilim, the Rephaim, and the Titans.
Great thread above regarding the giant stories and how the traditions varied. As a side, I thought the WT teaching was that the angels were allowed back up and were there until 1914. They were "apparently" restrained from making babies anymore. Which of course means those angels were pretty randy for thousands of years. "Apparently" all they could do was play with their ectoplasm.
-
26
Noah's Ark - Kentucky
by BoogerMan inregardless of belief/non-belief in the bible account, why is the ark nearly always depicted by both believers & non-believers as a huge boat, with a rounded hull & stern, and a tapered bow?
https://arkencounter.com/ .
the ark was crate shaped according to the measurements.
-
-
peacefulpete
Perhaps the Bible's description of the vessel being called an 'ark' (meaning chest or coffer) instead of a 'boat,' offers a clue as to its functional shape
The last poster is absolutely correct, the point is mute. However since this was the argument the WT used to say it was a box shape, it is worth analyzing. The word 'tevah' (an Egyptian loan word, ark) is only used two times in the Tanakh (OT). The second time it refers to a pitch coated floating (basket?) Moses was placed in when put in the Nile. Clearly the author was linking the two stories, stories of divine passage through water. (another time). I never saw the WT depict Moses in a box. That's all I'm saying.