The Bible, UFOs, ET and the Ancients Part 3

First topic message reminder :

Hi ScarZ,

Thank you for posting this information. Does any of David Flynn's material give any idea to the time-frames for the early events or historical figures that his research indicated?

mdonnall2002 wrote:
And Why would HE need to enlist 'them' - in aiding Him - to "confuse the tongues of man" and divide us? In all places at all times with unlimited power? A God with an army of 'them'?

Do you believe - God is endless, timeless, vastness, with unlimited power, can do all and see all, and can be in a thousand locations at once? Answer from the heart.

Yes, scripture shows us God uses many. God issues orders to follow, and God has servants and messengers - the Kingdom of God.

ScaRZ as well as Cyrellys answered these things, in the same ways I understand.

A few extra tid-bits.....

In Genesis there is the use of the Hebrew words YHWH and Elohim, used as names for G-d. YHWH is the "I AM", the creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in and on the earth. However Elohim is a plural "We"/God who made man in "THEIR" own image. In Genesis 1:1-25, YHWH is doing the creating. In Genesis 1:26 it is Elohim. And in the Babel story it is again the Elohim "We/Us".

Are the two different? Of course! But how are they different? Traditional Christianity simply presumes Elohim is the Trinity. But this can not be entirely accurate, for then there would be no reason why Elohim couldn't have been the creator in Gen 1:1-25.

I believe mdonnall, that in order for us to deeply understand what's going on in the Babel incident, we must take into consideration the differences between YHWH and Elohim. But Elohim is a complex subject for strictly minded Trinitarians to wrap their heads around.

Michael Heiser's " The Divine Council" is a good start.

And from there, we return to ScaRZ' analogy of God the Father guiding his children with free-will within parameters. But there is a twist, we are not simply His/YHWH children, but rather best understood as His Grandchildren.

The earth is a garden, we are the seeds. And the end game is the reaping of the harvest, at the end of this age.

To understand Elohim, we need to learn how to think like a son of God. Which is our destiny.

Jake:

You were posting when I was in the process of revising. I have been at the link you provided, by Scarz in the past. I will revisit. I am looking forward to M.H. completing his book on this subject.

I will revise a previous question to:

Can the Lord God Sin - against His own Will.

The Lord says: ‘man is become as one of us, to know good and evil’.

We are now continuing on a very fine line of theological implications, mind you. God, admittingly has placed: Him, Them, and man all on equal footing in the following regard – ‘to know both good and evil’.

Question 2 - three parts in all seriousness.

In knowing both good and evil – does not man sin?
In knowing both good and evil – have not angels sinned?


In knowing both good and evil – Can the LORD God, our creator(s), sin - against His own Will?

YHWH/God can not sin. There is no sin in God. It's an oxymoron.

However it is possible for some Elohim to sin. And so too Angels can sin. The price is separation. And both have done it.

Genesis 6:2 - Elohim

Jake Reason wrote:YHWH/God can not sin. There is no sin in God. It's an oxymoron.

However it is possible for some Elohim to sin. And so too Angels can sin. The price is separation. And both have done it.

Genesis 6:2 - Elohim

Perhaps you can expand on this when you find time.

The Lord, carved upon stone, Ten Commandments, with ‘his own hand’.
Thou shall not kill – being as one.

Did the Lord order man to kill in his name to punish a man for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, thereby forcing Moses and the congregation to break a commandment, thou shall not kill, upon which the Lord issued upon the stone tablets?

Numbers 15:31-36

31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Did they have to break a commandment in the wilderness - to fulfill the Lord's Command?

Elohim again?

Yes Jake you make a very good connection with the word Elohim. Elohim is not always pointing at The Father. Elohim can be seen as all those in the spirit realm. Michael Heiser did some great work in this area and I will post some of it below if I can find it.


Here is one from Peter Goodgame's site where Peter is using some of Michael Heiser's work on "Elohim".

http://redmoonrising.com/worldpowers/awpIII.htm


“In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth...”

“Then Elohim said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...’”

“So Elohim created man in his own image...”

“...in the image of Elohim he created him...”



Michael S. Heiser addresses this controversy by simply explaining the basic rules of Hebrew grammar. It is true that the word elohim is morphologically plural (its shape is plural), but this does not mean that its meaning should always be taken as plural. Heiser writes that...

“...as far as meaning, elohim can be either singular or plural depending on context. As anyone who has taken a language can testify, meaning is determined by context, not by a list of glosses in a dictionary (which are only OPTIONS—the translator must look to context for accuracy.)


More specifically, the meaning of any occurrence of elohim must be discerned in three ways:

A. Grammatical indications elsewhere in the text that help to determine if a singular or plural meaning is meant.

B. Grammatical rules in Hebrew that are true in the language as a whole.

C. Historical/Logical context.



To illustrate, consider words in English such as: “deer,” “sheep,” “fish” – the point is you need other words to help you tell if one or more than one of these animals is meant. Sometimes these other words are verbs that help you tell. Compare the two examples:

1) “The sheep is lost” – the word “is” is a singular verb (It goes with a singular subject; one wouldn’t say, for example, “I are lost” – you would use a verb that goes with the singular subject (“I am lost”).

2) “The sheep are lost” – the word “are” is a plural verb (again, another word next to our noun “sheep” tells us in this case that plural sheep are meant).


All of this is just basic grammar—and every language has grammar. Biblical Hebrew has its own way of telling if elohim means ONE person or many gods. It matches the noun elohim to singular or plural verbs, or with singular or plural pronouns...

In the Hebrew Bible, there are roughly 2500 cases where elohim is used as a singular noun denoting the God of Israel (that figure is arrived at on the basis of grammar and logical context). It isn’t a guess.”

These rules are understood in the many English translations, but sometimes they are not always followed exactly. A case in point is Genesis 35:1-7 when, many years after Jacob had seen his vision of the stairway to heaven, God spoke to Jacob again, and told him to return to Bethel. The text of this event helps to give a further explanation of Jacob’s earlier stairway vision,


“1. Then God said to Jacob, ‘Go up to Bethel and settle there, and build an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from your brother Esau.’

2. So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, ‘Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes. (3) Then come, let us go up to Bethel, where I will build an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.’

4. So they gave Jacob all the foreign gods they had and the rings in their ears, and Jacob buried them under the oak at Shechem. (5) Then they set out, and the terror of God fell upon the towns all around them so that no one pursued them. (6) Jacob and all the people with him came to Luz (that is, Bethel) in the land of Canaan.

7. There he built an altar, and he called the place El Bethel, because it was there that God revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother.”

Verse 1 begins with a clear statement from Elohim (singular, with singular verbs), that God had appeared (literally “presented himself”) before Jacob at Bethel in his earlier vision. At that point Jacob had received a promise from God that he was to serve the Lord only and not any of the other gods. That is why in verse 2 Jacob makes sure that none among his entourage have anything to do with any other gods before he returns to Bethel.

Verse 7 is the key, and it proves that in the earlier vision Jacob had not merely viewed the stairway to heaven, but had actually stood in the presence of the Divine Council when God made His promises to Jacob concerning Jacob’s descendents and the land. The above translation of the verse from the NIV Bible is incorrect, and Heiser points out that the usage of the term elohim in this case is accompanied by plural verbs, and should therefore read, “because there the gods appeared [literally “presented themselves”] to him, when he fled from the face of his brother.” Heiser explains,

“The interpretation/implication of this grammatical change is that BOTH God—the high God of Israel—and the gods of the divine council—the second tier—appeared to Jacob in the ladder vision... In effect, Jacob saw the entire council... at ‘heaven’s gate,’ the place where heaven and earth meet.”


And it was at this meeting when all of the heavenly host were present, when God reiterated to Jacob the promise that He was giving Jacob and his descendents the entire land of Canaan. It was a divine decree, and it was up to the independent spiritual rulers of the tribes of Canaan to lead their people away from a land that was not theirs. However, this they refused to do. Instead the land was fortified against the children of Israel, and the strongest and mightiest human beings on the earth, the giants that were descended from the mating that had occurred between “sons of God” and human women after the flood, were brought in to resist with force of arms the plans that God had decreed in the Council for His one small nation.

******************

This is from Michael Heiser's ........"God’s Home Address ". He goes into some good work of Eden being a dwelling place and headquarters of the divine council.

This is only a very small snippet so be sure and click the link to read the article.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/GodsAddress.pdf


In Israel’s theology, Eden, the tabernacle, Sinai, and the temple were equally the abode of Yahweh and his council.The Israelites who had the tabernacle and the temple were constantly reminded of the fact that they had the God of the cosmic mountain and the cosmic garden living in their midst, and if they obeyed him, Zion would become the kingdom domain of Yahweh, which would serve as the place to which he would re-gather the disinherited nations cast aside at Babel to Himself. Micah puts it rather well:


1
It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and it shall be lifted up above the hills;
and peoples shall flow to it,

2
and many nations shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

When I read the first draft of Michael Heiser's book "The Myth That Is True" this was what stood out to me most. Really the main points of "The Myth That Is True" are the Divine Council and how one day believers will be a part of the Divine Council. Those Divine Council Sons of God (Watchers,Holy Ones) that became corrupt lost their seats and will be replaced by the human Sons of God born from the resurrection of a new life that was made possible by Jesus Christ.

All the disinherited nations that took place at Babel that were put under the authority of lesser (elohim) sons of God will one day be in The Father's hands. These lesser (elohim) sons of God will not just turn the nations over,they will be "Taken" from them. All around us is a spiritual war of all wars going on and has been for a very long time.

The day Jesus Christ began his ministry it was all about taking back those disinherited nations from the enemy. The enemy didn't understand the road to The Cross. They may be wise but not wise enough. If they had known the full story the dark forces would never have taken the road they did. But one thing is certain,they still believe they can win.

The leaves of The Tree of Life for the healing of the nations will one day be a reality. This whole earth will one day be Eden. The Divine Council will be right here on this earth........."Eden".

Wow, that's quite a detailed lesson, ScaRZ. Thank you for sharing it.

The deeper down the rabbit hole we go, the more cavernous it becomes.

--------------

@mdonnal1,
with regards to the "stone him, Vs, thou shalt not kill" dichotomy. I only understand two ways of grokking it.

#1. It truly was a different age. Barbarism was the normal status quo throughout the human world at that time. To them it was not barbaric, but justifiable survivalism. And thus G-d could only deal with them within their own level of perception and understanding, within the context of their perceived only means of survival.

#2. The other was 'Jesus' explanation for the then dichotomy concerning marital divorce. Mark 10:2-12

"And some Pharisees came up to him, testing him, and began to question him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife, saying, “Is it awful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?”

And he answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

And they said. “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send Her away.”

And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that he who created them [but] from the beginning of creation made them male and female, and said, ‘for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and send her away?” [But]

Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery..... And in the house, the[y] disciples began to question him about this again. And he said to them, Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery against her, and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

So we see here a lesson of understanding:

That 'Jesus' said Moses was wrong from a heavenly perspective. BUT the divorce law was both inspired and granted solely because of the hardness of mankind's' hearts. IOW, An interim compromise was granted to suffice the plight of mankind's lowly worldly construct. But even with the written letter of divorce permitted by 'the law", Jesus assured that divorcees who remarry, auto become adulterers still the same.

[insert: this is not to imply that two divorcees who remarry can not be considered blessed by God. As they most certainly can. This is a separate issue in itself.]

These two examples above, provide understanding to help resolve the apparent dichotomies. In essence they are contextually paradigmical.

And to add some icing to the cake.... "Jesus" added a New Commandment to Moses' Law. John 13:34 - "A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

Moses wasn't given this law. Moses' law was given for a more ancient time than the time of 'Jesus'. It took ages for mankind to grow enough to be ready for a New Covenant.

Just as it is today, after 2,000 years of further growth, we are now on the cusp of another New Covenant.

Jake/All:

With all due respect, the dichotomy is still before us.

We know that those times were barbaric and it was common practice to stone as punishment, but you fall short in answering the question. I appreciate the illustrations you tendered in place of a direct answer to the question I posed.

Did the Lord order man to kill another as to punish him for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, thereby forcing Moses and the congregation to break a Holy commandment, thou shall not kill, upon which the Lord issued upon the stone tablets by His own hand?

For the sake of clarity – A simple yes or no would suffice to the following questions.

Did the Lords hand command – “thou shall not kill” to man?
Did the Lord command Moses and the men to stone a man to death - after He gave the commandment not to kill?

You claim it is oxymoronic to assume that the Lord could not sin, against His own will (while knowing both Good and evil) but in the few short verses I previously quoted, he apparently does so. How do you rationalize this?

The Lord gave a command to the congregation - to kill by stoning as the ink from the hand of the Lord was still wet upon the Ten Commandments!

Talk about a glaring contradiction!? Hurry up and turn the page!? Pretend we didn’t see that?!

Using the greater narrative of the future Christ (timeline) in trying to rationalize the moment which Moses was forced to kill does this discussion no justice. For the sake of dialog - exist in the time of Moses to solve this dilemma.

Yes, I agree, another Covenant is lowering upon us.
Time for more Elohim....

mdonnall2002 wrote:Jake/All:

With all due respect, the dichotomy is still before us.

We know that those times were barbaric and it was common practice to stone as punishment, but you fall short in answering the question. I appreciate the illustrations you tendered in place of a direct answer to the question I posed.

I don't think you're understanding my answer. You need to place yourself in that time, walking a mile in their moccasins.

Why did they pick stoning as the punishment? Why not a quick knife to the throat? Or hang them? Or banish them from the tribe into the wilderness? Why did they pick stoning? What was their thinking for that specific form of capital punishment?

We need to fully grasp that, before we can even understand why they had a free conscience with picking up stones and throwing them at their own tribesman, their own friends, or brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, even their own adult children or parents.

How could they justify this behavior? We know they did justify it as rational, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do it.

If we can't empathize with them in these regards, we can not begin to understand the apparent dichotomies.

Did the Lord order man to kill another as to punish him for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, thereby forcing Moses and the congregation to break a Holy commandment, thou shall not kill, upon which the Lord issued upon the stone tablets by His own hand?

So you are thinking that it doesn't matter what life was like in their time, because "the Lord" ordered a contradiction. It has nothing to do with the people, this is a Lord question. Is this your view?

For the sake of clarity – A simple yes or no would suffice to the following questions.

Did the Lords hand command – “thou shall not kill” to man?
Did the Lord command Moses and the men to stone a man to death - after He gave the commandment not to kill?

What do you mean by "the Lord"?

You are asking questions that require the application of deep wisdom. These can not be understood with 'black/white' or 'yes/no' reasoning.

I have answered you in my post above. It may take awhile to fully understand, but the answers are found there.

You claim it is oxymoronic to assume that the Lord could not sin, against His own will (while knowing both Good and evil) but in the few short verses I previously quoted, he apparently does so. How do you rationalize this?

Firstly, I did not claim that "the Lord" could not sin. I wrote that YHWH can not sin. And yes it is an oxymoron, as per the definition of 'sin'.

Who is it that does so?

I've rationalized it above. Again, these things require deep wisdom that includes (among other things) an understanding of the "the Divine Council".

The Lord gave a command to the congregation - to kill by stoning as the ink from the hand of the Lord was still wet upon the Ten Commandments!

No! Moses gave the commandment and they all agreed it to be "the Lord's" will.

There, I wrote it in plain english. Can you open your mind to understand this?

Talk about a glaring contradiction!? Hurry up and turn the page!? Pretend we didn’t see that?!

Digress: Did "the Lord" tell Abraham to take his boy Isaac up a mountain and kill him?

Is G-d a jokester? NO!

It was an inspiration that came to Abraham that spoke to his heart to prove his faith in G-d. That's all.

Now then Abraham interpreted that inspiration to mean that he take his son up a mountain. G-d is NOT a jokester. But God knew how such men thought in those days, so it must have been cute to Him to see Abraham charge up a mountain to sacrifice his son. Yes, Cute. Of course a ram was arranged to be there. But would Abraham figure it out? Would Abraham think he was to sacrifice the ram instead? Would Abraham be able to rationalize that the ram in place of his son would still prove his faith to G-d?

Well apparently he did. How?

An Angel appeared and confirmed to him. Confirmed what? Well minutes before Isaac asked his father about what they would sacrifice. And he told him that God Himself would provide the lamb for the burnt offering. And so an Angel tapped in on the shoulder at the last minute, to Confirm to Abraham his own inspired thought. As if to say to Abraham, "look over there, there is your sacrifice, go get it faithful one. Yes, God has heard your thoughts."
Genesis 22.

My point? G-d did not appear to Abraham and tell him with a Great Mighty Voice to sacrifice his son for Him. Rather Abraham only received an inspired thought, that he translated in his mind to mean, "Oh this means I have to sacrifice my son to the Lord". G-d was not tricking him. Rather Abraham took the inspired thought too far. Which G-d knew he would and thus provide the lesson.

G-d did not write the Bible. Men did. Inspired men.

Using the greater narrative of the future Christ (timeline) in trying to rationalize the moment which Moses was forced to kill does this discussion no justice.

Well hopefully what I've shared here will help you to begin to understand.

It's not easy, I know. Wisdom takes time to develop.

Believe it or not, if capital punishment were not in their Law, it would have been impossible for them to become a civilized nation.

Not because of G-d, but because of man's hardened hearts. As 'Jesus' spoke of.

So What Exactly is an Elohim?

By Michael Heiser


http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/What%20is%20an%20Elohim.pdf


Click the link for the full article.



With Chapter 3 fresh in your mind, you’re familiar with the other plural elohim of Yahweh’s council.No need to repeat that.So let’s move on to the other entities who are referred to as elohim.

In Deuteronomy 32, Moses is rehearsing how Israel sinned during their wilderness trek by worshipping other gods. When we get to verse 17 we read this statement (note the underlining): “They sacrificed to demons, not God,to gods (elohim) they had never known, new gods (lit., new ones) that had come along recently, whom your fathers had not feared.” The important observation is that the Israelites sacrificed to demons, and those recipients of the sacrifices are also called gods(elohim).

In 1 Samuel 28:13 we see that spirits of the human dead are also called elohim. That text occurs amid the story of Saul and the witch at Endor. The wider context (1 Samuel 28:3-18) reads:



Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had put the mediums and the necromancers out of the land.


The Philistines assembled and came and encamped at Shunem. And Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa.


When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly.


And when Saul inquired of the LORD, the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.


Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her." And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a medium at En-dor."


So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you."


The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?"


But Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing."


Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me."


When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul."


The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god(elohim) coming up out of the earth."


He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.


Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do."


And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?


The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me, for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David.


Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day.


Moreover, the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines."



Traditional commentators have often tried to argue that the text doesn’t mean what it clearly says. They want to have the woman lying to Saul. However, many scholars recognize that this hardly explains the woman’s fear—when she sees Samuel, she somehow knows it is Saul who stands before her. Nor does it do any good to say the woman was faking the event.

This would not explain Saul’s own conversation with Samuel.If the woman was lying, how is it that Saul speaks to the spirit of Samuel? There is evidently some entity present, because Saul bows down before it in homage.

The truth is that everything in this narrative conforms to ancient Near Eastern parallels that refer to the spirits of human dead as divine beings (elohim), and that have such spirits being able to cross over into the realm of the embodied living.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

In knowing both good and evil – Can the LORD God, our creator(s), sin - against His own Will?

This should answer your question mdonnall.


James 1:13-16

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Do not err, my beloved brethren.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

In knowing both good and evil – does not man sin?
In knowing both good and evil – have not angels sinned?

The first thing to remember was Eve was deceived and took and ate. Adam was not deceived he willingly took and ate.

Their shame came as their innocence fell from them...."They now stood naked stripped of their innocence."


Certainly man sins knowing of good and evil and (angels,messengers,Sons of God) have sinned and know of good and evil.

I believe the Heavenly Host are learning not only from fallen man,but also from the fallen Heavenly Host. They are watching as things play out. They can know of good and evil without sinning. Knowing of good and evil but choosing good.

NOTE:
Apparently - I still need a few classes on quoting properly. So, my apologies in advanced. The exchange is between Jake(in pink) and I.

Scarz/Jake – Thank you for your continued class on the Elohim. It is on my priority list to deeper involve my studies there.

I don't think you're understanding my answer. You need to place yourself in that time, walking a mile in their moccasins.
Why did they pick stoning as the punishment? Why not a quick knife to the throat? Or hang them? Or banish them from the tribe into the wilderness? Why did they pick stoning? What was their thinking for that specific form of capital punishment?

We need to fully grasp that, before we can even understand why they had a free conscience with picking up stones and throwing them at their own tribesman, their own friends, or brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, even their own adult children or parents.

How could they justify this behavior? We know they did justify it as rational, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do it.
If we can't empathize with them in these regards, we can not begin to understand the apparent dichotomies.

So you are thinking that it doesn't matter what life was like in their time, because "the Lord" ordered a contradiction. It has nothing to do with the people, this is a Lord question. Is this your view?

What I am attempting here is to get you to - 'stick to the facts, Jack'.

What you wish to do is, embellish within creative hyperbole to avoid the giving the obvious answer. I don't have to remind you that it was also the men of 'great wisdom' that slew the Son of Man. Yes, it was to be, I know. Don’t assume I am placing you in those shoes – for the record. My main intent is is coming.

What I also do not ‘get’ is this: Biblical dichotomies that exist – apparently require us to use a ‘greater wisdom’ (in you own words) yet, when they do not exist we are to take them as factual and literal events. Just a Creature of convenience?

I would not say that this is a Lord’s question. I believe it is a valid theological question, I pose.

What do you mean by "the Lord"?
You are asking questions that require the application of deep wisdom. These can not be understood with 'black/white' or 'yes/no' reasoning. I have answered you in my post above. It may take awhile to fully understand, but the answers are found there.

By the Lord, I mean: “And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Jake, what is so hard about admitting – the Lord ordered the death of a man by the men He Commanded – Thou shall no kill? It’s plain as day. It does not require a greater awareness to admit this verse basically proclaims: I am the Lord, I am pissed, I will have my vengeance. Let’s be brutally honest, this is the Old Testament.

And that is the intent of this discussion, Jake. Who is ‘the Lord’ in this verse, in your opinion? Is this the same Lord that put his hand to the stones? Is this the Elohim? Is this the Father of Creation?

Firstly, I did not claim that "the Lord" could not sin. I wrote that YHWH can not sin. And yes it is an oxymoron, as per the definition of 'sin'.

O.K. I will concede to this for now, but in my heart I am asking, “If One be your creator and destroys you – what would we deem this be?” Let us all be thankful for the New Testament, for my sake.

I know you are a busy man, Jake. I, therefore, will allow everyone their final thoughts before retract to the back of the class, but please expand on my last underlined question.

mdonnall2002 wrote:NOTE:
What I am attempting here is to get you to - 'stick to the facts, Jack'.

What you wish to do is, embellish within creative hyperbole to avoid the giving the obvious answer.

No. I was literally trying to explain to you something you do not understand. And by your reply here, I now know why. I'll get to that in this post

I don't have to remind you that it was also the men of 'great wisdom' that slew the Son of Man.

Yes. And do you know there are orthodox Jewish Rabbi's today that are more well studied in the new testament than most Christians no less, Yet still remain totally reverent to God, while rejecting 'Jesus' as both a Messiah, or a Christ?

They do exist and they are not idiots.

What I also do not ‘get’ is this: Biblical dichotomies that exist – apparently require us to use a ‘greater wisdom’ (in you own words) yet, when they do not exist we are to take them as factual and literal events. Just a Creature of convenience?

I would not say that this is a Lord’s question. I believe it is a valid theological question, I pose.

By the Lord, I mean: “And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Jake, what is so hard about admitting – the Lord ordered the death of a man by the men He Commanded – Thou shall no kill? It’s plain as day. It does not require a greater awareness to admit this verse basically proclaims: I am the Lord, I am pissed, I will have my vengeance. Let’s be brutally honest, this is the Old Testament.

There is no theological question here. Nor is there any question about an Old Testament God compared to a New Testament God.

The only truly fundamental question is hermeneutics and exegesis. (I'll talk about this at the bottom of this post)

What you fail to understand is that Moses himself did not find any contradiction between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Stone him to death".

As impossible this is for you to comprehend, it still is so.

And that is the intent of this discussion, Jake. Who is ‘the Lord’ in this verse, in your opinion? Is this the same Lord that put his hand to the stones? Is this the Elohim? Is this the Father of Creation?

Firstly, I did not claim that "the Lord" could not sin. I wrote that YHWH can not sin. And yes it is an oxymoron, as per the definition of 'sin'.

O.K. I will concede to this for now, but in my heart I am asking, “If One be your creator and destroys you – what would we deem this be?” Let us all be thankful for the New Testament, for my sake.

You have fallen into the same trap as Charles Templeton. If you do not know who he is, please read the full link article. If you do not overcome this "trap", then you are on your way to giving up your faith. I'm being serious.

Now back to hermeneutics and exegesis.

You have a constructive view that guides you how to study and understand the Bible. You also have a construct view that guides you how to interpret your study and understanding of the Bible. These approaches to Biblical study ultimately resolve to construct your faith. These Views and Approaches you apply to Bible study and interpretation are Your Exegesis. But there are multiple exegesis which are called hermeneutics.

And you are applying Your Exegesis/(Hermeneutic) to these Biblical passages we're discussing. And it is because of your Hermeneutic that you come to the conclusions you do.

In your Exegesis/Hermeneutic, Moses and God are contradicting themselves. However there are Exegesis/Hermeneutical approaches, and in them there is no contradiction at all. Moses was a perfectly logical man.

C'est finis

I've told you enough mdonnall, it's all up to you from here.

I hope you don't go the way of Charles Templeton. He didn't know there was another sound Hermeneutical approach. He was so convinced that the Exegesis of his faith was the only hermeneutical approach. And so within that construct and applying it to Biblical study, he found so many contradictions that he couldn't explain, and so gave up his faith. The smart/dumb syndrome. He trapped himself in the cage of his singular hermeneutic.

If by losing a religion, men cannot defend, I should draw closer to Him (The Creative Source) - the bitter road was worth the walk as 'Mysterious Ways' has always been the way, at least for me.

Composed this week.

Furrowed the skin has now become
Slowly creeping in
A field grass swaying in rhythm-dance
And dusk advances in.
Looking back across the sands
Most would surely do
Instead ahead to gaze unkind
What would man redo?
A voice I hear within the ear
‘All things wash away
Giving back from whence it came
No vine without its base.’

Thank you for sharing your poem, mdonnall.

mdonnall2002 wrote:
If by losing a religion, men cannot defend, I should draw closer to Him (The Creative Source) - the bitter road was worth the walk as 'Mysterious Ways' has always been the way, at least for me.

And this is why my heart is moved to defend.

When "mysterious ways" are accounted among men as proof of folly, to darken men's eyes from the Creative Source, I will tear down that curtain, from top to bottom.

Blessings

I also know the Lord uses his powers to do many things, my friend.

He used it to create the Heavens and the Earth - the Adam with Eve who took from a tree and some into salt, from certainly the sea. He brought forth messengers unto the man, plagues to punish and babes from their crib - freeing His people between the Red Sea.

He brought forth the manna and kept from their Land most those He favored while fleeing their brand. He issued an order which Moses did fill – or perhaps only ‘inspired’ to do as He willed.

The Moses-effect - aspiring to Kill, is certainly still shaking the House on the Hill. Men can be inspired to kill in his name – to defend what they know while shedding its shame. Elohim! Elohim! Twelve cries in shout, this world is turning inside out.

I hear you mdonnall. Truly.
Have you ever considered where it is that you now live? And what enormous effort it takes for G-d to raise you up from where you are, to return you back to Him?

I offer my humble prologue below (in bold). Consider its synchronicity with the story from Genesis to Revelation.

Then comfort your soul with 'Jesus' greatest Sermon.



And 'Jesus' said to the people who lived in hell. Those who dwelled in the prison abode of Satan, fallen Angels, fallen sons of God, the home world of Demons and every vile thing beneath the Heavens. The world of death, cut off from the Tree of Life....

He came unto them from the highest Heaven, to dwell among the lowliest of lows, to suffer the sorrows of all creation's sorrows. To free them from their prison ruled by the Prince and Power of Darkness.

And 'Jesus' thus proclaimed to a multitude of them that had gathered, saying:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you whenever they revile you, and they persecute you, and they say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what shall it be salted? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and to be trampled underfoot by men.

You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it shines on everything in the house. Thus let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works, and they may glorify your Father who is in heaven.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, until heaven and earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle shall by no means pass away from the law until all things are fulfilled. Whoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men thus, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

You have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not kill,' and whoever kills will be liable to the judgment. But I say to you that whoever gets angry with his brother without cause will be liable to the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Empty-head!' will be liable to the council. But whoever says, ' fool!' will be liable to the fiery hell.

Therefore if you offer your gift on the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go, first be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Make friends with your adversary quickly, while you are on the road with him, lest your adversary hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be cast into prison. Assuredly I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you, that whoever looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members be lost, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members be lost, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a divorce certificate.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for a matter of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorcee commits adultery.

Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'You shall not swear falsely, but you shall pay your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. But let your word be 'Yes', 'yes,' ; or 'No,' 'no.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you not to resist an evil person. But whoever shall slap you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And to the one desiring to sue you and to take your tunic, let him have your cloak also.

And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.

Give to the one asking you, and to the one desiring to borrow from you, do not turn away.

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and you shall hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, so that you may prove to be sons of your Father in heaven; because He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and He sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your friends only, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

You therefore be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Take care not to be doing your charitable giving before men, so as to be seen by them. Otherwise, you have not a reward from your Father in heaven. Whenever therefore you do charitable giving, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by men. Assuredly I say to you, they receive their reward in full. But when you do charitable giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charitable giving may be in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will Himself reward you openly.

And whenever you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and on the streetcorners, so that they may be seen by men. Assuredly I say to you, that they receive their reward in full.

But you, whenever you pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly. But when you pray, do not babble like the heathen, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows what things you have need of before you ask Him. Therefore pray in this manner:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen.

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Moreover, when you fast, do not become gloomy, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly I say to you, that they receive their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves dig through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts, and where thieves do not dig through and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

No one is able to serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and he will love the other, or else he will be devoted to the one, and he will despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

Because of this I say to you, do not worry about your life--what you shall eat, or what you shall drink--nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, nor do they gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth more than they?

Which of you by worrying is able to add one cubit to his stature? So why do you worry about clothes? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither labor, nor spin; and yet I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these. But if God thus clothes the grass of the field, which exists today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we put on?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own affairs. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Judge not, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with what measure you measure, it will be measured back to you.

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, 'Permit me to remove the speck from your eye'; and look, there is a plank in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone that asks receives, and he that seeks finds, and to him that knocks, it shall be opened.

Or what man is there among you who, if his son should ask for bread, will give to him a stone? And if he should ask for a fish, he will give to him a serpent?

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, by how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, thus also you do to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Enter in through the narrow gate; because wide is the gate, and broad is the way which leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in through it. How narrow the gate, and confined the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it!

But beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grape clusters from thorns, or figs from thistles?

Thus every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces evil fruit. And a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit. Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. Consequently, by their fruits you shall know them.

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name we cast out demons, and in Your name we did many mighty works?' And then I will confess to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you who work iniquity!'

Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them, I will compare him to a wise man who built his house upon the rock: and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and fell against that house; and it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock.

And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them, will be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And its fall was great."



The Sermon on the Mount
(Matthew 5,6,7)

Here's something interesting, considering the title of this thread;

Michael Heiser is an Ancient Alien Debunker. Which I find somewhat perplexing, since he believes "sons of God" came to earth and took women as wives and procreated with them (so I thought?). The Enochian/Genesis accounts.

Anyway, I've watched Part 1 of this 3 hour documentary, in which Michael Heiser is one of the consulting experts.

Part 1


It's very good, imo. However it really doesn't Debunk Ancient Aliens existence. But rather only the concept that Aliens built Megalithic sites. Which I agree Aliens didn't build them. However I do believe there is sufficient evidence to support that Aliens (Watchers/Angels/sons of God) came and passed down knowledge to the ancients, that contributed to the developments of ancient civilizations.

And so what about the implied title - "Debunked"?
I find this somewhat spurious.

Thanks, Jake.

On my list....I do enjoy M.H. and the ancients.

Jake Reason wrote:

And so what about the implied title - "Debunked"?
I find this somewhat spurious.

Michael Heiser doesn't begin his presentation until the last hour. The biggest part of it is all about debunking Zecharia Sitchin's work on the Anunnaki.

Here below is a link to Michael Heiser's debunking of Mr. Sitchin.

The video doesn’t attempt to debunk all mysterious evidence in the world. The producer does highlight that the Nephilim of Genesis 6 is a valid mystery.The video focuses on debunking the manner in which evidence was presented by the History Channel.


----------------------------------------

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/


Welcome to the website devoted to addressing the claims of the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularized in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin. Who's behind this site? My name is Mike Heiser. Who am I? The short answer is that I'm a scholar of biblical and ancient Near Eastern languages, cultures, and religions. Why do I bother with this stuff? Because I don't like ancient texts manipulated to promote false claims. If I were a lawyer I'd feel professionally obligated to tell you if someone was giving you bad legal advice. If I was a medical doctor, I'd owe you the truth if I knew the medicine you were taking was bogus or could kill you. If I was an accountant, I'd let you know if a neighbor's tax advice could put you in jail. I'm none of those things, but take the analogy to heart. I'm trying to provide the same service in my areas of expertise. I can tell you--and show you--that what Zecharia Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. I don't doubt that Zecharia Sitchin is a nice guy; he's just wrong. Nothing personal.

For educational purposes only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6udew9axmdM

Thanks ScaRZ.

I watched the full 3 hours yesterday. And it taught me many things. It is an excellent investigative documentary on Ancient Aliens.

I still feel they shouldn't have entitled it "Ancient Aliens Debunked". As it is common for the majority of people for their memory to fade as time passes. And so if one who watched it were to be asked about the theory of Ancient Alien intervention, a significant percentage of people would be prone to say something like this:

"Oh I watched an in-depth documentary on that subject. It's been completely debunked."

And such comment would end the discussion. Which is a shame.

That aside.... I found the theories and postulations of the young enthusiastic Giorgio Tsoukalos, to be extremely imaginative, and on some points blatantly misrepresenting and falsifying the historical records to promote his premise. Which is sadly a failing of a significant percentage of Ufologists.

However on the subject of the Inca Nazca Lines, I found the Documentary's explanation of people marching in religious processions, to be as totally ridiculous as Erich von Daniken's explanation as being Alien landing runways. That was quite silly of the "debunkers" to suggest people marched in perfectly straight lines for miles for religious ceremonies, and thus simply brushing the dust of the desert to have a different color then that which was not walked on. And then to add that they have remained visible to this day, because it doesn't rain much there. This is Unbelievable! So, no winds for a thousand years!? That was a stupid explanation, imo.

However to the documenters credit, as you pointed out, they did say that the ancient Nephilim accounts have historical merit, and worthy of greater study (@56:00 min, Part 3). Both the Host and Michael supported that these accounts do speak of a physical sexual interaction between some form of alien beings and women, which result in women baring their children = Nephilim. Kudos to them, on that point!

However it was one more reason why they shouldn't have entitled the film, "Ancient Aliens Debunked".

Overall, I think it a "must-watch" for every ufologist. It certainly explained a significant number of widely accepted premises of ufology to be wild speculations, grossly diverging from historical facts.

mdonnall2002 wrote:For educational purposes only:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6udew9axmdM

Hmmm, politically apropos.

Thanks Mdonnall, watching now.

Thanks Mdonnall for posting the video......"Wow! that was strange indeed."