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?

Jake Reason wrote:
But this world tries hard to convince the soul that such a requirement is a heavy price to pay. The world makes it easier for a soul to be crazy, than to be sane.

You went straight to the heart. I really like the words you used.

I see two desires that war within all of us. The desire to follow our flesh and the desire to follow the spirit. How many forget that Jesus was also a flesh man? Do we not understand that he also had the desire of flesh as well as the desire of the spirit?

We hear of the deity of Jesus all the time,but mostly silence comes of the human flesh side of Jesus.

ScaRZ wrote:

Jake Reason wrote:
But this world tries hard to convince the soul that such a requirement is a heavy price to pay. The world makes it easier for a soul to be crazy, than to be sane.

You went straight to the heart. I really like the words you used.

Thank you.

I see two desires that war within all of us. The desire to follow our flesh and the desire to follow the spirit. How many forget that Jesus was also a flesh man? Do we not understand that he also had the desire of flesh as well as the desire of the spirit?

We hear of the deity of Jesus all the time,but mostly silence comes of the human flesh side of Jesus.

Yes. I've also noted a curious thing with Preachers and Teachers during this generation. Few quote 'Jesus" words when making a point. Rather they quote every other scripture instead.

I have a theory... it's because of guilt. People are afraid of his direct teaching. It makes them feel lowly and spiritually unaccomplished.

I think a lot of people have a problem seeing Jesus as a human flesh man. He was The Son of Man as well as The Son of God. They will say,"Oh sure he was part human." But how far do they really see his human side.

There have been so many artistic images that influence our vision of Jesus. From the time he was just an infant we tend to view Jesus as sticking out like a sore thumb. Oh yes! and don't forget that huge bright hallow above his head.

Jesus had to drink,eat,and go potty like every other human. Jesus wasn't born knowing how to talk and walk. He fell and skinned his knees also. Jesus went through puberty as all of us.

Jesus wasn't only tempted once and that was it.

Jesus wasn't born into this world with all knowledge and understanding either. He grew in his wisdom and knowledge.

Luke 2:52........"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."

Notice the words "God and man". This shows both sides of the coin of the spirit side as well as the human side.

Jesus advanced in wisdom and maturity in all respects.

Hi guys, I'm just getting caught up with reading your threads. This is very interesting for me as a person raised outside of exposure to the contents of the Bible.

thumbs up.

@ IPFreely, you do not need permission to begin threads. Please feel free to create any thread(s) in/under any subject you wish for your wife. She is most welcome here. She need not fear in regards to her talents and its contributions, there are others here among us who also experience advanced abilities.

Cyrellys

The World's First Super-Soldier

Wed, August 8, 2012

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/3/477/show_3477025.mp3


Tonight, we will be talking with Dr. Mike Bennett about the world's first super-soldier: Nimrod. To some, he is known as Doctor Future of the radio program, Future Quake. He served as a leader in a military lab for sixteen years, developing protection technologies and other weird science contraptions. He is an inventor and an author (among other things). His contribution (chapter 2) to Tom Horn's book, Pandemonium's Engine really caught my attention, so buckle your seatbelts, this is going to be a fun show!

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

The Second Coming of Antichrist


Thu, September 13, 2012

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/3/758/show_3758105.mp3


We all know about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But what about the second coming of the ANTI-Christ? Could it be that the Antichrist is truly a direct antithesis of Jesus in every way? Will he also resurrect? Will the first be the last? Find out tonight as we speak with author/researcher, Peter Goodgame!

Can Unbelievers Please God?

Very interesting question and topic that Michael Heiser brought up. I thought I would post the question here at OM and give others a chance to lay out their thoughts.

I am going to assume that you are speaking about the God if Israel. This is truly thought provoking question.

Is it fair to assume that God may not even be pleased with those who claim to be believers, his champions of truth?

Human assumption leads many into thinking that God is pleased by church attendance, tithing, and bible study within the assembly on Sunday, not Gods affirmation directly unto us individually. Mortal pride is the ‘day trader’ that compels many to raise their spiritual stock and covet together in those riches, tarnished with vanity.

Does it please God to know that the holiest of men/women under Him fear to lower themselves to associate with sinners to bring them closer? Did not Jesus dine and receive them?

Does it please God to see a flock that would rather ‘preen’ themselves than to help preen an unbeliever? In order to bring about change you have to bring it closer – not by casting it out, by seclusion, by silence, by hate, nor by threat of arrest.

God probably is more concerned with how those that have risen to spiritual elite are representing themselves in His name within the grand halls across the globe than those souls’ voids of His name - who remain locked into a sometimes violent innocence within jungles and forests - closest to the dawn of creation.

mdonnall, two thumbs up!

The question that Heiser poses is elementary [school]. And I suspect his answer will reside within an elementary perspective, as well. Not to say Heiser is elementary, but that his selected audience is.

And respectfully I understand that most live their whole lives within an elementary construct. This is not to say I imply an empirically greater order of understanding, to myself. For whatever advancement one perceives above or below another, is still relatively infinitesimal gap, compared to the heavenly realms above us lowly beings.

With humility, I think the better question is, as Mdonnall implied....

Can believers please God?

Anything less than this higher question, is folly.

I feel that the answer to either question, is the same.

I have never understood the concept as rational. Of course I have heard people talk about pleasing God, but it always perplexes me, as to how they could have such a small conception of God.

I would never encourage a child to think they could please God.

However I would teach; they are a glory to G-d.

Michael Heiser brings up this type of question attempting to get people to think about the whole of the question. He isn't interested in making someone look bad if they are a non-believer or a believer.

It is a very good question to get one digging into scripture. This I believe is his ultimate goal. Lay out scripture to back up why you answer the question as you do.

Remember first and foremost that Michael Heiser is a Biblical Scholar.


When I read his question on his blog these were the first questions I ask myself about his question.

Where in scripture have unbelievers pleased God?

Where in scripture have believers pleased God?


A good teacher can teach to all students in the classroom no matter how low level or how advanced. We all begin as babes and must learn to walk before we can run. In every question there is learning for all of us.

I understand ScaRZ, and I respect that. I was just answering the question in my view. I look forward to Heiser's answer. Please post us a link when he publishes.

Thanks

Sure thing Jake,I will post it as soon as Michael lays out his full material.

I decided I would let others get their thoughts down, scripture,or both before I gave mine. I just didn't want it to be me right from the beginning.

Scarz:


Has Michael ever finished his book on the Divine Council? Last I read it was in draft....

I passed Heiser's name/work onto an senior by age 'elementary' who seems to have begun his work into eschatology in the last year or so. He has refused to look at the phenomenon with a more critical eye over the past couple years, but then admits recently that he 'saw something' many years ago alongside a country road that people had all stopped to gawk at late one night that dumbfounded him. "It was huge and I regret not speaking to everyone else that was watching it."

It reminded me of the Stevensville incident.

Apparently, he is more concerned with my salvation than the possibility of a great awakening. His heart is pure and in the right place, but still so young in the eve of his days. Everyone needs a grounding rod, I suppose.

I probably should not has posed the question: "Is is possible that other creatures from Gods creation could be free from Sin and here today? I may have hours of debates ahead.

Hello mdonnall2002,as far as I know Michael's book remains in draft form. He has brought this up on one or more of his blogs. He has so many things going on he finds himself not putting the finishing touch on things that should have been completed a long time ago.

--------


The question you ask I have been ask on several occasions from believers as well as non-believers.

"Is is possible that other creatures from Gods creation could be free from Sin and here today?"

I will give you some of my thoughts right off the top of my head.

The first thing that I see is Michael the archangel and his angels (Messengers). Of coarse he isn't the only one that I would call Upper Class Messengers but he is the only one referred to in the Bible as an archangel. The Host of Heaven are not only the suns,moons,and star systems that fill the night time sky. They are the Army of God and I believe Michael is in charge of this massive army.

Remember that even Gabriel had to be rescued from the Prince of Persia by Michael the archangel as written about in Daniel 10.


Can Messengers sin?.......Sin is rebellion against God,and most certainly they can rebel.

I believe that the vast majority of Messengers have remained free of rebellion.

Are these Messengers with no rebellion among us today?.....I certainly believe they are.

Can we see them?.....I will put it this way,"They could as they did in the past."


I also believe Michael the archangel is the one in charge of restraining the dark forces as well as the forces of nature. In other words he keeps things from really getting out of hand. There will come a time when Michael will stop restraining by standing aside. These will be the darkest of days leading up to the Coming of Jesus Christ.



I believe all creation has been effected by rebellion. This does not mean anything more than what I said....."Effected".

--------

As far as creatures or creations similar to humans or animal types (flesh and blood or similar to human flesh and blood),I will say I can't rule out anything God chooses to create. Certainly I believe they also could rebel.

If God is truly Love,then how is it possible for true love to exist in his creation without a free will? Without free will how can there be "True Love"? Anything that is forced is not true love....."Is it"?

IPFreely wrote:I Scarz yep it the same IP from when OM first started so long ago. I wanted you to know my wife read your reply and wanted me to thank you for the invitation. I think maybe if she could have a thread to bring some spiritual discussion to OM that would be great. What do you all think?

If the thread was created, you can count on me to join the discussion

I have greatly enjoyed reading the thread and look forward to further discussion.

I always say, "less flesh, more spirit." However, I can honestly say that without the sin of flesh, I would never have, myself, began a mutual relationship with God. No, I don't attempt to please Him. I've found that to be counter-productive and based on human perception of pleasing, what is right, and what is wrong. Way off. Rather, I understand what pulls me away from Him and what strengthens my faith with Him. And through that understanding, I work to strengthen my faith.

On the NDE, we are all connected on a spiritual "network," if you will. Yes, our NDE may echo the culture/religious views we've based our life on, but only one God reveals the truth behind it all.

The mystery of God's love is ever apparent, and as we follow our Lord the more His love grounds reality. My Religious Studies professor in college taught me something great -- finding God's love is as easy as walking to your mailbox, getting the mail, opening an envelope and reading. His love is so real, that once we receive...how can we turn from it? Oh wait, the struggle of flesh and spirit

Great to have you here HouTexan. I look forward to your input.

ScaRZ wrote:Can Unbelievers Please God?

Very interesting question and topic that Michael Heiser brought up. I thought I would post the question here at OM and give others a chance to lay out their thoughts.

I was waiting for Michael Heiser's Part 2 where he will lay out more detail in answering the question as he did. I've decided to post Part 1 and when he does a follow up I will post it also. Be sure and click the link for the full article.

I have underlined on my own Michael Heiser's answer to his question.

--------

Can Unbelievers Please God? Part 1


http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/09/unbelievers-god-part-1/



Most readers are familiar with the idea of “total depravity” as taught by many Christian theologians over the centuries — the idea that (in overly broad strokes) humans are unable to turn themselves to God and are inherently sinful. Those who have read with some depth in theology know that theologians disagree as to how to articulate total depravity, at least in part because it touches on many things.

One of the issues raised in a discussion of total depravity is whether unbelievers, those who have not been regenerated and “saved” through personal faith in Christ, can ever actually please God in any way. Put another way, the idea is that an unbeliever can never truly do something that God would look at and say something like, “good job”; “I liked that”; “glad to see you did that”; etc., but would always have some point of dissatisfaction or spiritual criticism — the act would further sour God’s disposition toward the unbeliever who is “under wrath.” The counter assumption is, then, that believers can indeed satisfy God in this way — meet this standard — whereas the unbeliever cannot (ever).

I think this way of looking at things is theologically amiss, but I won’t say why until Part 2. Suffice it to say now that I reject any notion that an unbeliever can turn themselves toward God in any salvation sense, or merit God’s grace in any way. That is, an unbeliever cannot do anything “spiritually good” with respect to meriting or moving toward salvation in any causative way. But that’s different than the question I’m raising: can an unbeliever ever please God? I say they can. God can indeed look at something an unbeliever does and approve of it and take pleasure in it (or be indifferent to it) and that such occasions have nothing to do with the “salvation distance” between God and that person becoming more narrow. They are two separate issues.

ScaRZ wrote:

Remember that even Gabriel had to be rescued from the Prince of Persia by Michael the archangel as written about in Daniel 10.

New International Version

But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

This would be an excellent topic for further discussion.

How would an Angel of God - capable of such greatness and power be Held at bay by a mortal man and require assistance from Michael? What kept Gabriel with Persia insomuch that he could not remove himself? Is it fair to assume that a spiritual being, a messenger of God, would be able to simply exert a force to be where he needed to be instantly to convey the message and return to station? With so few chiefs of angels where were the subordinates that serve under Gabriel to hold Persia at bay while he conveyed with Daniel?

Apparently, God's messengers cannot be in two locations at the same time. Angels all powerful? What was Gabriel doing - 'affecting/influencing the minds' of the Persian elite.....

Some things never change?


Detained? Seems like a poor word to use, but it does state Michael came to his aid, without any mention of his subordinates either? With two thirds of the angelic forces at their disposal - The Chiefs seemingly must accomplish all the work.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

How would an Angel of God - capable of such greatness and power be Held at bay by a mortal man and require assistance from Michael?

The thing is mdonnall the title of Prince isn't only used for a mortal man. The title is also used for High Class Messengers or Sons of God with authority.

As you can read in Daniel 10 Michael the archangel is called one of the chief princes. Michael isn't the only one but is one of a group of "Chief Princes". How many total chief princes there are we do not know.

Daniel 10:13........"But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."


As I've talked about in the past I believe there were 70 Sons of God given each one of the 70 nations to rule over after what occurred at The Tower of Babel. I believe this Prince of Persia written about in Daniel 10 was the Son of God who was given that nation of Persia.

The world was divided up according to the number of Sons of God that descended with God. Seventy was the number of members within this particular order, this is why the Table of Nations of Genesis 10 lists exactly seventy descendent's of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who made up the nations that were separated on the earth after the flood of Noah.



Genesis 11:4

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.


Genesis 11:6-7

The Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come,let us go down and there confuse their language so that they will not understand one another's speech.


In the Book of Jasher which is a non-canonical book that is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, it tells who the [Us] is that is referred to by God in Genesis 11.


Jasher 9:31

And they built the tower and the city, and they did this thing daily until many days and years were elapsed. And God said to the seventy angels who stood foremost before him , to those who were near to him, saying, Come let us descend and confuse their tongues, that one man shall not understand the language of his neighbor,’ and they did so unto them.


We then find in the Greek Septuagint Deuteronomy 32:8 that God divided the people into seventy nations, the same number of Sons of God Those seventy angels that descended with God.


Deuteronomy 32:8

When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.

Thanks Scars


Genesis 11:6-7

The Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come,let us go down and there confuse their language so that they will not understand one another's speech.

What else can we take from this verse?

1. Man, was once unified and under one language.
2. ‘And now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them’

According to the narrative of the city of Babel – it was wrought with vanity as well as a like mindedness post flood, hence it’s later destruction, by the winds of the Lord. Man was scattered across the globe afterwards with different languages. Was this an admission that ‘nothing’ would be impossible EVEN for vain/wicked men if they worked together? A literal translation would certainly infer this, correct?

‘Come let us descend and confuse their tongues’ said the Lord. How would this be accomplished if not within the mind, overtly or subtlety? Tongues cannot be confused, only the mind can be.

Off topic thought - Is there enough circumstantial evidence from abduction/experience accounts that could mimic tales from ages past?

The Lord perfectly lays out what is possible if people work together as one. ‘nothing would be impossible’.

And here’s one final question that could expel me from a more practical theological establishment:

When the Lord and his angels came to confuse the minds of man – did He intervene with the free will given to Man - and by doing so did he create more strife and suffering until this very day?

Free will does not seem so free if it falls outside the Will of the Lord.

Keep Safe,

Edit: Clarity

mdonnall,I will begin by saying Noah and his sons were told by The LORD to replinish the whole earth. That is not only to fill it up, but also to restore it. It never was for them to stay in one central area of the earth. They were to spread out into all regions of the earth.

Once we come to this period of time of The Tower of Babel we can quickly see they are gathering not spreading outward as The LORD had instructed. Nimrod had become the central figure in bringing about this world order. The LORD knows the heart of man better than man can ever come close to understanding his own nature. Man is rebellious by nature and loves doing his will and not the Will of The Father.


Genesis 11:4........"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."


As we can read in the underlined portion of the above verse,man had knowledge they were to spread out into the whole world. They didn't want to do as they knew they were suppose to do.

Now read the highlighted red words.....let us make us a name. What these people had in mind was all about manifesting independence of The LORD with Nimrod as their rebel leader.


It certainly didn't take that long after the flood until we come to this point did it?

We are suppose to be one in The LORD not one with man outside of The LORD.

Man coming together as one outside of The LORD is antichrist in nature. This is an (instead of) world system,this is Babylon.

antichrist....."Instead of".......A replacement.

ScaRZ wrote:It certainly didn't take that long after the flood until we come to this point did it?

I certainly concur. It only took somewhere between 1-400 yrs post flood it seems. Yet, Please, Give me a literal translation of this in your opinion. If He is speaking directly - is it not so?

'Behold, they are one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

What did the Lord infer, Scarz, by the text in red? Was He speaking Literally or figuratively?

I don't think you purposefully neglected to answer it directly which is why I post it again. We always hear about literal and figurative translations - so many biblical arguments hinge on such differences. I think we all, but me personally, would like for you to illustrate.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

Off topic thought - Is there enough circumstantial evidence from abduction/experience accounts that could mimic tales from ages past?

I really haven't studied abduction enough to offer much. I'm sure some of these people have experienced something......"But what is it,and who or what is doing the abducting?"

mdonnall2002 wrote:

When the Lord and his angels came to confuse the minds of man – did He intervene with the free will given to Man - and by doing so did he create more strife and suffering until this very day?

I certainly believe The LORD gave the population a universal language. When they continued to rebel The LORD stepped in and took away the universal language (tongue)in order to have them move away from one another. When they couldn't understand one another a massive confusion (babel)was the order.

I believe at this point The LORD disinherited these nations and turned them over to the 70 Sons of God and they spread out into different regions of the earth carrying with them each a different language (tongue).

One day very soon The LORD would choose someone to bring forth a nation he would call his nation. Through this nation would come The Only Begotten (Unique) Son of God who gathers from all nations,peoples,and tongues. They no longer are disinherited but are grafted in.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

ScaRZ wrote:It certainly didn't take that long after the flood until we come to this point did it?

I certainly concur. It only took somewhere between 1-400 yrs post flood it seems. Yet, Please, Give me a literal translation of this in your opinion. If He is speaking directly - is it not so?

'Behold, they are one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

What did the Lord infer, Scarz, by the text in red? Was He speaking Literally or figuratively?

I don't think you purposefully neglected to answer it directly which is why I post it again. We always hear about literal and figurative translations - so many biblical arguments hinge on such differences. I think we all, but me personally, would like for you to illustrate.

mdonnall,I just take things a step at a time. I come back when I get some free time and continue if I feel I haven't already covered it. Sometimes I can see it so plain in my answer but others don't.

I just answered a couple more of your questions and will get to this one as soon as I can.