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?

I can agree with Michael Heiser in answering his question with what he lays out of what the question is and isn't. A lot of people really never answer the question,they only steer away from the real question.

A man/woman will not always do right,no matter if they are believers or non-believers,not that all can never do right. When they do right does this please God?...."I believe it can."

I believe Jesus went straight to the heart of this issue in Matthew 7.


Matthew 7:9-11

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?


Jesus is certainly pointing to the fact that they are evil but they can give good gifts. If Jesus is telling us they are good gifts,then he sees them as good. If they are good are they not pleasing?

Thanks ScaRZ for posting Michael's answer.

I just lost a long reply post, by inadvertently hitting an 'f' key on the keyboard. Too much to rewrite now. Oh well

Verses like;
"God so loved the world...."
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God...."

these and others fundamentals, pretty much answer the question.

The concept of "pleasing God" is an extremely rare meme within Canadian Christianity. Other than Jehovah Witnesses, who incorporate it daily into their practice of faith. For the vast majority of Christianity in Canada the question is virtually non-existent. IOW, it is not prevalent within the Canadian Christian culture to talk about "pleasing God".

I am curious about this ScaRZ (and any others who might respond here) perhaps you could help answer;

1. Is this question (the concept of pleasing God) a relatively common thought on the minds of evangelicals in the USA?

2. Do you find certain denominations are more prone to contemplate and talk about it, than others denominations?

Thanks

Hello Jake,I will give my thoughts. I can not answer for evangelicals in the USA. I think as just about anything else,it all depends on who you are talking to.

I believe many think when the question comes up about "Pleasing God" they see the red flag of trying to do something through works that will bring about salvation.

This was not what Michael Heiser's question was about,but people for some reason have a tough time separating them. Of coarse his question wasn't even about believers in the first place,but that is where most enjoy jumping right from the start. I find most non-believers will jump here very quickly to derail the question.



Just to show another side away from non-believers,I will look at it in the very camp of The Father and The Son.

Did Jesus (The Son)please The Father by going to John The Baptist and being baptized?....."Sure he did".


Matthew 3:16-17

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


2 Peter 1:17

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.



Jesus going to the cross pleased The Father,because it was the Father's Will. Jesus wasn't about pleasing himself or doing his will. It was all about doing the Will of The Father and pleasing The Father.



Can believers please God?....."Sure they did and still can".


There is no way I as a believer have a free pass either. I do not always please God just because I'm a believer.


Can a believer not please God?......."Take no further look than David." God was certainly not pleased with David lusting after Bathsheba and following up with having her husband Uriah killed to have her for himself.

Can a believer please God?......."Did not this same David please God many times?"



Does it please God for non-believers to become believers?........"I don't see how it can't".

Once a person becomes a believer is it that they can't please God anymore?

So if I become a believer and it pleases God, why would I never be able to please God again as a believer?......."Makes no sense to me".



Some can sit and bear little fruit while some bear much fruit. Does bearing fruit please God?...."I certainly believe it does."


Are we not to be "Imagers of God?


Can believers please God more than some or less than some?....."Scripture certainly appears to point in this direction." Isn't it better to take those talents and build upon them or bury them in the ground?......"Which pleases God more?"

Nicely put, ScaRZ. Concur

I think changing the word "pleasing" to "glorifying" can resolve a lot of questions.

Jake:

beginning at post 50 Pg.4

"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 anothers speech."

Curious if you could add to this discussion - Scarz and I were having.

Michael H - may have been the initiator of the discussion, but I feel there may something to flesh out within this verse. There is a woolly mammoth in the room currently. I think you will see from my inferences in what I am staring at.


EDIT: Spelling

Hi mdonnall,

I followed you and ScaRZ' dialog closely, and with interest. I understand your feeling that something is still left missing with "fleshing out this verse".

My first thought was the same as ScaRZ. ie: inclusive of the 70 Angel Overlords and Nimrod's Luciferian mimicking ambitions.

ScaRZ is truly a scholar. And I have some views that may add to his thoughtful experienced replies. I hadn't jumped into the discussion because Dan Smith has been pulling me into his, Jack Sarfatti and RP discussions.

I'll respond to you sometime over the weekend.

In the meantime, I'm currently watching the U.S. Vice-Presidential debate.

No worries, Jake.

Prioritize. Endeavors with DS certainly take precedence.

I am just trying to Flesh out something. Normally, when the Lord speaks - We are to take it in a LITERAL fashion. Here, it seems the literal interpretation of scripture is purposefully being neglected mainly for the 'intentions' of the Lord by His actions.


RED LETTERS of God - so overlooked?

Should we not take them in a literal sense? I see no way to figuratively rationalize this verse considering He is not speaking in parable either.

Still, several questions went unanswered or left unfulfilled.

Is free will truly free - if God imposes His will that is in direct conflict with the choice of man? Is free will the lip service of the modern age to better rationalize this tepid balance?

Why is the literal Red Letters of God - apparently glossed over?

Why are we not taking His words literally?

I see the verse as literal. Much of it hinges on the version of The Bible you are reading. Lets take that same verse and look at The King James Version,New King James Version and also The Greek Septuagint Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851. You will maybe begin to understand why I see things as I do. In my opinion it is very clear what is going on.

You used the English Standard Version (©2001)

Genesis 11:6

And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.


KJV

Genesis 11:6........"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them,which they have imagined to do."


As you can read "impossible" is now "restrained" in the KJV of The Bible.


NKJV

Genesis 11:6........"And the LORD said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them."

Now we have the word "withheld".


The Greek Septuagint

Genesis 11:6........" And the Lord said, Behold, there is one race, and one lip of all, and they have begun to do this, and now nothing shall fail from them of all that they may have undertaken to do."

Now the word is "fail".


As I mentioned above it is very clear to "Me" what is going on.

The LORD saw the need to not stand still on this issue. The LORD took a stand to restrain their actions, withhold their actions ,make it fail,or make it impossible for them to succeed........."Or it would have succeeded."


Did The LORD want them to succeed?....."No way".

Did The LORD want to make sure it would fail?....."Without a doubt",and The LORD made sure it would fail.


Do we as a good father not restrain our children from always doing as they imagine or propose to do?......"Sure we do".

Do we not see as parents that on many occasions we must step in and take free will from our children?......."Without a doubt".



Does The LORD always give humans free will to do everything they imagine or propose?......."It is very clear in scripture that he doesn't."


How much is free will and how much isn't?......."Your guess is as good as mine."


Did not The LORD many times in scripture restrain or withhold humans from being successful?......."Certainly".


Does not The LORD also cause or move things along several times in The Bible for a final outcome The LORD desires?......"Yes".


Even Jesus Christ spoke of shorting the days or no flesh would be saved.

I have long wondered if The LORD never restrained,never once stepped in and mankind was successful with all his imagined or proposed acts would we be here today?......"And I'm only speaking of after The Flood in the days of Noah."

As I've mentioned before,I believe man can and will be successful with his imagined or proposed acts if not for divine power restraining them.

@Scarz

Yes, I see that you get my drift.

And now we can see that Free Will is and never was truly free. It has always been conditional. ‘Free Will to do God’s Will’ has always been the path. Individuals choose to spin the semantics to suit a more wholesome belief.

As Sons and Daughters of God – part of Him, logically, remains within our creation. Looking at the sons and daughters of our own design – we know this to be true and factual. “in His image.”

“and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

God admits to this. This line of scripture is telling us – we are more like him than ever realized. Just as a flesh and blood father must direct, so does He. And yes, as you illustrated, a son or daughter of mine, is never truly FREE.

God illustrates - the POTENTIAL of man as being UNLIMITED and He would not allow it, within the form it existed in at that time. Whoever said that Fathers were fair?

How many in the clergy would dare to speak/teach such things? Some lessons can be overlooked, I suppose. Why do so many proclaim to be in such wonderful possession of Free Will? It is beyond my grasp.

Many, just like you, believe we held a greater past than we realize. I hold similar belief.

Trying God’s patience? Only He would know.

Yes mdonnall,I believe you and I are closer than we may have first thought. Sometimes written words don't spell it out as clearly as we had hoped.

I'm so glad you brought up the questions you did. Through your question I now have studied the subject at more detail, and that is a very good thing.


mdonnall you wrote........"God admits to this. This line of scripture is telling us – we are more like him than ever realized."


I agree with you once again mdonnall. We now know good and evil.


Genesis 3:22........"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Adam (The man)with this knowledge now takes it with him out into the earth. He takes it with him but only in a mortal body because of the judgments The LORD placed upon him. The man is barred from The Tree of Life.


Look at our past,look at our present and we see the knowing of good and evil comes with great consequences. Give us the ability of possessing eternity in sin and as the old saying goes........"Boy O'Boy!"

If there are other creatures out there somewhere,we would find them wouldn't we?......"Anything we propose,anything we imagine "Will" be ours."

Will we only do good with our knowledge?......"All one needs to do is look at our track record."


Knowing of evil is not sin. But can we ever get to the point of knowing of evil and not sin?......"This I believe will be a reality one day." Knowing of evil but choosing good. I'm talking about the eternal life that God has in mind,not what man proposes or imagines.



I believe man is working on bypassing Jesus Christ (The Door) and climbing up another way?.........."Eternal life by another way." The below verse comes to my mind every time I think of this.


John 10:1........"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."


When I think of this I can't help but think of The Tower of Babel. Attempting to make a name for themselves and the quest to reach where God is........"Without God".

This is an excellent conversation, guys. I think with regards to free-will that it has for lack of better term, "free-will within reason" and the parameters of reason depend greatly upon collective maturity, self-control, adherence to responsibility, wide-spread respect & moral conduct, etc. The great potential of mankind still lies within but the extent it is allowed to be realized or exercised, depends upon self-development and positive achievement...the within-reason. Free-will is personal choice applied within that reason; those expected, delineated parameters.

ScaRZ wrote:Yes mdonnall,I believe you and I are closer than we may have first thought. Sometimes written words don't spell it out as clearly as we had hoped.

I'm so glad you brought up the questions you did. Through your question I now have studied the subject at more detail, and that is a very good thing.

Within the interplay we all benefit from the exchange to some degree.

Now we have:

1. Genesis 3:22........"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

2. “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Why does God place such emphasis on us being as He/them?
Why does God confirm Nothing is impossible for us?

Why would an all knowing and all powerful God Concern himself with the trivial aspects of fleshy beings?

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'?

Admin wrote: The great potential of mankind still lies within but the extent it is allowed to be realized or exercised, depends upon self-development and positive achievement...the within-reason.

You and I see through the same eyes, oftentimes, but tragically, far too many are anchored to systems of enslavement passed down from ancient times. When wealth relinquishes its death-grip on mankind's throat - we have a chance.

mdonnall2002 wrote:

ScaRZ wrote:Yes mdonnall,I believe you and I are closer than we may have first thought. Sometimes written words don't spell it out as clearly as we had hoped.

I'm so glad you brought up the questions you did. Through your question I now have studied the subject at more detail, and that is a very good thing.

Within the interplay we all benefit from the exchange to some degree.

Now we have:

1. Genesis 3:22........"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

2. “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Why does God place such emphasis on us being as He/them?
Why does God confirm Nothing is impossible for us?

Why would an all knowing and all powerful God Concern himself with the trivial aspects of fleshy beings?

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'?

I get this feeling no matter how large amount or how small amount I lay out it's just not hitting home for you. Most of your questions above I feel have been answered or I have given my opinion.

Am I correct in assuming you are more interested in those with The LORD and their role in all this. In other words,why does The LORD need to enlist these Sons of God in this or anything else?

The LORD uses or enlist his creation......."Did,does,and will. Why does The LORD need believers to be kings and priest during the millennium?

I see The Kingdom of Heaven,The Kingdom of God as just that......."A Kingdom"......A government of God. Each creation as pieces of that Kingdom. I see different ranks,talents,jobs,and offices. I certainly do not view this as wings on my back sitting around doing "Nothing" for The LORD. Why have a creation if you don't use or enlist them in being a true part of A Kingdom?

ScaRZ wrote:
I get this feeling no matter how large amount or how small amount I lay out it's just not hitting home for you. Most of your questions above I feel have been answered or I have given my opinion.

Am I correct in assuming you are more interested in those with The LORD and their role in all this. In other words,why does The LORD need to enlist these Sons of God in this or anything else?

The LORD uses or enlist his creation......."Did,does,and will. Why does The LORD need believers to be kings and priest during the millennium?

I see The Kingdom of Heaven,The Kingdom of God as just that......."A Kingdom"......A government of God. Each creation as pieces of that Kingdom. I see different ranks,talents,jobs,and offices. I certainly do not view this as wings on my back sitting around doing "Nothing" for The LORD. Why have a creation if you don't use or enlist them in being a true part of A Kingdom?

Good Scarz

Thank you for your patience. I, oftentimes, re-quote something in case someone is joining late in the conversation. I apologize if this is confusing. This is not about winning an argument for me, rest assured. Yes, I am greatly interested in 'them' and God. It's good to know you have never been fond of feathers though.

I realize, oftentimes, I ask difficult questions. Please don't let this amp you up or frustrate you. You send me deep within the Tome of Man, "and this is good." Yes, scripture shows us God uses many, God issues orders to follow, and God has servants and messengers, and a Kingdom of God. Is it so wrong to be where angels fear to tread?

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.

Question 1

Why would HE need to enlist 'them' - in aiding Him - to "confuse the tongues of man" and divide us? If God can be all, see all, do all, why would He need an army of 'them' to help Him? Why would he need an Army, period?

Genesis 3:22........"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

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 take them all seriously.

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 God, our creator, sin - against His own Will?

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.