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?

Very good blog post by Michael Heiser. I think he did a great job with his lay out on the morning star. He helped me understand things so much clearer on this subject. Thank you Michael.

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

Jesus and the Morning Star

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2013/10/jesus-morning-star/


One of the questions I get with some frequency concerns the phrase “(bright) morning star.” The gist of the question usually concerns some presumed relationship between Jesus and Lucifer (the question, as we will see, is something of a misnomer all on its own). That’s really not what’s going on in biblical theology here. I’ll have to unpack all that a bit before I get to the “morning star” question.

In Isa 14:12 we read about one ḥêlel ben shaḥar (“shining one, son of the dawn”). The phrase “son of the dawn” refers to the (astronomical) “morning star” – the small light first visible above the horizon when the new day dawns. This was, in ancient terms, a way to refer to Venus, as it was that first light in terms of real naked eye astronomy. The ancients knew Venus was a planet, but often referred to it as the largest star (see Pliny, Hist. nat. 2.37). Venus appears just before the sun, heralding a new day — thus it was termed “morning star.”

At issue first is the terminology and character in Isaiah 14. In LXX the phrase  ḥêlel ben shaḥar, ḥêlel (“shining one”) is rendered as ἐωσφόρος (“morning star”), derivative of Φωσφόρος (the wrod used for Venus). In Latin, this word is translated “Lucifer.” The ḥêlel figure in Isaiah is some sort of tyrant, described in terms of some tale about a divine being who wanted to be like the Most High, snubbing his authority. Combine that backdrop tale, a story about a divine being who over-stepped the highest divine authority, with the Latin Vulgate’s “Lucifer,” and you get the presumed picture of Satan’s rebellion.

This identification is not so simple as it sounds for a number of reasons; namely, the term “satan” is never used of the serpent (naḥash) of Genesis 3. The identification of that figure with God’s arch rival, the Devil, came along in the second temple period. It isn’t until the last book of the Bible (in Rev 12:9) that you actually see the words serpent, devil, and Satan actually connected. Granted, the ideas are all interconnected much earlier, but as far as the use of the terms, it’s pretty late. Readers of my Myth book know that I believe (a minority view) that there are good textual connections besides these terms between Isaiah 14 and Genesis 3, along with Ezekiel 28. I think they all draw on the belief / theology of the rebellion of a non-human divine figure against the Most High, who is Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible.1

So, the question about the use of “morning star” terminology in Jesus usually brings this backdrop with it. Some people like to rant about Jesus being Satan here, or about the nasty Jewish writers who satanize Jesus, or how Satan and Jesus are brothers (Mormons, though their argument usually comes from a different flawed trajectory). All of these notions are nonsense. They are good illustrations of ignoring context and producing non sequiturs.

The point of the terminology isn’t hard to figure out. It has to do with (drum roll, please): brightness. Stars were bright. Brightness is a common description of divine beings throughout the ancient world. They are often described as luminous or fiery (biblical examples include Ezek 1:13; Psa 104:4). Divine beings were therefore associated with, or identified with, objects in the sky — stars or planets. This idea is all over the ancient Near East. In terms of the Old Testament, Job 38:6-7 is the best example (and note that it pluralizes “morning star”):

On what were its [the earth's] bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Why the plural? Because there were more than one (I know, I’m on a profundity roll now). Why the metaphor? Because it’s the dawn of a new day — the first day, as it were; the day of earth’s creation. Now back to Isaiah 14 …

While the focus in Isaia 14 is a human king, the king of Babylon, the description of that king’s arrogance is drawn from a story of a divine being’s rebellion. Like all divine beings, that being was shining / luminous / bright — like the morning star.

To my mind, that’s pretty simple. Now here’s where we need to think a little — with respect to the use of the “mroning star” terminology of the New Testament, linked as it is with Jesus. On the surface, it would be easy to just say “well, the resurrected Christ is certainly divine, so the description fits.” (Note: all the morning star occurrences with respect to Jesus are about the risen Christ or his re-appearing). We even get discussion about the manifestation of Jesus’ glory before the resurrection, connected of course with the very presence of God (John 1:14 2:11; Acts 7:55; Titus 2:13). That’s true, but there’s more to it — and it concerns not the shining appearance of the morning star, what it visually looked like to the eye — but what it denoted: the dawn of a new day, the new kingdom come to earth.

Let’s take a look now at how that theme — the coming again of Jesus to earth to consummate the new kingdom of God, the new Eden — is always part of the context of the “morning star” references when used of Jesus.

There are three morning star references in the New Testament. Here they are with a little verse-context:

2 Peter 1:17-19

17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts …


Rev 2:26-28

26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Rev 22:16

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”


Let’s start with the last one first. It’s clear that the reference to the morning star has something to do with kingship — why else link it to “I am the root and descendant of David”? (Recall that David was from Bethlehem of Judah). Coming where it does — the unveiling of the new Jerusalem and new Eden — the context couldn’t be clearer. This is why basically all NT scholars since the description here as hearkening back to Num 24:17: “a star shall rise out of Jacob” (“Jacob,” of course is another term used for Israel throughotu the Bible, the last portion of which left after the exile and return was Judah). Numbers 24:17 was interpreted messianically in Judaism apart from the New Testament writers (T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1; 1QM 11:6–7; 4QTestim 9–13; CD 7:18–20). In other words, everyone would have known this morning star reference was not about brightness; it was about the dawning of the returned kingdom of God.

That’s also the point of Rev 2:26-28, working backward through our references. But this passage is even cooler. You divine council worldview junkies should like this one. Notice how in this case Jesus isn’t the morning star — he gives the morning star. Look at it again:


26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’


Who are the ones that overcome in Revelation? Believers. What do they get? Authority. Over whom? The nations — you know, the nations that are at present under the authority of the corrupted sons of God (Deut 32:8-9, with LXX and DSS; cp. Deut 4:19-20; Psalm 82). That’s right. Believers share in the kingdom (see Daniel 7:27-28, another divine council passage). They will “ruler over angels” (1 Cor 6:3) because they displace them in God’s hierarchy in the last day. Verse 27 has Jesus ruling (“he”) with a rod of iron (Psa 2), but it is Jesus who gives to mere believers — the overcomers — the morning star. What is the morning star? The divine authority to rule in the new kingdom.

The last reference is not difficult to parse in light of all this. Again:


2 Peter 1:17-19

17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts …


You believers — the ones who need to overcome (and 2 Peter has something to say about persecution and false teachers) — you need to follow the truth, that shines like a lamp in a dark place — until the morning star rises in your hearts. Sound odd? Try this paraphrase: “until the new day dawns in you hearts.” What new day? the one that happens after Jesus returns and you’re all resurrected to rule and reign with him, because you are in him and he is you, and you receive the new body promised through the earnest money of the Spirit (borrowing some Pauline terms there). The “in the hearts” idea is communicating something like “until this hope rises in you” — until you see the blessed hope dawning.

So, no . . . the morning star references don’t identify Jesus with or as Satan, and the two aren’t brothers. Lucifer isn’t sharing any of this.

Very good blog post by Michael Heiser. I think he did a great job with his lay out on the morning star. He helped me understand things so much clearer on this subject. Thank you Michael.

Yes, I agree

And thank you ScaRZ for posting it.

This place is just about dead. I thought for awhile things were beginning to pick up some,but that was very short lived. This is the main reason I post as little as I do here. I find it very difficult having any interest when it's this empty.

ScaRZ wrote:This place is just about dead. I thought for awhile things were beginning to pick up some,but that was very short lived. This is the main reason I post as little as I do here. I find it very difficult having any interest when it's this empty.

I promise you - it is far from dead on the periphery.  MY suspicion suggests: there is a great many discussions taking place in places you would not suspect.

True Introspection requires silence to hear the 2 Fiddlers between the discussions.

I'm reading and researching all over, still a lot of back pages to go through here, and so many else where. So here is my beef, I believe in the Bible, but what if our interpetation of some of it is wrong ? Or it has been twisted a little here and there. Then preached over and some things just taken out of true context. Translated from such flowery languages and easy to misunderstand. Especially Genesis, the whole hokey thing about fig leaves, and what did Eve really do ? Was one of Noah's daughters in law or his wife part of Cains or Satans seed. We have a massive problem here on Earth with some "humans"

vectorian wrote:I'm reading and researching all over, still a lot of back pages to go through here, and so many else where. So here is my beef, I believe in the Bible, but what if our interpetation of some of it is wrong ? Or it has been twisted a little here and there. Then preached over and some things just taken out of true context. Translated from such flowery languages and easy to misunderstand. Especially Genesis, the whole hokey thing about fig leaves, and what did Eve really do ? Was one of Noah's daughters in law or his wife part of Cains or Satans seed. We have a massive problem here on Earth with some "humans"

There are many,many splits in beliefs,thinking,interpetations of The Bible. Just look at the different denomintions in any city or town. Not many within one denomintion see things in the exact same way.

No doubting the twisting,sugar coating,and watering down of scripture is in the mix. I view one of the biggest problems as that of taking scripture and making it be as we want it to be. Having a mind set and from there scripture is placed within that mind set.

There will be division that is a certainty. Jesus Christ spoke of this loud and clear and will be part of the landscape.

Luke 12:51-53

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


The Sword cuts and divides. The Sword has come to cut out the traditions of men. Those holding tight their traditions must be divided and cut from the vine.

Matthew 10:34........"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

vectorian wrote:I'm reading and researching all over, still a lot of back pages to go through here, and so many else where. So here is my beef, I believe in the Bible, but what if our interpetation of some of it is wrong ? Or it has been twisted a little here and there. Then preached over and some things just taken out of true context. Translated from such flowery languages and easy to misunderstand. Especially Genesis, the whole hokey thing about fig leaves, and what did Eve really do ? Was one of Noah's daughters in law or his wife part of Cains or Satans seed. We have a massive problem here on Earth with some "humans"

Welcome home Vectorian, good to see you again.

I was reading your consternation and I would suggest this for your consideration,

...does not each life form from the simplest to the most complex bear the mark of the creator?

...does not each life form which bears the mark of the creator thus contain a small spark which is the portion that is of the creative source?

...does not introspection sense this spark in some fashion, even if it varies in perceptional style between individuals?

...is this perception a matter of learning through being preached a truth? or is this self-evident?

...if you are capable of thinking deeply and perceiving self-evident truth by discerning the spark of the source within its various creations, then do you actually require an interpreted teaching or the preaching of someone else's perception?

If the Creative Source endowed you with the capacity and capability to be discerning then is it really a matter of life or death if a document is being interpreted five ways to Sunday?

I am suggesting all the arguing may not be for you. You have asked discerning questions in your query. You are your own library and the Source is with you every step of the way. I am suggesting that the truth you seek may not be in a document, but rather in the relationship between you and your creator. And none can be more discerning of that than yourself. Could not the trust between you and the Source be your guide?

Synchronicity. It will touch you when you're ready. Patience.

Best always, Cy

"Synchronicity. It will touch you when you're ready. Patience."
not sure how to take the quotes out,
The synchronicity thing has been hitting hard the last few days.
I'm watching the enemy forces trying to hang on and herd humanity in the directions they want them to go. Ha, and I do see many parroting a lot of the same hype, that is weird to me. So many on the same page. I do know so many have there own opinions and points of view in Christian churches, it's like ok, I can only guess who's promoting this other stuff.

"The Sword cuts and divides. The Sword has come to cut out the traditions of men. Those holding tight their traditions must be divided and cut from the vine."
Now I see where this is coming into play, so I seek to dig deeper, I can recognize truth, but things are unfolding in layers, patience, I'm not so patient, but the more I uncover the more I see I don't know. This is pertaining to what tis in store for the next few years. What irks me is many have used even the truth/part truths to manipulate. Now I'm uncovering some really twisted things..I keep seeing the whole Genesis and seeds thing lately, I know I still have a ton of reading to catch up to here, I'm sure ScaRZ is way ahead on this. Ah, I think I'll stop there ...

At youtube in the video I created for the return of OMF  - search my name and Return of the Black Swan.  Watch the video.  In it within the center of the video, I gave another definition of the Sword.  It is as old as the one within the Bible, but gives another context which is related to what Jesus later taught - it's origins is Dannan and dates to the return to Earth by them when they grew homesick in the aftermath of the War and Planetary Cataclysm noted in the Bible.  Compare it to Jesus's teachings and purpose surrounding human potential.  The definition is in both Old Irish AND English.

Let me know if you have any questions about it.

Cy

One of the biggest problems I see is that the Prosperity gospel has become such a cancer so deeply rooted into evangelism that it's almost impossible for people to see past it in order to read the words of Jesus as he meant them.

Love takes a backseat while the lust for money is the fuel that burns within the hearts. The army of darkness has crept in laying down layer after layer of fools gold.

The darkness didn't move in slapping upside the head. They crept in gently sliding up beside placing a caressing arm around. A very precise but patient whitewashing.

vectorian wrote:Now I'm uncovering some really twisted things..I keep seeing the whole Genesis and seeds thing lately, I know I still have a ton of reading to catch up to here, I'm sure ScaRZ is way ahead on this. Ah, I think I'll stop there ...

I guess Vectorian you are referring to the serpent seed and the seed of the woman. There are many different views on this subject. I've always found the wording of Genesis 4:25-26 very interesting.

Genesis 4:25-26

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

It appears only after Seth's seed began to populated the earth did mankind begin to call on the name of The LORD. By verse 26 it is clear at that point in time......."then began". What population there was on earth before Seth's seed had no interest in wanting The LORD a part of their lives.

Here you go, V...

Scarz:

Would you say that this description of Jesus to be considered authentic?

"The only physical description of Jesus that does exist is from a copy of a letter from the Roman consul Lentulus to the Roman Emperor Tiberius.  This document was discovered in a Monastery with copies of other ancient documents.  According to the copy of the letter, the original letter from the consul was dated to the 12 year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.  Scholars have historical verification that a certain Roman consul named Lentulus was in Judea at the time of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. His influential family is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews.   Scholars are divided, however, as to the authenticity of the letter.  Lentulus' letter is presented an official report to the Emperor Tiberius.  In his letter Lentulus describes the condemned man named Jesus of Nazareth as having: a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace.  His nose is rather long.  His beard is almost blonde, although not very long.  His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors.....His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant.  His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned.  It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger.  (Holy Land Magazine, Franciscan Holy Land Press, Spring 1998).  Whatever information Tiberius received concerning the strange progress of events concerning the death of this Jew, he was shaken enough to present a shocking suggestion to the Roman Senate.  There is some historical evidence to support the claim that Tiberius was so convinced of Jesus' resurrection from the dead that he attempted to have Him declared a "god", but the Roman Senate refused to approve this provincial Jew's admission to the Roman pantheon of gods."

Per http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Jesus_What%20did%20He%20look%20like%20.htm

MD02 wrote:Scarz:

Would you say that this description of Jesus to be considered authentic?

MD02......I have my doubts the description is authentic. The main reason for my doubts is that scripture seems to paint a different picture.

Jesus would slip through crowds and not be noticed. He never stood out like a sore thumb. He must have been just another guy in appearance.

One good example was that of Judas placing a kiss upon him to target the one the guards needed to apprehend. Why would Judas have to do that if Jesus stood out in a crowd with His distinguishing appearance?

Another example is what Isaiah had to say about the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:2

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

Nicely said ScaRZ.  I would add that 1st century Jewish men kept their hair short.  It was considered unclean otherwise.  And Paul wrote in (1st Corinthians 11:14) that is was a shame for a man to have long hair.  It was written while many of the other Apostles and thousands of Christians who met Jesus were still alive.  I'm quite sure they would have all disowned Paul for saying that, if their Lord had long hair.

MD, you can google that and find it is well documented.  Just stay away from the Catholic websites to avoid confusion.  (those practiced in idolatry)

Good to hear from you Jake. I think your words ring loud and clear. Sometimes I wonder how people today would react to the real deal Jesus. The flesh is still the same flesh as it was 2,000 years ago.

Flesh doesn't wake up one day and become better flesh does it?

“The Divine Council” with guest Dr. Michael Heiser

http://re2podcast.com/2013/11/05/episode-14-the-divine-counsil-with-dr-michael-heiser/

Dr. Michael Heiser joins us to discuss the Divine Council. Did God have a council of divine beings? Did this make the ancient Israelites polytheistic? What was the role of the Divine Council and how did “The Satan” fit into it? We also talk about God’s Vice-Regent and how it ties into the Trinity.

Link

http://media.blubrry.com/re2/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/the-resurrection-and-the-revolution/Episode_14.mp3

Good to hear from you too.
 
Sometimes the flesh is strong and the spirit is weak, and sometimes the spirit is strong and the flesh is tamed.
 
Thank you very much for Heiser's Divine Council Interview.  I will listen to it later today.

My best Mr.s Doubtfire voice "HELLLOOOOO"   lol..

How you guys doin???     Check out this video it's pretty good........  

Hello Nib, Really good to hear from you. Man it's been a long time.

ScaRZ wrote:Hello Nib, Really good to hear from you. Man it's been a long time.

Thanks.  Yea, i wish I had a really good story to tell like billy meyers abducted me and we made neat things out of tinfoil then sat sandwiches on them and took photos.  or that I built a time machine and went back to the garden of eden and can confirm it was not a snake but rather a draco reppie type...  hmmm but that didn't happen either..   Just took some time away from posting anywhere and got a lot of work done.  

But lately I've been re-watching a lot of Michael Heisers stuff ..  He seems to be one of the most well grounded guys in this whole research area- more importantly his ability to coherently understand the tenses  in which the bible verses were meant to be read in.   Truly  an impressive guy to listen too.  

This place is slow but you guys covered some interesting stuff.   Nice to see V is around here too.

Back to that garden of Eden thing though,  I think Mike H has it right that it was some odd serpentine or draco lizard type creature that steered EVE wrong.  I like his point that snakes don't eat dirt- so it doesn't make any sense...  It was someone or something that Eve was use to seeing around like a guard/ Cherub.

ScaRZ wrote:“The Divine Council” with guest Dr. Michael Heiser

http://re2podcast.com/2013/11/05/episode-14-the-divine-counsil-with-dr-michael-heiser/

Dr. Michael Heiser joins us to discuss the Divine Council. Did God have a council of divine beings? Did this make the ancient Israelites polytheistic? What was the role of the Divine Council and how did “The Satan” fit into it? We also talk about God’s Vice-Regent and how it ties into the Trinity.

Link

http://media.blubrry.com/re2/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/the-resurrection-and-the-revolution/Episode_14.mp3

Not sure if you already posted this but it goes hand in hand with your post here...

Nib wrote:
This place is slow but you guys covered some interesting stuff.   Nice to see V is around here too.

Back to that garden of Eden thing though,  I think Mike H has it right that it was some odd serpentine or draco lizard type creature that steered EVE wrong.  I like his point that snakes don't eat dirt- so it doesn't make any sense...  It was someone or something that Eve was use to seeing around like a guard/ Cherub.

Yes Nib, it's very slow here. I just have a difficult time posting content when things are this slow. I feel like I'm talking to myself and I can do that without posting anything.  

Maybe you can kickstart me a little.  


I agree that Michael Heiser is one of the very best. He opens up areas that grab me. I have changed much of my thinking over the last few years.

Yes, I agree again that the serpent was not a snake. The serpent was a Shining One. You know how we can look up at the stars in the night time sky and view the shine and wonder of them. I believe this is why scripture refers to heavenly host as stars,or morning stars.......(Job 38:7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I can only imagine how this Shining One that deceived Eve used his wonder drawing her. Lust of the flesh,lust of the eyes,and the pride of life became the drug she craved.



Thanks Nib for the Michael Heiser video. I will watch it when I get some free time.

Nib wrote:
Not sure if you already posted this but it goes hand in hand with your post here...

I watched it yesterday Nib and thank you for posting it. Michael did a great job of teaching the Divine Council. I plan on watching his Part 2 teaching on Two Powers of the Godhead.

Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059


A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal.

Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be.  Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals.

However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

"What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London. The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

By April Holloway