Part 1c - We are the fallen Angels in Human Form

a reply to: AlephBet

"If you say, 'How shall we persecute him?' And 'What pretext for a case against him can we find?'

This is a better translation. Christ was not guilty. The Pharisees and Sadducees saught to frame Him.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: AlephBet

I enjoy the thread cause it raises many questions. I do not think the translation of they married women is correct. They came into the daughters of men and married souls. Meaning youu take it as a physical bond when it may be a spiritual one like puberty.

I take it one step further. The Fragment (Kore Kosmou) states that the divine beings were forced to incorporate into humankind. As I show in This Thread, we are a dweller on the threshold of sorts. While we are humans below, we are also entangled with the angel above. We are the bride, while the groom is above. To me, daughters are the ones below. The Angels that bonded with the daughters below is something we don't yet understand. For sure we need more information, but the clues suggest that the bride below is for one groom. By making the daughters a harlot, they were corrupted in the sight of the true groom. Again, we really don't know what this means for sure.

The whole point of this section of the Fragment tells that this is the case. We were forced to incorporate into human form, but our inner nature is still the one above in a state of inconscience.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You cant produce good if your nature is fallen. First you must be redeemed by a non-fallen being, hence faith in Christ.

It starts on an individual basis though, no need for belief in anything, if you're a truly good person then you're a part of the solution not the problem.

If we are the fallen angels, then what do you call the evil transdimensional entities that attack us, and pull the strings behind the geopolitical curtain.

Could it be said that the Son must first be redeemed by the Father before the Son could then be a Kinsman of man in human form? Since Baptism saves us (as stated by 1 Peter 3), then the involution raises us to new life. True the symbol of baptism in the ordinance does nothing for us, true baptism into the waters of life does save us. The first fruits of this process seems to be that of the Son of God. He couldn't be fully human apart from being what we are--a sinner in the form of Yahweh. As a baby, he is a new creation. All things are new.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: AlephBet

"If you say, 'How shall we persecute him?' And 'What pretext for a case against him can we find?'

This is a better translation. Christ was not guilty. The Pharisees and Sadducees saught to frame Him.

If their destiny was to fulfill Genesis 9, then they had no choice in the matter. If they failed to connect who Adonai was between the two Lords (OT and NT), then they had no say in the matter. They were following Yahweh (Their Father) when they should have realized the true Father is Elohim of Genesis 1. Unless you can demonstrate that they knew the identity of the Son of God as Yahweh, then you have no case against them. As Christians, we do have the knowledge, although we have not yet made the connection. I don't really know how we can miss it really. Each is Lord Adonai. Each claims to have formed Adam. Only one claims to be a Son of God.

I have a really interesting question for you. Is it possible that Yahweh may have been the deceiver, and Elohim made Himself a true Son of God by coming as a Son of Adam? Could the true identity of Jesus have been that of Elohim Himself, with Yahweh being something worse than the Snake he created?

John 14:7

If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

This is a view I have tossed around, but I still think the original view is best. Yahweh is likely the Son of God. At one time, I believed Adam to be Christ, but Adam was not born. He was formed. Colossians states that the Son of God is the firstborn over all creation. Adam cannot be this Son. Luke 3 seems to suggest he came from the Son of God. It could also be read that he IS the Son of God.

Luke 3

37 son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan,

38 son of Enos, son of Seth,

son of Adam,

son of God.

But again, he is not born. Of course, it's likely Paul that told us this and some say Paul was an antichrist. I do not hold this view, but many do suggest that Paul corrupted the words of Christ. If this is true, then it is a good thing. It further holds harmless those who are corrupted. Follow this to the Snake and Yahweh and you find the ultimate cause of the error in our own natures. Blame always goes back to the one that caused the problem. Ultimately, this is Yahweh.

Too many variables to say for sure.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: AlephBet

"If you say, 'How shall we persecute him?' And 'What pretext for a case against him can we find?'

This is a better translation. Christ was not guilty. The Pharisees and Sadducees saught to frame Him.

I have researched all the translations of Job 19. NIV has the right word with him and not me. Theologians have argued this translation and the NIV comes closer than any can from the original Hebrew.

a reply to: AlephBet

Baptism only redeems us if we are baptized in Christ. Our sins died with Him, and our spirit is reborn with Him. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit then fills our human spirit with God's spirit. So yes, we are redeemed by being baptized in Christ who had to pay for our sins. What you are suggesting is that Yehwah was fallen, then incarnated into a perfect Christ, then was made sin on the cross again (He who knew no sin). Jesus only tasted sin once, and those were our sins on the cross. If He was ever fallen, He would be ineligable as our redeemer.

How would the Father redeem the Son without having a sacrifice for Him? I dont get that. How can baptism redeem if there is no spotless redeemer to be baptized into?

I have a really interesting question for you. Is it possible that Yahweh may have been the deceiver, and Elohim made Himself a true Son of God by coming as a Son of Adam? Could the true identity of Jesus have been that of Elohim Himself, with Yahweh being something worse than the Snake he created?

Elohim litetally means multiple gods. It can be used to describe the gentile pantheon, or it can refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Trinity. So when you say Elohim in reference to the God of Israel, you are including Yehwah. To my knowledge, the only deciever is the Satan, the Covering Cherub formally known as Heillel ben Shahhar. This is not Yehwah, since Yehwah is disclosing the judgement against Heillel to the prophet Isaiah. When Heillel fell, Yehwah took on the roll as the covering Cherub, hence the Christophany Angel of Yehwah. This is not to say that Yehwah is a mere angel, but that He absorbed Heillel's title, when Heillel fell.

This is to be expected. Heillel was the Morning Star, but now Jesus is the Bright Morning Star, and the Church Age believers will assume the title of Mornig Stars as well. Heillel was the original Federal Head of the Morning Stars, but since the Church is to replace the fallen portion of the Morning Stars, naturally Jesus would replace Heillel as the Head of the Church. In this way, Jesus died to redeem both mankind and the angels.

Salvation can only come by a being that never needed redemption.

a reply to: AlephBet

I have researched all the translations of Job 19. NIV has the right word with him and not me. Theologians have argued this translation and the NIV comes closer than any can from the original Hebrew.

So after looking at the hebrew text, here is my translation. Im no theologian or scholar, but the text is simple, and the context gives little room for alternate interpretation.

Transliteration: Job 19:28
Khi thomeru, "Mah nirdap lo weshoresh dabar bi?"

Translation: Job 19:28
If you should say, "How can we blame (Him) seeing that the root-word (or truth) is found in (Him)?"

Verse 28 is predicting a conspiracy against Christ, then verse 29 details the punishment for such treason.

29 “Then be afraid of the sword for yourselves, For wrath brings the punishment of the sword, So that you may know there is judgment.”

From my perspective, it seems that Job is calling Jesus the Word, not the root of corruption.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Or, we could go with the scholars interpretation in the NIV. The Guardian Cherub had a fault that was marked by commerce. What do you see around yourself today in the world of commerce? Our fall is not over until we are saved from it. Today, are you saved from death or will you die? Are you holy or do you sin? 2000 years later, has there been an end to war, or is it ever-present? The reality of salvation is that it must abide on a schedule. 1000 years from our day and age, the same deception will arise in the hearts of mankind again. Between now and then, we will see the snake hit bottom of the abyss.

How about we sit back and wait to see what happens before we judge each other. All things are about to be revealed in our generation. I believe that revelation opens blind eyes and deaf ears. All eyes will see Him return. It's the actions we will witness that determine the truth of the sign of Jonah. If we are currently under a deception, what does this say about the image we embrace? I believe the Son of God is being raised by a Father. No other truth can be more central to the story of humanity than a family struggling to raise a child. To me, it is evident. As long as the image of Yahweh is fallen, so is the one that casts the reflection.

He created the snake. He must kill it out.

a reply to: AlephBet

Or, we could go with the scholars interpretation in the NIV.

Ok, then how do you justify it? Why argue against all other scholarly views on the identity of Yehwah, but hold to the interpretation of one single verse? The word in question is "dabar", which literally means "word", yet you insist on translating it as "sin" or "trouble". Why? Because a scholar says so?
You are the one attributing Yehwah to the Covering Cherib known as Heillel ben Shahhar, and you are holding on to a faulty translation of Job 19:28 that contradicts the context Job 19:29.

I consider you a respectable and deep thinker, but lets be honest here, without your interpretation of Job 19:28 alone, nothing you said can be true.

We can wait for Jesus to return (Im expecting it in 2023), but there is alot on the line here. On one hand, you are claiming that Jesus is Satan on the other hand, Im saying that Yehwah could never have fallen. Which is it? Do we worship Satan of the Creator of the Universe?

If you wait until Jesus' return to resolve this matter, then you may be witnessing the Second Advent from the wrong side.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The word you are referring to is not the one in question. Here is what you should be looking at:

Version 1 NIV

“If you say, ‘How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,

Version 2

8 But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?

Some translations say 'me' meaning Job. Some translations say 'him' meaning the Redeemer.

Of course, we are speaking of Hebrew here. It was a dead language that had to be resurrected. Translation is not certain. You could very well be right on the word dabar as well. You could take apart any verse you wish that is translated from Hebrew and get any number of personal interpretations. In either case, what does an image produce for the one looking at it?

As I said before, this one verse set is not the only passage we can use to determine Yahweh as a son in rebellion. This is THE central mystery that is veiled in the Bible. The Snake is the primary issue in the entire narrative. He is mentioned very little, but we know that the heart of our own error--the one in ME (and you)--is sin. Sin originates with Genesis 2-3. Genesis 1 has no part to play in the fall. Elohim and Ruach Elohim are the 'US' and 'WE' in Genesis 1. They are the image of God, both male and female. Since Yahweh is Adonai of the OT and NT, you have no legs to stand on denying that he is the Son of the NT. He is Adonai in both cases. Love compared to genocide, raping of virgins, indiscriminate killing and punishment of the masses for a Kings error do not match the words of Christ, yet each is Adonai. Which one is the true Lord? Christians say both.

Either they agree, or one was fallen and the other risen. Is Christ risen indeed? Yes in deed. Is he yet to come? Yes. After his death, he IS. Is to come is entirely something different again.

Who is the Angel at their side and who is the one spared?

Job 33

Yet if there is an angel at their side,
a messenger, one out of a thousand,
sent to tell them how to be upright,
24 and he is gracious to that person and says to God,
‘Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
25 let their flesh be renewed like a child’s;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth’—
26 then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,
they will see God’s face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being.
27 And they will go to others and say,
‘I have sinned, I have perverted what is right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
28 God has delivered me from going down to the pit,
and I shall live to enjoy the light of life.’

29 “God does all these things to a person—
twice, even three times—
30 to turn them back from the pit,
that the light of life may shine on them.

a reply to: AlephBet

We know that the person in question is Christ, that is not the issue. The word in question is indeed "dabar", which means "word" or "matter". The NIV is translating it as something comparable to evil.

"How can we hound (Him), the root of _____ is found in (Him)."

Fill in the blank. Based on the other uses of "dabar" in the OT, you can say "word", "matter", "truth" or even "thing". But how can "trouble" be an option?...its an assumption based on misinterpretation.

In the text, the pronoun for "him" is not found, so the interpretation of this passage relies on implications made by the context.

"How can we persecute? The root-matter (truth) is within."

You say Job 19:28 is identifying our redeemer as the root of sin, Im saying the opposite, He is the root of truth. You completely miss the point of Job 19:28&29.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You might be confusing de·bar for nim·tza. De·bar is Word, but nim·tza is against him. What word against him can we find.

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: AlephBet



I enjoy the thread cause it raises many questions. I do not think the translation of they married women is correct. They came into the daughters of men and married souls. Meaning youu take it as a physical bond when it may be a spiritual one like puberty.

I take it one step further. The Fragment (Kore Kosmou) states that the divine beings were forced to incorporate into humankind. As I show in This Thread, we are a dweller on the threshold of sorts. While we are humans below, we are also entangled with the angel above. We are the bride, while the groom is above. To me, daughters are the ones below. The Angels that bonded with the daughters below is something we don't yet understand. For sure we need more information, but the clues suggest that the bride below is for one groom. By making the daughters a harlot, they were corrupted in the sight of the true groom. Again, we really don't know what this means for sure.



The whole point of this section of the Fragment tells that this is the case. We were forced to incorporate into human form, but our inner nature is still the one above in a state of inconscience.

Yes i am terrible reciting verses but it was said by Jesus that we sit right beside him in the clouds eventhough we are here too. Most of what you post comes off as being very famiular to me. As if mental doors are being opened. The main reason i believe that the fallen giants are now beautiful women has to do with other visions i have seen but perhaps it is all true and we are just looking at the twist but i know for sure that most people have other sides to their personality and most keep it hidden and others can't handle the pressure of dealing with it all. in my view those that have split personalities are more true to themselves but society shuns the thought and medicine has been designed to break the links.

a reply to: AlephBet

Yes, sorry for the confusion, but I think Job 19:28 should read; "the root word is found in him", not "root of trouble".

That one word can radically change the meaning of the passage.