Angels....hmmmmmmmmm

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
They were renamed angels by the one god worshippers, but they were not angels. The problem is that the connection in the story is not being made to its source, so it seems like it stands away from all other myths. But Genesis right up to Canaan being expelled is a retelling of the Egyptian creation myths. The angels responsible for the mating with humans are the demi-Gods of Egypt, Osiris, and Seth. The men of old and of renown are the demi-gods themselves, the 5 being Atum, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and Seth.

YOu forgetting the flood and according to Old testement history there were inhabitants of earth before the flood, while according to Egyption Myth there was nothing before the flood. The great flood is often the biggest determination as to what came first since almost every religion or myth has that story. if fact, Egypt has a problem with its myth since the Upper nile one, and lower nile ones are differant.

Often was the practice of polytheistic religons to create a god for everything that happened in life that you could not explain. or control. Even in Greek and romans

and the fact that angels are better translated as "Messengers" serving God it really throws the comparison assumption

Originally posted by Jehosephat
YOu forgetting the flood and according to Old testement history there were inhabitants of earth before the flood, while according to Egyption Myth there was nothing before the flood. The great flood is often the biggest determination as to what came first since almost every religion or myth has that story. if fact, Egypt has a problem with its myth since the Upper nile one, and lower nile ones are differant.

Actually I am not forgetting anything. The creation story in Genesis seems to be two-fold and confounding many. It is in fact three-fold, and incorporates every Egyptain creation myth, all three of them, where the third makes the demi-gods into humans to meet the one-god theory. The flood recreates all three for them starting all over with the Egyptian god Seth who was reverred by the one-god Egyptians before the supposed exodus. The Hebrew geneaology has been tampered with as is evident if one inspects same. Hence the Hebrew son of Adam, Seth. The bad boy brother slayer, the one who caused all of the Aten gods to be erased as well as can be in Egyptian history.

You can start with Noach...Nun. or you can read my last post on Giza-what is the Egyptian government hiding?

No my dear, the Jews were Egyptians, their God Aten. Their prayers ending in Amen, as do all good Christian prayers. Aten, the god struck from the records of Egypt, the same which jews are not permitted to say. The history corresponds and so does their scripture. Have you an open mind?

A curious mind is an amazing thing.

and the fact that angels are better translated as "Messengers" serving God it really throws the comparison assumption

The angels are the Egyptian gods, the story as told as to why Ra wanted to destroy humankind...

[edit on 2/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

great thread !

Its not just the language issue, but the translations themselves are incorrect. God is female, Male, both and neither depending on what God is doing in original hebrew, amariac and greek. When translated into English, God becomes Male across the board, in King James Bible. ( i wonder how God would read in the Queen Catherine Bible?). The farther back in History we travel, God becomes more and more Female, Until we are looking at the great goddess megaliths, dating back tens of thousands of years. God is Female, Period. No ifs, ands, or ......well, you get the picture.


Angels are more complex, and interesting. They are almost universally accepted and with little to almost no conflict from some major religions to another. A Christian can relate to a Muslim can relate to a Wiccan can relate to a whatever regarding angels.
Gabriel, Uriel, Michael, Metatron, etc, are either guardians of the four watch towers, principalities of the air, earth, heavens, or are messengers of God, etc. All similar roles. Always found that fascinating. I remember reading that more people believe in Angels than believe in God.

The question was about the sons of God....LadyV, i truly believe that we have only a small portion of what was supposed to be left to us for guidance, and causes the issues we discuss on these boards.

Looking at the Bible as a whole does not make any sense; Borrowed stories, conflicting themes, 18 years obliterated from jesus life, several versions of the same creation story, God afraid of people building a tower? why would god be afraid and speaking in plural to other gods of humans building a tower..? exactly how far up could people build back then? There are too many riddles, which indicates there was a lot of material removed and edited, for whatever reason.

the Sons of God and Angels, and salvation and etc, are mixed into this jigsaw puzzle, and we end up with mysteries and many unanswered questions. I would love to explore the Vatican repositories, imagine a lot of answers lie there.

Originally posted by Chakotay
Trying to understand the Universe by quoting the Bible is like trying to understand the world by quoting supermarket tabloids.

Jer 5:21-22
Gen 9:13
Ps 104:9
Job 38:33
Job 37:18
1Cor 13:12

p.s. O.J. is really innocent!

Originally posted by llpoolej
Maybe God and Angels are genderless. Doesn't really matter to me. I assume they are male as Adam was made in God's image and Eve was made second, to be his partner.

Again that doesn't mean women are *lesser* just not male. Which is cool with me. I kinda think they are an improvement on the first try

Kinda like that first try at a new car. The next year always is an improvement on it

Actually woman was taken out of man, so a woman is part of a man. That's why the bible states that a man and a woman is supposed to cleave together in marriage. In the bible when God speaks of man in general woman are included too. God said that eve was to be adams partner, not his slave, not his waiter, but his equal.

Women are equal to man in personhood, but God made a system where the man is acountable for him and his better half. In the garden God didn't speak to eve first, he came straight to Adam. Men are told to treat women as Jesus does the church. He died for her, he loves her unconditionally, and he's faithful to her no matter how unfaithful she is. The man is the highpreist of the home, he's the gaurdian, he's the watchman.

God is a God of order, so just like angels have different rankings and positionings. God made men the heads of families.

I agree, the first dieties were goddesses. The most ancient portrayals of dieties definately revere the birth canal in a women. It was women who were magical and through some mystery, could create men....the men didn't know how....one of the common places to worship the goddesses were in the groves, trees. The "tree of life" that was grown in the garden was symbolic of the goddess, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (judgement and reason), the symbol of the god. Until they chose a tree they were innocent and childlike, without the ability to judge just who was the superior one, so the earth was a garden, because the earth was balanced. Without this ability to judge, they were much like the angels, who unless corrupted by an outside force, also don't judge, but run on more of an instictive nature.....thus, a good angel from god could go into sodom and burn the entire place, and feel no guilt because that was the command of his creator. So, Just as Satan...who isn't lucifer....corupted lucifer to rebell, lucifer corrupted eve. And, well, then eve corrupted adam. thus the perfect balance folded and the garden taken away from them until the time came that the balance could be restored. They chose the apple, that would make the God supreme and give man predomince.....by giving humans the abilitiy the be able to make faulty judgements on what is really very little knowledge. childbirth became much more painful because now the women knew that it was pain, that it hurt, and was bad. we should resist the bad, and will most women know what happens when you don't let those labor contractions just ebb and flow but rather tense up and try to resist the next one, now don't we. So God tells them of the CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS: women would bear children in pain, and be under the men's thumb...(since they both now knew that he was the stronger in phycial strenth), and men would work from sunup to sundown for the earth goddess to provide him with the food he would eat, since their decision threw off her balance. And, gave them a few instructions. one of which was that the husband would leave his family and go to his wife and they would become one.....with the women's family....clan, tribe, ect. For a while, man still saw the women as very magical, and kind of fearful. the women created sons and daughters, and knew how to use the plants to heal thier sickness, ect. And, well, until they learned a little more about the birds and the bees, well, the women kind held the power. The clans were maternal based. But, then well, the man discovered the truth and just as the earliest portrayals of god were of the birth canal, now they of the man's gentiles. Giant pillars to the skies! (tower of babel?). And, well, the Son's of the God (those new tribes that were popping up that were more paternal orientated, took what was their offspring (the daughters of men) to be their wives....took them, away from their families, to other lands, far, far away!!! And, there were giants in the land....(I don't know, women do carry over more dna information to the child than the men, I don't know enough about the science, but there's a whole other version that is passed from mother to child. SO, it might be resonable to assume that whole other strand might carry basic info that makes us all human. and well, as long as the mothers stayed together and the men came to them from areas nearby (therefore having the same strand) that strand stayed intack) but maybe it took some time to stabilized when new strands were presented?

Just another off the wall theory.....

[edit on 7-2-2005 by dawnstar]

HKOL, I was kidding around Your explanation is excellent though. Dawnstar, what HKOL wrote is what I was trying to say in the Promise Keepers thread of yours. He just said it MUCH better.

A professional debater I am not!

"Women are equal to man in personhood, but God made a system where the man is acountable for him and his better half. In the garden God didn't speak to eve first, he came straight to Adam. Men are told to treat women as Jesus does the church. He died for her, he loves her unconditionally, and he's faithful to her no matter how unfaithful she is. The man is the highpreist of the home, he's the gaurdian, he's the watchman. "


How can a christian organization teach men how to respect women and hold onto their christian faith with out interferring with constitutional rights a little. It is the basic tenat of all christian faiths that God created women to be led and subservient to the men, and therefore it should ultimately be the man who is responsible for the condition of the women and the family?
It doesn't jive with our constitution, and therefore our government shouldn't be involved with it being propagandaized. That was what I was saying. Look at the command the bible says God gave Adam and compare it to what he says to eve. there's a pretty big difference there isn't it? I mean, Gee! I don't see what problem is, the birds are landing in the trees, munching down the fruit and yesterday, I well, I goofed, and stepped on one.....we are all still alive. But, in reality, I think they were driven more by instict, and well, if it wasn't for lucifer, they would have not touched either. And, I kind of think God knew he'd show up, don't you. Like, it was planned from the beginning when the First thing God did was create Lucifer's temptor. God wanted creatures a little more closer to him, with a little intelligence. We partook of the knowledge of good and evil, not the understanding of it. understanding and wisdom comes off Sophia, and she's just a branch on the other tree, the one God barred us from. So, God left us how to figure this one out on our own. We are the ones who restores the balance, and streghtens the goddess...since that is where the understanding lies. As long as the women, lived in their little maternal homelands, man's power was held in check by his in-laws. Once removed, her power was weakened, and so wasn't the goddesses. Man stepped further and further away from the wisdom his needed to control his knowledge of the good and evil, strenth and weakness, worthy and unworthy.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by dawnstar]

Why is there a man and a woman? There's a physical compatibility that will allow mankind to be fruitful and multiply. Do angels need to reproduce? Maybe, maybe not, but we are not angels so it matters not whether we can identify with them in this way.

What play does gender have in reasoning, beliefs, intelligence, emotion, and wisdom? The only subservience I'd heard Jesus talk about it is to God.

God said that eve was to be adams partner, not his slave, not his waiter, but his equal.
Women are equal to man in personhood, but God made a system where the man is acountable for him and his better half.

Is this the part that you found that doesn't jive with the constitution? If so, how does it violate the constitution and what is wrong this approach to marriage?

Dawnstar, would you just prefer to believe that God and the bible oppresses women? Does it make it easier to then feel justified in scoffing at it?

I do not feel oppressed(nor am I in reality) I do not feel that God has mandated my husband treat me less than himself. I sincerely don't understand where that belief comes from

It's this part, right here....
"The man is the highpreist of the home, he's the gaurdian, he's the watchman."

Gee, Adam was the guardian of Eve, the Watchmen of the Garden.....okay, explain how lucifer managed to sneak through on his watch and get to Eve??

But here's the problem. I thought Christ came so we wouldn't need a high priest, since the high priests had become self serving idiots? Originally, the high priests were the only ones able to enter the holiest of holy and chat with God, it was that high priest who would then go and and deliver his commands to the people. Maybe, or maybe he would just give them a line of crap!
And, the kings were also divinely empowered to be led by god to deliver the laws of God. These two "divine power" remained in charge of things up until the 1700-1800s. When guttenburg printed the press, and well, the people got to read the words of God themselves. And, well, they saw that God had removed the power from them through Christ. The idea that God had given them certain inalienable rights came into the picture. you know, life, liberty, the persuit of happiness.. Where are these rights, when the king has had a chat with his god, and decided that your daughter is to be his 47th wife? And, those powers that claimed ordination from god fell, one after the other. kingdoms of absolute rule, as well as priests with the absolute power over you spiritual lives. And, well, slavery went too. Man's god given right to proclaim his own destiny (man, the gender), were important enough for him to take up arms, have revoulutions, and civil wars for. But, then it came to the rights for the other half of the human race, the women.....and well things got a little sticky.

But, let's look at the current administration, the ones who want the faith based initiatives going around telling women that their husbands hold this position in their lives as high priest. How many laws have they presented into congress that basically tries to make God's law (as interpreted by the judge) unquestionable?
When Gonzales was in hearings for his new position, why couldn't he answer the one question as to weather or not the president could ignore the laws of the land if he felt they were wrong? And, well, if it's the husband that they believe to be making all the decisions for the family, and him who is to be held responsible for them, well, why is it that when talking about social security, or welfare, they are so quick to dismiss the idea that these programs serve a vital purpose and they are so quick to throw the responsibility back on the women. If everyone took up their philosophy, and well, women surrendered, who will they blame later on down the road, when the guy has earned all the money....his money in all due respects, while the women stayed home and tended to the kids, and relied on his kindness for her bread and her shelter. Will it really be her fault when he hoards his money, makes her account for every cent she spends, and then wastes it on his pleasures instead of investing in their future. Why is it that the ones being prosecuted in the prison abuse scandle, probably were urged on by their superiors to handle the prisoners the way they were handled, while the superiors jump out from under the gun and let them take the fall. It was Bush who was the gatekeeper, the watchmen, where has he, or Rumsfeild, or anyone else in the administration taken any kind of responsibility for their actions....instead two of the main authors of the policies were promoted to positions of more power!
So, why do you think that these people would want to enforce the idea of men as high priests over their women, if not to use it later on down the line to reinforce their own idea of divine appointment and thus, nonaccountability of their own actions.