AdaptOrDie

Nephillim

60 posts in this topic

Firstly, it is more than a little rude to call someone's beliefs made up. When you do that, you are, in essence, calling their center of self and a huge part of who they are, made up. While I do not agree with Christianity, I do acknowledge that it is a real belief system that is currently in dominance in many countries across the world. I have experienced enough of it to know that it is real and so is the Christian god. However, my experiences have brought me the realization that there are many paths and many gods, (and these gods have many faces), and all of these paths interconnect whether by history or evolution or origin or any other number of factors. There is no one correct way to believe. I can't find the quote I'm looking for right now so I won't bother. But I will say I don't really care what anyone believes so long as they don't try to make me believe what they do, or tell me that I am wrong, or just plain force their ways on me. Now, it is hard for me to be in a relationship with someone who is Christian, but that is for a whole different set of reasons concerning things like wedding ceremonies and raising children and such.

*Attempt at keeping the peace alert*

Secondly, Bran, perhaps the problem here is not so much what you're saying but how you are saying it. You have come off close-minded and state your beliefs as if they are fact and the only acceptable way in existence. While this may not be your intent, that is how it has come off to others, including myself. It is fine to have actual facts to back up what you are stating concerning things like this topic, however please remember that many of us here to not believe the bible (and many other religious texts for that matter) to be fact. I believe that there are some good ideas in there, but the rest is just stories to me, things that may have happened but have probably been so embellished and warped over time with translation and mistranslation that the reality of what happened is lost. And we can harp on divine inspiration all we like but it is a well-known fact that humanity as a whole has a way of getting things wrong or even purposely altering things. For instance, if you look to Judaism, Eve was not Adam's first wife, Lilith was. And whether she did indeed become a mother of demons or not, she would have been demonized in stories for the simple fact that she refused to submit to her husband. The Christian texts completely leave out Lilith, who was created the same way as Adam and thereby implying that she was intended to act as his equal. For me, it would have been very important growing up to know about such a person. But I digress. The bible we have today consists of exactly what the church at the time of it's inception decided should be in it, and that is something that was documented in history (the Council of Nicea as well as the general happenings years later at Carthage). So we have other texts like the Apocrypha that contain other books that were submitted for addition and denied. The history concerning the martyrs and initial Christian persecution was a fascinating study for me in a course I took in college and the Apocrypha was one of the texts we had to read. A surprising number of things were omitted from a book that many people take as fact. I won't even begin to touch on the debate between whether Jesus was created by the Christian god as his son or was actually an incarnation of that god himself as it remains a point of divergence among many denominations.This does not, however, mean the belief is false or made up, especially if the believers hold true to the core ideals of their faith, something I have personally found to be lacking, especially in this era.

And all that rambling was simply to say, perhaps we can all word things better and would do well to remember that what we share here are our opinions and no belief is taken as fact. I do not expect anyone else here to believe my spiritual experiences as a shaman or to believe that my gods are real. All any of us can ask of each other is that we accept what is offered and understand that we all come from different, yet interconnected, paths. And as stated before, the only way we could know the facts about any and all of this, would be to go back in time to speak with the authors directly, or to experience the events for ourselves. Which would probably result in a massive ripple effect that alters the flow of time and space and warps reality and we all end up trapped in....oh...um...sorry. I got a little carried away with that fantasy there :lol:

Does this make any sense: beliefs in general are not fact, but what we experience because of our beliefs becomes personal fact.

And I have meandered well enough away from my original thought process.....forgive me.

~Rhannan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward, there is one thing that I think will help communication.

There are two types of beliefs at play when getting into any topic that concerns a religion that has an extensively recorded history and a text to go along with it.

1.) Academic beliefs: By this I mean historical peoples and places, what those peoples believed, what they did etc. This subject material is in the realm of academia, objective research, and when it comes to this I most likely will state things as fact. I will back up what I say with academic evidence. For instance, when it is claimed that the bible has been rewritten so much that the original is completely lost, I will contest this factually on the basis of existing manuscript evidence. If it is claimed that Christians made up hell, I will point to the dead sea texts that show that the concept existed, at least in the minds and writings, of people who predate christianity. It is a fact that the idea was not invented by Christians.

2.) Spiritual beliefs: This includes theology. On this subject, I never expect anyone to agree, nor do I state things as facts. I have not stated any spiritual beliefs as facts in this thread. I always include a personal belief in what I type concerning spiritual beliefs and ideas. I have also stated exactly the opposite of what I have been accused of, which is that I do not expect anyone to believe it. So does hell actually exist? This is a spiritual belief and I will not treat what I believe about it as a fact here, out of respect for others.

So if I say, "ancient hebrews believed demons existed," I am stating the idea that those people believed demons existed as a fact, but I am NOT stating that their beliefs about demons are factual. See what I mean?

I hope people can see the difference between the two moving forward.

On that note, I will challenge what you said concerning Lilith's relation to Judaism, in a purely academic sense. These ideas concerning Lilith you mention did not show up until about 500 C.E. and thus there is no reason for any of it to be included in a bible that was completed centuries prior to that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate getting into this topic, so i will keep it short. The point in which I stopped believing in Christianity was the point when i got my hands on a Bible that is over 100 years old and set out and got it translated, then out of curiosity i matched it up to a current one, the differences where quite staggering, slight changes in words here and there that changed the entire meaning of sentences or paragraphs. now this could have just been through translation or purposely changed (I am leaning on translation), but the point is that things change when they are getting translated its a fact any book that gets translated will loose some of its original meaning and the more its translated over time the more it changes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree Mog, except that we have so much original language manuscript evidence found at this point. Using all that, modern translations have a very good foundation.

The transmission of the text is pretty sound, but that does not mean you have to believe any of its theology or spiritual claims. No one does.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bran: I will give you that last part, as I have looked more into it, although I have found that the main reason for the inception of her is that there is a contradiction within the book of Genesis that some attempted to sort out. In Genesis 1, it is stated that both man and woman have been created, however in Genesis 2 Adam is the only human and after naming all of the animals is alone with no suitable partner for himself. Thus the creation of Eve. In order to keep what is perceived as the word of god from contradicting itself, Rabbis came up with 2 theories. One was that Adam was androgynous, both male and female, and so god separated them into two beings. The other was that of the first Eve, which is that Adam did have a first wife but found her unsuitable in some way and so the second Eve was created. It is later on in the Alphabet of Ben Sirah that Lilith is directly linked with the first wife of Adam and is demonized via an association with the Sumerian Lillu demons, which are considered vampiric entities, as well as with the Mesopotamian lilin, which are succubae. While she was perhaps not initially named, this shows that either the book contradicts itself, a possible author error, or Adam really did have a first wife. Both concepts are, at least to me, important information and could make for good debate and exploration on human origins if the original author and subsequent translators of the book had bothered to actually include more information. The problem is, unfortunately, that Adam and Eve themselves didn't write down what all transpired and so the account we have is one that I am supposing came via divine inspiration or oral tradition, both of which are fallible and can lead to many inaccuracies. I myself has received some divine revelation/inspiration before, and don't think for one moment that I didn't get something wrong or wonder if I got something wrong or find that, when spoken to, sometimes more than one word or way of saying something would present itself at a time. Now if there were documents already, such as the book of Enoch which supposedly predates the flood (an event mentioned in nearly every religion I have encountered), then it is possible that there were pages lost or things mistranslated.

However, I rather don't care for the genesis story given by Christianity to begin with. No matter how you look at it, humanity was doomed to fail the test from the beginning as we are a naturally curious species and so would eventually give in to the temptation of this so-called forbidden fruit. Why bother putting it there in the first place, within easy reach, if it was something forbidden? Also, I agree with the quote I've seen running around online that Eve was framed. Historically, women have been blamed for the downfall of men, yet the ones that raise up great men get little to no recognition.

@Mog: For me, the start was when I looked around my church and the people therein and saw nothing but hypocrisy and smiling faces that hid poison inside. I was already walking a new path, though still influenced by my upbringing, by the time I got to that martyr study in college.

All things aside, this particular topic is not about what we've been going at, it's about the nephillim. Shall we continue with that?

~Rhannan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that was the beginning, just that was the last straw really. i had my doubts since long before that

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with getting back to the Nephilim. I already gave my run down as to how i see that particular idea so I may not have much more to say. So for now I will just mention to Rhannan that some see two episodes of creation in Genesis, which removes the contradictions other interpretations face. I can PM or something if you want to know more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mog: I know you said it wasn't the beginning for you, I was just telling you what was for me.

@Bran: I really don't care. The whole problem is that it is some see one thing and some see another. It's still open to interpretation which leaves room for many possibilities.

~Rhannan

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought but Genesis 6.4 does not say that the grigori were the parents of the nephilim all it says is that there were giants around at the time when the Grigori came to be with women.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

It says the same in the new international verse too,

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

All that means is that the offspring of the Grigori and humans were special in different ways, but not giants, not Nephilim, so who or what were the Nephilim?

Zygo :flame:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My my, this has been quite fun to read through. :smile:

The whole problem is that it is some see one thing and some see another. It's still open to interpretation which leaves room for many possibilities.

~Rhannan

(Rhannan I know you believe in many paths, im just borrowing your words to make myself think)

I think that is the best part. In fact I'd go so far as to say that's the only part that truly matters. Anyone who has studied philosophy as a way of life knows that the answers to the questions don't matter, it's you going down the path of discovery finding how this connects with that until you find out that what seemed to be opposed were really just far points on the same coin, and now you have an entirely new side of that coin to explore.

Now I agree with a lot of the things Bran said, but some I just don't know enough about or I completely disagree with.

Now even though I am an angel, my God isn't a jealous God. The bible I know isn't for me, it's for the children of man, and not even all of them.

The world we live in isn't black and white, it's not even muddied greys. It's a Hugh array of hues, shades, tints. Beauty. So in such a world why would there be one path, or one truth for all?

Anyways I'm done running through that, on to the Nephilium.

I do think just about any angel has the power to manifest physically but not that that would matter because if there are being like succubi or inccubi why would angels have to be physical to procreate? My last point on this is Zeus, if the stories he only had to "shower" a woman to produce a child. Zero intercourse and only external.. Would touch be the right word? So imagine what a nonphysical angel could do not limited to external touch.

As to the point you brought up Zygo. Well I'll just add that to the list of things I have to think about from this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites