Whatbs with the silly Godbs vehicle at scers study site the season UFObs

[godchild]

Go check out am/sc teachings about God (a spirit) traveling around in some metal contraption. Its one of the sillier notions am comes up with. Of course, their belief in and study of UFO's fits right in with this, no matter how theoretical and non-biblical this is.

God created everything. If they believe He could create this whole world, which would include metals, electricity, oil, whatever; why would He need a vehicle to transport Himself? Do the angels also travel in "vehicles". Or do the scers, who believe they were once angels, think they have so much more power than God Himself that they don't need a vehicle to travel around in?

And that brings up another question. If, as they believe, they were angels, and there are fallen angels, who are the other angels present today according to the Word? Are they saying the angels who are present today are those who don't want to be born of woman, as they say about the fallen angels. If humans were angels, why do we need invisible angels? We've got lots of humans. And that takes us back to the "vehicles". Are am/sc students saying there are no invisible angels? I wonder what the 'catholic' scer thinks about this, as the Catholic Church is so into "exorcising of spirits". Do they have to get them out of their 'vehicles' first? lol

Sorry for the last comment; couldn't resist. It is so bizarre a belief, you have to laugh. You have to wonder why these folks never think of these things. I think they do but quickly shove it back into the sleeping recesses of their minds; frightened to let it come forward and into some light: truth.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Wow, godchild really must think God is some invisible blob which probably floats around in space...lol</font>

[godchild]

Did I ever say God is a "blob". Those words from ter are an insult to Him and His Word which say in John "God is Spirit." I am not surprised, however. They are willing to insult Him and His Holy Word in defense of themselves and their leader, (a man,) over Him. How that comment (from one who claims to love the Lord) must have grieved His Spirit!

quote from ter before (and I hope she does) she deletes it in shame):

terluvire
Member
Username: terluvire

Post Number: 67
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 70.15.2.34
Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 10:36 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, godchild really must think God is some invisible blob which probably floats around in space...lol
---------------------end
I post that to remind her she should think seriously before writing such blasphemous words.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Well what do you think ungodly-child?

Is he only a conscienceness floating in space?

Does he have a form?

If not, what do you consider someone with no form?

Thanks</font>http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[arron]

GOD IS REAL HE IS NOT A BLOB, HE CAN DO ANYTHING AND "FLOAT, OR WHAT EVER ELSE IF HE DECIDES TOO) HE rides on the wind or anything else HE decides to use aCHARIOT OF FIRE TO GET elijah. so dont call GOD ablob or even referr to HIM as such

[dowen]

I really fail to see how Ter's comment could possibly be blasphemy.

It seems that GC is getting desperate here.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Dowen, thank you.

You're right. I never said God was a blob. I was asking ungodly-child if that is what she thought.

Ungodly-child, please explain these verses to me:</font>

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

<font color="0000ff">So does God have a body, do spiritual beings have a form, a body?</font>

Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

<font color="0000ff">What is a celestial body?</font>

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

<font color="0000ff">What is a natural body? What is a spiritual body? Are there 2 types of bodies?

And one more thing.....Please show me in nature where the children have a completely different body than the parents.

God is our Father, is he not? Why would He create his children to look completely unlike him?
Thanks in advance for your explaination.</font> http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">WLS said:
If God wants to become a blob, then He jolly well will become a blob.

That's right, God can be whatever he wants to be.

"I am that I am"</font>

[smyrna]

Godchild would rather believe in Flying horses and Chariots that were on fire.

Godchild will not bee able to answer these questions, at least without sounding like the total whack job she usually sounds like:

Who is more likely to believe in UFO's, based upon known statistics?

1.People with advanced degrees.
2.Non-intellectuals.

True or False:

No one at the Center for UFO studies has an advanced degree.

True or False:

The U.S government never took the subject of UFOs
seriously enough to undertake their own research projects.

True or False:

There are no books, research publications, or any other material that addresses the relationship between UFO sightings and abduction experiences with ancient religious writings.

Who is "the angel of the Lord" in Scripture?
(that will be fun to hear her answer)

True or False:

Highly experienced airline pilots, military radar operators, police officers, and civilians in different countries have never had encounters with UFO's that were so close, that there was no explanation other than some type of unknown, intelligently controlled and manufactured object.

How did Elijah ascend to heaven without dying, in a burning chariot by flying horses who were also burning?

Here is an interesting thought on the subject:

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000716.htm

What was the "pillar of a cloud" and the "pillar of fire" in Exodus?

If Jesus in His resurrected body was merely Spirit, then why did the people who witnessed His Ascension describe it not as Him just disappearing, but rising up and then hidden by a cloud?

What is the "image" of God in relationship to man, as is documented in Genesis?

True or False:

Angels do not eat food, the description of angel's food in Psalm 78 is a lie or just words to an ancient song.

The angels at Sodom were just a couple of guys that had some strange powers, that didn't include not having to eat or sleep. (Genesis 19)

Well, I can think of more, and I know Godchild, as stupid as she is, won't try and answer these questions, she'll dodge them all.

But we can hope, can't we?

[smyrna]

I forgot one more important person, that Godchild would be very foolish to call a whacko, as if we even care what she thinks about people:

Please read this bio of Dr. John Mack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward_Mack

Godchild has really blown it again.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

It's interesting though, that Dr. Mack had detractors that were almost as zealous as our own detractors. That tells me something about how people will react to iconoclasts, no matter how silly their preconceived notions are.

[xman3]

I must admit that in my opinion (and that's all it is) the UFO stuff and God needing some vehicle is the silliest aspect of this ministry I've seen so far. I fail to see how godchild is the one looking foolish in this one. I've heard Pastor Murray refer to this stuff in his Q and A portion and I find it quite humorous myself. It doesn't really matter much to me though if it's right or wrong. It's just funny to me. Nothing personal to the believers of it though. Laugh at me if you want though because I believe God doesn't need any vehicle at all, nor does anyone who he decides doesn't need one either.

[smyrna]

Xman,

No one claims that UFOs are machines, at least in the sense people base their idea of a machine on what mankind alone can conceive.

In other words, we do not have any idea how to explain UFO's in a way that would actually take us closer to what they really are. Hence the term Unidentified Flying Objects.

What we do know, is that they have been seen for
millenia. They are not hallucinations,I ask that you review the comments I wrote above yours.

Serious researchers work to find out more about the phenomenon.

God indeed does not have to appear in a vehicle of any kind. But we also have to acknowledge that He does CHOOSE to do things we may not expect of Him.

Detractors have no right to claim only their "understanding" is an open and shut case.

After all, should all UFO research cease just because Godchild or whoever does not believe they exist?

Maybe you can tell us what this verse from Psalm 18 means:

10. "And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind."

God doesn't have to ride on the back of a Cherub, but perhaps it was an ancient man's only way to describe what he saw, or what someone else saw.

You weren't there, I wasn't there, but we are here, in a world that has people more serious than Godchild could ever wish to be, working to find out just what is flying around in our skies that we did NOT manufacture, but are clearly intelligently controlled and seem to have even been described in ancient texts, Biblical and otherwise.

So you can also scoff if you wish, but it does seem that you have done little or no research at all into UFOs, their possible relationship to ancient religious writings, and the caliber of people who are currently studying the phenomena.

To me, scoffing at something you clearly have not studied, and I'm not just talking about you, is the silliest position I can see anyone take.

How can anyone smirk or scoff at something they know little or nothing about?

It's like all the people who hung on to their horse and buggies, claiming if anyone travels in an open car faster than a horse, they won't be able to catch their breath, and that is a historical fact, there were actually SCIENTISTS that believed that!

[wls]

"Nothing personal to the believers of it though. Laugh at me if you want though because I believe God doesn't need any vehicle at all, nor does anyone who he decides doesn't need one either."

That's what I used to think too, however it's pretty hard to ignore what's written in Ezekiel. It basically comes right out and says "Flying Saucer".

Remember, the only thing Ezekiel ever saw fly were birds, so to Ezekiels credit, he did an apt job of describing something beyond his comprehension.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">ungodly-child, where did you go?</font>

[godchild]

I consider God to be a Spirit, as the bible says. You've got a dictionary don't you. Look it up. If you haven't studied "for yourself" you've got one more major problem, ter. You'd better get off your lead <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> and start studying on your own instead of being a "yes person" to am, or smyrna or anyone else whose views "sound good" to you. You don't have the intelligence to accept what your feeble mind tells you. Eternal is eternal. Spirit is spirit: God is Life. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE. Spirit does not have FORM, ter. Does the wind have form, ter. Spirit is also described as wind. I know this is way over your ability, but if you just pray and trust what the bible tells you and the Holy Spirit confirms if you ask sincerely, you will know the truth. Even children understand. Just don't add to the Word, ter (like bullinger's appendixes or am's side-notes which he borrows from other fanatics with no knowledge of who God is. Remember John's words in Revelation, ter. "No adding to or taking away from this book." More words you choose to ignore, to your own spiritual detriment. If you are correcting what your son has learned in his Christian private school, he's in big trouble; at least until he gets away from you.

Now, since I answered your question, what "form" did am tell you God has? And why don't YOU describe His vehicle for us, ms. yes.

[xman3]

Now I have no credibility unless I re-intereprate Ezekiel huh? Why I oughta be insulted.

Actually, a long, long, time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I did a report entitled "Is God an Astronaught?" In this report, I utilized the Ezekiel stuff and other things. Since then, after becoming a Christian, I considered the premise ridiculous.

I will not interperate Ezekiel or any other verses to establish credibility here. Read Chariots of the Gods. This stuff is a twist on an old story and I find it as funny now as I wanted it to be true then when I was a non believer. Also, one doesn't build these kind of doctrines on a few scriptures. This, is a perfect example of what I referred to in the non sc thread when I ascribed some of the SC students taking ambiguous scriptures and forming doctrines out of them. Thanks for doing my work for me there.

I believe when one compares this doctrine formed on your's and other's views of what you think these verses could say or mean, with my view which is that God doesn't need a vehicle at all (but can use one if He wants to take a ride) I will not be the one who looks incredible. I understand the train of thought and find it a christianized version of Eric Von Danikan's (can't remember how to spell his name) stuff.

All in all, I find Ezekial's vision or whatever interesting and difficult to put in a tightly sealed box, but despite that still find this belief humorous. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I don't care too much, but think it is not true and funny. Nothing personal.

Like I said, I like to listen to PM sometimes. He brilliantly is found on air at a time when he is the only one on around here if one wants to watch a preacher or teacher. I like the way he goes right into the word and reads and teaches, but when he diverts into these things, I am more amused than enlightened. This just happens to be one of the things he espouses that I don't buy into and I don't consider it important enough to discredit him.

[godchild]

The word Celestial and Telestial is speaking of the stars. No, we are not stars, ter. Bodies of stars. Ever heard the term. There are stars brighter (because they are larger or closer to our point of vision), there are dimmer stars (which are smaller or farther away). Paul used those words as an example. Have you ever met anyone who seemed bigger than life because of their personality? That's an example. They seem to 'light up' a room when they enter. They don't actually, you know. You do know that, don't you. They don't have battery wired lights attached to them, you know. (Does personality have form, ter? I'm shaking my head in dismay at your questions.) Sorry, but I've totally lost my patience with this kind of ignorance. Read the bible without all the additional garbage provided to you, ter. Just, for your sake, give it one try.

Think on this for one solid minute without distraction. See if you get it: You cannot see wind. Wind is evidenced by what it touches. What it touches moves. That is the proof of it. God is wind, ter. Spirit, Life, truth.

[godchild]

quote from ter:
That's right, God can be whatever he wants to be.

"I am that I am"
-------------------
God doesn't change Himself into anything other than what He is, has always been, will always be. He is an "UNCHANGING GOD", ter. Look in your dictionary for blob, ter, then tell me it was not an insult to Him to suggest He is one or can be one. A blob of what, ter. When you think of a blob, what comes to mind. Is it anything wonderful, beautiful, inspiring, moving? Let us know. Let me give you a hint. A blob is something unfinished. Do you suggest God is just a blob of unfinished or waste matter? Do you really, honestly believe that? Why would you even joke about it? ter, a blob could be a gob of snot or your feces after it hits the toilet. Do you imagine God this way. Is it funny to you?

[xman3]

The previous post, though essentially my thoughts, was posted when it should have been reviewed- a common factnet flaw. It will have to do, but it was incomplete at best.

Smyrna- I like your take better. UFO's are an interesting study and its not uncommon for them to have spiritual explanations. They don't have to be machines on the order we call things machines.

Could this doctrine be right? Possibly.

Could it be wrong? Possibly.

I find a lot of stuff people believe humorous and in retrospect, I find some of what I believe(d) humorous. Like I said, nothing personal to anyone here.

I work at night and often listen to Art Bell's radio show (now with George Noury) "After Dark". They talk a lot about UFO abductions and encounters and a lot of this kind of thing with a lot of people of the ilk of that Mack fellow. It's a fascinating study and quite interesting, and I would rather claim to humorously ambivalent rather than spend much time trying to give my own view of Ezekiel or UFOs.

My comments, if I were to be pressed and forced to continue this, would not center on a few scriptures from Ez or elsewhere, but would focus on the entirety of scripture and it's portrayal of God. To discredit this doctrine would not be something I would use EZ for, because it is easier to take easy to understand scriptures to show this view is an aberration.

Furthermore, in the grand scheme of things, no person's experience means a hill of beans versus the Bible in regards to UFO sightings and abductions etc... Those things are not proof of anything doctrinal.

[godchild]

Is a dream real? God said Moses could see His form IN A DREAM, face to face. Can you reach out and touch a dream? Can you store it in a box? Can you hand it to someone so they can feel it?

God was speaking here of the intimacy possible between Him, who no man has seen, and a person of His choosing.

These words are another cop-out by smyrna. Read his words once again, if you didn't before. Think about it.

Quote: In other words, we do not have any idea how to explain UFO's in a way that would actually take us closer to what they really are. Hence the term Unidentified Flying Objects.

Wouldn't his explanation lead you to believe no one has seen a flying saucer, so they don't know what "they really are", or made of, or consist of? He is whacked. They are called "unidentified" because they do not know where these "fictional things" come from. They are said to carry aliens. The term alien means someone from another country (place). That's how the term alien for these sci-fi creatures came from. smyrna really has no clue about what he's talking about, and hasn't the intelligence to explain it, even if it were true.

And he has the nerve to laugh and even start threads mocking franklin's fictional space voyage. It isn't as if franklin and his 'crew' are claiming they really are in space flying some vehicle. Good grief!

So now smyrna's going back to who's an intellectual. Okay, where did he get his onion-skin. (He's a cook on a boat.) Where did his leader, am? Won't or can't say. So I say this to him and his stupid post. What's your point, stupid. I don't have a college education (2 years computer training techical school) but my parakeet is smarter than him.

[godchild]

ter, When we are born we are a natural body. A spiritual body is a natural body with the Holy Spirit residing in it. When we accept Christ, the Holy Spirit comes and dwells in us, in our spirit; soul. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a person looks with our human eyes. Some think snakes are beautiful, and I can say they are. But they are deadly if they bite you. A hawk is beautiful, but it can snatch your cat right out of your yard and kill it in a moment. The visual and the spiritual are not comparable. Think of the most beautiful place you've ever been; not just because of how it looked but how it made you feel (safe, secure, at peace, happy, joyful, calm, etc.). Do you see it? Now, concentrate on the words on this page. Your vision was not real, it was not natural, it was a vision; untouchable, you can only save it in your memory. No one else will ever see it the WAY in which you did. But you did "see something, didn't you, with your mind's eye?"

[stage_director]

QUOTE
I've heard Pastor Murray refer to this stuff in his Q and A portion and I find it quite humorous myself
END QUOTE

From Shepherd's Chapel newsletter #208 - "Giants and supernatural fallen angels returning to this earth in spaceship-like vehicles can easily offend an immature Christian; however, it will happen just as it is written."

Here's one of my favorites ... when Murray was teaching Isaiah 53 and adds this to the bible from a book called "The Traditions of Glastonbury" ...

"Verse 9, Isaiah chapter 53; And it reads: "And he made his grave with the wicked; I mean there were two malfactors, ah, crucified on each side, and with the rich in his death, he was buried in Joseph of Arimathea, Mary's ah, Uncle's, ah tomb. A rich mans tomb. The tin man they called him...."

LOL The "tin man" comes straight from "The Wizard of Oz" ... but we're supposed to believe this nickname was being used in the first millennia a.d. NOT.

[smyrna]

If Stage Director laughs at the possibility that the whole UFO issue is related to the appearance of Anti-christ, she probably scoffs at other, though more accepted religious beliefs, which we even have less evidence for, such as Jesus raising people from the dead, healing of otherwise incurable diseases, and ascending to heaven, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, parting the Red Sea etc.

The only evidence of those events is textual i.e. written on paper. UFO evidence is, like I said, found in trace evidence, as well as recorded radar, and living eye witnesses that have much more to lose than gain by reporting such sightings.

Also, since Godchild, as I predicted, will not touch any of the questions I posted, because she is a coward, maybe since her and Stage Director have set themselves up us the "dream team" maybe Stage Director might take a shot at it.

It's unlikely though, since Stage Director STILL won't provide evidence for so many accusations she
has made, without offering any proof.

Though it is common for the detractors to claim that we believe every single detail found on sites we recommend, since I could care less what these two clowns think, I recommend others see www.mt.net/~watcher (http://www.mt.net/~watcher)

And once again, I don't advocate endorse or believe ALL the things on that site.

Unlike the detractors, I don't interfere with other's beliefs, and the freedom to choose Churches and teachers, educational sources and other tools.

Finally, considering that Stage Director and Godchild don't really have much Biblical knowledge, I'm surprised they still even claim to be Christians at all.

I don't blame people who have left Christianity because they can't make sense of all the Sunday School myths they've been taught that have nothing to do with what is written in the original languages. But since Godchild and Stage Director are simpletons, I'm not surprised they do.

[stage_director]

What do UFO sightings have to do with God? Even if a spaceship set down in Times Square and little green men got out and signed autographs ... it doesn't imply God needs any type of craft to travel. Ezekiel had a vision, it wasn't an actual event ...

[franklin]

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1807733433/photo/439143

[stage_director]

lol

[ezekiel_37]

Hey xman3


we could have some good conversations.

I was hooked on Overnight and Coast to Coast for a little while. In fact, it is one reason why I decided to search for God. I don't 'buy' most of what I hear there, but it is interesting non the less.

[franklin]

http://www.tv.com/photos/viewer.html?type=21&amp;ref_id=237&amp;ref_type_id=101&amp;exp and=1&amp;picnum=0

[xman3]

e37- It is quite an interesting program. I liked Art Bell better, but Noury is pretty good. They give as much time to Christianity as witchcraft or UFOs or whatever. A lot of nuts come out at night though.

Richard Hogaland, prominent in Smyrna's link, is a regular on the show. They talk a lot about the Mayan calender and the 2012 date stuff. My opinion on Hogaland has always been that he receives most of his credibility from that show and would be almost unknown to the masses apart from that press. I have always been unimpressed with his "evidence" and his conclusions seem speculative at best, and downright crazy at worst. I've probably heard him 4-5 times.

I find the discussions on the nephilim and stuff there interesting, but real stretches to come up with much of that stuff. It's quite a shallow explanation of things and could be taken apart quite easily by one knowledgeable of the Word, especially in a logical fashion. At least to my satisfaction, though apparently not everyone's.

I don't think those guys are approaching it trying to Biblically prove anything though. If they are, then they need some assistance. There are a lot of leaps being made concerning the nephilim and any ongoing role they play which are far less credible than someone who believes this stuff appears to notice. Good interesting info though if one is interested in this stuff.

[ezekiel_37]

I have probably heard him 30 times and I agree with your opinion of him.


There are many others who speak of the Nephilim aswell, most are way out there, like when some talk about the hidden planet that comes around every so many 1000's of years.


I remember tuning in one night and the topic was the 2nd coming, and the TWO(apparently they missed some) views. LOL


view one- preterism
view two-pre-trib


was I ever disappointed. No post-trib.

chow!

[jayhernandez]

I think some day these kind of belief will develope into full blown religions that will need to be considered seriously as a religion that people need to be taught about and warned about. After all we are already seeing them here. I can't imagine what other religions will be invented over the next 50 years.

At firts glance this thread seemed silly to me and I was going to poke fun, but I'm sure there are many people who will devote prescious energy to it, and later found it void of benefit. There are also others here who have questions about a cult they think they might be in. I'd love to study all the religions in order to be able to engage with them on a different level, but in a greater way I think it isn't all so necessary. Not if the real Truth is found in another religion.

If the Truth in another religion is so real- its considered raw! It's able to cut like a double edged sword. In the end love will compel anyone from any religion.

Those of you who know the grip of this teaching keep up the work- let the truth be known.

[arron]

GOD does not ride in a ufo. HE can choose any method of travel HE desires. he usually travels on a cloud with angel underneath

[smyrna]

Xman,

I think if you read both appendixes 23 and 25 of the Companion Bible, you can get a good idea of what serious Bible scholars have to say about the nephilim. You may also find appendix 19 interesting as well.

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/index_companion.html

I too don't give a great deal of credibility to Hoaglund, but I do think about what would happen if we actually were able to prove beyond a doubt that Mars or some other planet in our solar system was once inhabited. How would fundamentalist Christians incorporate that into their understanding of the Bible?

[xman3]

Thanks Smyrna. Very interesting stuff and presented much better. I will have to study it more closely before I could comment on it because it has more depth and scripture references that need to be considered (by me at least) in context and the bigger picture.

That's a big "what if". Actually, if some of these things were true and provable, it would make some things in the Bible easier to understand. It would shake up some traditional thinking though, but ultimately (and thankfully), faith in Jesus Christ is what it comes down to for me, and a lot of this stuff is extraneous.

Pardon my ignorance on this stuff, but let me ask you this. Are nephilim and kenites related? I mean, where are these giant men of renown today? Have they shrunk down to an indiscernable difference between humans and themselves or what. I'm only mildly facetious here because I haven't read enough to get the connection yet.

[smyrna]

It's really funny that Godchild talks down to anybody about their knowledge of the Bible.

For instance: "Spirit does not have FORM, ter."

That is actually correct, but spirit, can, has, and is always capable of TAKING form.

Jesus walked through the wall into the room where the Apostles were.Since one can argue about that, let's use another example:

NASB: and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (NASB ©1995)

GWT: and the Holy Spirit came down to him in the form of a dove. A voice from heaven said, "You are my Son, whom I love. I am pleased with you." (GOD'S WORD®)

KJV: And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

ASV: and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

More versions agree. Source:http://bible.cc/luke/3-22.htm

Godchild is so stupid, she also said this: "Just don't add to the Word, ter (like bullinger's appendixes or am's side-notes which he borrows from other fanatics with no knowledge of who God is.'

Gee, I didn't know that Godchild knew Greek and Hebrew and Chaldee, Quite impressive, if that were true.

But as we have seen over and over, "Godchild's Biblical Scholarship" reads like an episode of All In The Family with Archie Bunker explaining the Biblehttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Maybe she can also accuse St. Jerome, all those who presided over the Counsel at Trent, of "adding to the Word" since they had a hand in assembling texts that were ACCEPTED by various councils, as you can read here:

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html

Along with the Councils that formulated the canon. i.e. Bible, there were numerous commentaries, councils, and other methods used to help people understand Scripture.

Godchild claims we don't need any of those things. Well, that explains why she comes up with the silly notions she does, such as claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real Father, BEFORE she found out, VIA COMMENTARY, why Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Smyrna,

What is funny about ungodly-child's comment:
Just don't add to the Word, ter (like bullinger's appendixes or am's side-notes which he borrows from other fanatics with no knowledge of who God is

....is that I didn't use Bullinger's or any Greek words. The verses read clearly in English that there are two bodies, Flesh and Spiritual.

What ungodly-child fails to realize is that although God doesn't NEED any of these things, it doesn't mean he didn't choose it.

So, ungodly-child, tell me, what happens to a person after they leave their flesh body. Are they then a disembodied soul? Are they only a consciousness? Please explain (with Scripture)

I feel, from the text, it is very clear that we do indeed inhabit a Spiritual body after we leave our flesh bodies.

It is also evident that angel have bodies, albeit a different substance than flesh. They eat, they talk, they walk, they see...ect.

If you say that they have to take on human form, please provide Scripture as your proof.

If anything, I think we humans took on their form. For God said:</font> Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

<font color="0000ff">Image in the Hebrew:</font>
<font color="119911">H6754
tselem
tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.</font>

<font color="0000ff">Likeness in the Hebrew:</font>
<font color="119911">H1823
demu&amp;#770;th
dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.</font>

<font color="0000ff">I prefer to believe what God has said than what man says he [God] means.</font>

[wls]

"Pardon my ignorance on this stuff, but let me ask you this. Are nephilim and kenites related? I mean, where are these giant men of renown today? Have they shrunk down to an indiscernable difference between humans and themselves or what. I'm only mildly facetious here because I haven't read enough to get the connection yet."

Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't

The purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus. There was a second influx of them again in Old Testament times during the time of David, but they were eventually wiped out in wars.

I have an opinion about the Nephilim which is to say, something not in Scripture. I believe the Nephilim were genetically engineered beings from the fallen angels in order to "take over" the earth and corrupt God's Creation. The reason I think this, is because Cain was a result of an Angelic being (Satan), but there's no mention him being a deformed giant. It's interesting to note that the giants weren't recorded as being simply larger versions of humans, rather they had misshapen heads, extra digits, double rows of teeth and dispositions that leaned towards ultra violence.

The Fallen angels may have been much more intelligent than even present day man, but they weren't God, consequently they couldn't produce beings as perfect as God's creation of man.

Here's an interesting link about the subject. Discern that a lot of the interpretation of Scripture isn't correct, however it does give some insight to what could have been and in my opinion, gives credence that there was in fact ancient angelic technology at work during the Antediluvian world.

http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Spring/Giants/

[smyrna]

WLS,

Good post, interesting link.

Just an aside, but I think the tactic of trying to embarrass SC students by Godchild starting this thread blew up in her face. This has not only turned into a very interesting thread, but it shows how clueless Godchild and Stage Director are.

Anyway,though the Bible of course does not say what the mark on Cain was, many have speculated that it could have been giantism, and with good arguments.

[godchild]

If you are speaking to me, godchild, address me with the name I chose (username), please. Then and only then will I use my valuable time trying to answer your questions. In the meantime, look through your bible for the answers. Perhaps find scripture to show why you will disagree with me. That would be considered intelligent debate. If you only want me to teach you from my understanding of scripture, then ask in that manner. If you hope to mock me, forget about it. Use your time more wisely. Thanks.

[xman3]

So here's my question here. Why is such a simple question answered, and then the answer ignored or discounted? Is there some obscure reason that those answers are not good enough? Anyone can come in on any thread and say so and so says this, and just flat out lie, and if they repeat it enough it starts getting confusing for someone like me. It seems the SCers have answered some of this stuff quite clearly, and yet it's as if they said nothing when I read the response. Very confusing and very detrimental to the detractors point if there even is one.

Don't worry about inquirers like myself buying everything hook, line, and sinker just because we ask if that's what concerns you franklin. Sometimes I just want to know what they believe and have them explain it. I appreciate the extra commentary, but it seems like a lot of what you are saying has been addressed over and over and yet you keep trying to say they are saying something else. maybe there is some hidden stuff they aren't admitting and it's all a big conspiracy, but it sure doesn't look like that to me.

I'm no supporter of SC, but you have to admit they have some of the most interesting beliefs and they do try and explain them. They could make some great movies about those nephilim and there certainly are a few scriptures to consider in their explanations. They are some of the ones I've found in my years of study to be the most controversial and outside of the norm, but I suppose that's why the doctrinal conclusions are likewise I suppose.

These chapel threads are some of the best ones on factnet because of the staunch supporters versus the staunch detractors, but the doctrines discussed are ultimately what keeps me interested.

My personal opinion is that godchild is a Christian as are most of the detractors and hopefully the SCers (and myself). One thing at factnet that tires me is constant accusations that so and so is not a Christian because they believe different, when it usually revolves around issues that are not essentials for salvation. I don't blame her for taking offense to that un-godly child stuff, because it isn't true any more than it would be true for anyone else here who has hurled the insults and not listened. I think I've noticed a few others doing that also.

I'll keep my nose out of it though for the most part, because you all have a long term relationship going here, but it infiltrates every thread I post in here, and I have a hard time not saying a little something now and then about it.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">godchild said:
If you are speaking to me, godchild, address me with the name I chose (username), please. Then and only then will I use my valuable time trying to answer your questions. In the meantime, look through your bible for the answers. Perhaps find scripture to show why you will disagree with me. That would be considered intelligent debate. If you only want me to teach you from my understanding of scripture, then ask in that manner. If you hope to mock me, forget about it. Use your time more wisely. Thanks.

Fine godchild, I'll play your game even though you will not follow your own advice...lol

I'll repost it again for you.

Ok?</font>

[xman3]

My question for franklin is in the wrong thread. Told you I get confused by these responses. These SC doctrines are so good I ought to stick to one at a time so i don't get too confused. My apologies to all, including Franklin, who actually explained his reasoning a bit in the proper thread.

[franklin]

xman: Here is how your sentence should read:

These chapel threads are some of the best ones on factnet because of the staunch supporters versus the staunch "Christians".

Let's know who the true detractors are here. We are here to defend the word of God. That is how these SC threads got started. By people very concerned about their friends and relatives getting sucked into this racist cult.The SC "students" here might be "defending" their cult and their cult leader. But they are all "detractors" to God's true word.

This might seem like just casual lighthearted fun for you but this is deadly serious business with very grave consequences to those who remain in this racist cult called Shepherd's Chapel.

There is nothing Christian, Jewish or Moslem about Eve having sex with satan. Or the Jews in Israel being the physical spawn of satan. Or that God created a special "Adamic" race of Germanic/Gaelic ubermenschen for Christ to be descended from.

Those heresies are only believed by the Neo Nazi "Identity" extremist cults that are OUTSIDE of the Christian Church.

You seem to want to play in the middle of the road here. But there is no middle.

Do YOU believe that Eve had sex with satan?

Do YOU believe that the Jews in Israel are the physical spawn of Satan?

Do YOU believe that the black, oriental and non Germanic/Gaelic white races were created on the sixth day but the "pure" Germanic/Gaelic so called "Adamic" race was created on the 8th day, after the Sabbath so that Christ's dna would not be polluted but the tainted blood of the other races?

Do YOU believe what they believe?

[wls]

"Do YOU believe that Eve had sex with satan?

Yup.

Do YOU believe that the Jews in Israel are the physical spawn of Satan?

Some of them. Just as no doubt there are Kenites masquerading as non-Jews.

Do YOU believe that the black, oriental and non Germanic/Gaelic white races were created on the sixth day but the "pure" Germanic/Gaelic so called "Adamic" race was created on the 8th day, after the Sabbath so that Christ's dna would not be polluted but the tainted blood of the other races?

This is what's called "non-sequitur" and "ad hominem" statements.

Yes, the NON Adamic races were created on the sixth day. BUT, there were in all probability non Adamic, fair skinned people of the Sixth Day Creations too. Shepherd's Chapel NEVER said anything about the Sixth Day Creations being "tainted" or "inferior".

God made Adamic (8th Day) man for the purpose of farming the Earth, and for whatever His reasons, God intended that through Adam Christ would down through the generations, come.....and He did. God loved and loves EVERYONE, hear that? EVERYONE, and to prove it, see John 3:16.

Although I'm not certain, I think Christian Identity who you via libel, associate with Shepherd's Chapel, believe the non-white races are excluded in Jesus' Redemption sacrifice, something you never heard from Shepherd's Chapel.

Yes, God did indeed promise Abraham (posterity of Adam) that his descendants would become the "father of many nations",(literally as well as spiritually) and they indeed migrated from the Middle East region of the world, and eventually into Europe and surrounding areas. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Once again, all this has been explained to you people many, many times before in good faith in hopes you'll understand. But as we know, it's not about you not understanding, it's about demonizing a church you don't like by blatant lies, partial truths and libel.

KNOCK IT OFF!

[franklin]

Thank you non moderator. But the questions were for xman. I'll wait for their answers thank you.

And you guys never tell the whole truth about your screwball heretical beliefs in public. You're in a cult and like all cults you hide from the world what you really believe. Any non racist reads the blatant racism in your heresy. Any compassionate human being would be offended by the non scriptural blasphemy that you preach. I am!

[franklin]

Shepherd's Chapel which IS a part of the Neo nazi Identity extremist movement is all about RACE!

Their sole existence and the reason they pervert the entire Bible is because they are racists. When you do not believe what the Abrahamic faiths, Christian, Jews and Moslems believe about creation but you do believe what the Neo Nazis believe then what does that make you???????

Duh?!?

C'mon! It's a no brainer.

I am not not the race thing.

Christianity does not have ANYTHING to do with race!

YOU and Shepherd's Chapel ARE!

And I am pointing it out for the world to see and know what you are.

I am of the same race you are.

<font size="+2">THE HUMAN RACE!!!!!

Created by God on the sixth day of creation as ADAM and EVE. The only human creations God made. All humans descended from those two!

What YOU are deep into IS man's traditions.

HITLER'S!</font>

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Franklin's taking lessons from godchild. He has some big letters there...lol

Oh please Franklin, you most certainly are the one interested in what race all of us are. You've asked fairly often.

Do you want me to search out your posts where you ask us or make comments on our race [or what you think all of our race is]?

If you want me to, I will search out your posts.

You can thank me later.</font> http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[franklin]

"I've never been, nor ever will be ashamed of my "race"(God made me the race I am)"

Coming from the source what I'm hearing is:

WHITE POWER!


I was talking to wls, she disappears now you.

Wolfpacking again I see. Trying to change the topic?

Go ahead and search because you will never see where I asked what race you are.

I could care less about who you are and your personal lives.

But I get asked repeatedly what race I am.

What difference should that make. I am defending God's word that is written for all of us. All humanity. All 3 races.

But everyone knows by what you write that you are all lilly white!

You all think you are "special" in God's sight but you are not!

You are no special than anybody of any race or any ethnic group.

God is NOT a racist.

Why are YOU?

[xman3]

I'll indulge you Franklin.

No.
No.
No.
and I'm not quite sure what they believe.

Doesn't appear to be the same as you say they believe so far though.

Doesn't change any of my posts however, or my interest and I'll form my own opinions here, but thank you for the reply. I don't see the deadly serious stuff you do, but I might not be as astute as you.

I am unaware of any cult behavior aside from the doctrinal stuff mentioned, and I am sorry if you know people hurt by PM and the Chapel. I don't know of any. That would explain the difference in our tones. I still like the middle because I can get slapped by both sides if I misstep in my "speech". Keeps it fun. I might not be so light hearted if I was aware of people actually being abused by these guys like in other ministries, but as I said, I am not.

[wls]

Coming from the source what I'm hearing is:

WHITE POWER!


I was talking to wls, she disappears now you.

Wolfpacking again I see. Trying to change the topic?

Go ahead and search because you will never see where I asked what race you are.

I could care less about who you are and your personal lives.

But I get asked repeatedly what race I am.

What difference should that make. I am defending God's word that is written for all of us. All humanity. All 3 races.

But everyone knows by what you write that you are all lilly white!

You all think you are "special" in God's sight but you are not!

You are no special than anybody of any race or any ethnic group.

God is NOT a racist.

Why are YOU?

*shaking head*, *shaking head*, *shaking head*

I think I've spent enough time on a Sunday afternoon with this.

We are never to judge people because only God truly knows what's in their hearts.

But I will say this: You Sir, have rotten, stinking "fruit"....from God IT IS NOT!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Wow Franklin, can you see us through the computer? Do you know for a fact that WLS is white? Isn't that a bit presumptions on your part?

Why don't you give a run down of which race each of us belong to.

Angie
Abiyah
Watchman
Smyrna
Myself
Wls
Aviyah
Neginoth
Skooter
Ezekiel


I don't even know everybody's race. It's amazing that you do.

I think you are the one with the race problem. You really are hung up on it. It has never mattered to us what race any of you are. I've never asked and I don't really care what race anyone is.

I agree, God is not a racist. He created all the races and said it was VERY GOOD.

But according to you, all races are a result of genetic defects. That's sad.</font> http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gif

[godchild]

xman3, Contact danispeachy. She used to post here and also at the fig tree. Now if you look at her membership status there, it says "danispeachy no longer exists". That clear enough for you?

scers keep using the words "and it was very good" for God's creation. They of course do not say the very good races (which the bible never even alludes to the word race) are not included in the Adamic (perfect) 8th day race of which they think they are; to the exclusion of those from the 6th day creation, unless of course during the millineum we allow them to teach us their truth and accept it. We didn't bring a "race issue" here at all. They did, and we have been showing them their error ever since. Don't dump it on us. THEY OWN IT, AND NOW WANT TO DENY IT! Ask watchman, he says he knows he's of the eighth day adamic race because he blushes. Wanting to be someone else just shows an inferiority complex. But they go further by saying the Jews are not the Israelites, but that THEY ARE because, either they blush, or they're from America, Great Britain or Scandinavian countries. The funny thing is, the people from those countries were immigrants from the Middle East where all mankind came from, IF THEY BELIEVE THE HOLY BIBLE AS THEY CLAIM TO!

[smyrna]

Ter,

Notice that franklin and Godchild wantto hijack this thread, which was very interesting, and change the subject completely?

That is because Godchild knows she has once again FAILED not only to embarrass us, she has also FAILED again at trying to explain Scripture, and she has also FAILED to get people like Xman to be baptized as another whacked out detractor, as hard as she is trying.

Now depsite all the "noise"
Frankie and Godchild are making,I'll wait for XMAN's comments about Appendixes 19,23 and 25, and I appreciate this comment from you Xman:

"These SC doctrines are so good I ought to stick to one at a time so i don't get too confused."

[xman3]

godchild- The first part is totally UNclear to me. Sorry, I just don't understand what you are saying.

I admit one thing. Some of the exact particulars of who exactly some of these races are is very murky. No one has adequately answered specific enough to make it completely clear but I am in the process of figuring it out. I am quite clear as to how you believe they think and what many of the "detractors" claim Murray says or believes. I am not completely clear what Murray ACTUALLY believes or what most of the students here think HE believes.

I do think they are willing to tell me what THEY believe, and it's a progression to connect the dots with Murray, scripture, and some of these other resources. I never discount what you or the others say here, but sometimes you have been clear enough that I don't have to ask. I did ask SD a question in the other thread though, but I'm getting them confused.

[xman3]

I will first deal with the Nephilim. Although the appendix does a good job explaining much, it leaves me with a few questions and problems. First of all, supposedly they were destroyed in the flood, and actually were the reason for the flood. Yet they appear again after the flood, so either they were not destroyed and God failed, or they re-emerged. Let's accept the notion they re-emerged as it is the only viable conclusion in my mind.

The first thing that comes to mind is where are they now? I can see how they were destroyed in wars and how this was concluded, but it poses a few problems for me.

If they re-emerged before, why don't they just re-emerge again. Why not do this over and over forever? Clearly there are no races of these types of giants or men of renown today. I see no reason they would not do so as if they are driven by the lusts and motivations they were, then the daughters of men would still look good to them and they'd still be doing the same thing, yet apparantly they're not. There is no good reason given as to why anything changed in their strategy.

In addition, the conclusion they were destroyed in wars is not fully supported. Also if they were advanced technologically and such, then they would still be so.

Given these things, is there some reason to believe that Murray believes they are currently connected with the UFO phenomenon? So God uses a vehicle or not, big deal for now. Do these guys, or some facsimile use these vehicles. What exactly is the current connection.

Frankly, outside of some modern connection, one could accept what the appendixes say, and not have to deal with them any further because they have been destroyed. Then it just becomes some interesting reading and some explanation for the destruction of the flood and why israel had to utterly destroy the cities (wish I'd thought of this line of thought myself in another forum I posted in previously as it is a good possible explanation why they were utterly destroyed which appears contrary to God's nature), which is food for thought. I'll leave it at that for now and see what comes.

[wls]

"If they re-emerged before, why don't they just re-emerge again."

Currentely they're (the Fallen Angels)being held in Heaven along with Satan.

They will however reappear at the Sixth Trump of the Tribulation. (cover your head with Christ ladies).

One must remember, things happen only if God allows it. And he will allow Satan and his cronies to do so again, to test Mankind (be sure you have the Seal of God IN your forehead) ("But as the days of Noe were so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."), what that means is what was going on in Genesis 6: 1-2

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Franklin,

I'm still waiting for you to address my post:

Wow Franklin, can you see us through the computer? Do you know for a fact that WLS is white? Isn't that a bit presumptions on your part?

Why don't you give a run down of which race each of us belong to.

Angie
Abiyah
Watchman
Smyrna
Myself
Wls
Aviyah
Neginoth
Skooter
Ezekiel


I don't even know everybody's race. It's amazing that you do.

I think you are the one with the race problem. You really are hung up on it. It has never mattered to us what race any of you are. I've never asked and I don't really care what race anyone is.

I agree, God is not a racist. He created all the races and said it was VERY GOOD.

But according to you, all races are a result of genetic defects. That's sad.</font>

[franklin]

No, races did not develop because of genetic defects. Find me a quote where I said that they did. Nowhere.

All races descended from Adam and Eve. Then God separated humans to the four corners of the earth from the Tower of Babel. Separated from other groups of humans the races developed. That is not genetic defects. That is found throughout the animal kingdom. Separation from other groups of one's species allows for development of differences from one group of the same species from another. That is hard fact science, biology.

You pervert the Bible, Genesis 3:20 and Genesis 4:1 because race is everything to you. Because you all have racist hearts like your heretic cult leader arnie. YOU keep talking about the non existent Adamic "race" just like Hitler and all of the nazis and klan talk about the non existent Aryan/Adamic "race".

Sc is all about race, race, race. I am pointing out to the world you and SC are racist. That does not make me a racist. Just one who reveals YOUR racism. You don't like it? Tough. Stop being a racist. Abandon arnie, his heresey, and racism, realize that what Hitler, arnie and the other Nazis, the klan say about Jews blacks and orientals is a LIE then you will no longer be a racist. Very simple. It's a no brainer. You need to change girl!

[watchman_2]

xman3,

The Nephilim are angels. A flood would not kill them because they are not 'flesh'. In fact, when a flesh man drowns, only his flesh dies. His spiritual [angelic] body lives on and goes back to the creator.

The flood was designed to kill the offspring of the Nephilim -- not the Nephilim. Hence, the Nephilim's reappearance after the flood is consistent with the difference between angelic bodies and flesh bodies.

[xman3]

Well that clears that up. Thank you again. I was under the impression the offspring were Nephilim (also) and will reconsider some of what I've read in this light.

[smyrna]

Frankie tries to wiggle out of his endorsement of onehumanrace.com:

"No, races did not develop because of genetic defects. Find me a quote where I said that they did. Nowhere."

From onehumanrace.com:

"There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to."

"There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. [Ed. note: this was an estimate from the number of different proteins. But after the Answers Book was published, the Human Genome Project discovered that there are only about 35,000 genes. This is an additional layer of complexity, since these genes must still somehow produce all the proteins.] Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many
*** mistakes*** ***(because of sin and the Curse)***, and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape -- and so on. Let's face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

"The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different **mistakes*** in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

Smyrna:

The clowns at onehumanrace.com have no right to claim that genetic "mistakes" do not apply to skin color or other racial characteristics.

Their theories are flawed beyond belief.Yet Frankie recommended that site, he obviously agree with it, and now he claims just because HE never said it, that he's innocent!

I don't even know for sure he didn't defend that site with a direct quote, not does it matter. So unless he wants to claim that he made a mistake by recommending that website, he's toast.

[xman3]

It seems almost everything is going to come down to the creation of the races and the interactions very early on between men (humans) and spiritual beings. Therefore I am forced to study deeper and more closely what the word has to say here considering the SC slant or interpretation and decide which view is most accurate.

I currently do not believe the SS doctrine, but I think enough interesting points and such have been made, and enough scripture has been used, that it would be unfair and unwise for me to comment too much without further studying and comparing so I am solidly supported scripturally in my own conclusions. I may not agree with the SS doctrine, but I also don't feel like I could rip it apart easily either with scripture, so I want to be more sure of some things.

[franklin]

You know bruno said the same things you are on cultbusters. Then it turned out bruno was smyrna the whole time. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[smyrna]

"You know bruno said the same things you are on cultbusters. Then it turned out bruno was smyrna the whole time.'

Hey Frankie,

That's a pretty weak argument, that if someone says similar things, they must be the same personality.

You're an idiot, and you also think I'm saygoodnightgracie and getagrip. Where is your proof, not mindless speculation, that I am any of these names?

Does it benefit you or anybody what people call themselves?

You are Glen/Gavin/Franklin/FoxyLoxy/LittleChick

The last two names make you sound like a sissy.

This is how silly you are:

Bruno criticized the Chapel folks here as much as he criticized you people for all the name calling and nonsense that goes on here. Don't any of you have memories? I think you remember that you want to remember, so you can pretend something isn't true, or so you can keep accusing people of things.

All you are doing is trying to digress from the point that onehumanrace.com theorizes that the races came from genetic mistakes and a "curse."

That website is so ridiculous, it's no wonder why you are drawn to it.

Here's something else you don't want to remember:

You claimed over and over you just need the Word of God, and not any man's words, yet onehumanrace.com is a site chock full of barnyard waste, silly theories, and Dr. Feelgood speculations.

Furthermore,if anybody still doesn't see you have
tired your best to distance yourself from the challenge to show us a Church that teaches that Gensis 3:15 is talking about crushing snake eggs.

The fact is, there isn't any. You want to say Jewish teachings say that, but they do not. God doesn't use imperfect symbology, and the fact is, not all snakes even lay eggs, you moron!
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

You want to accept the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 3:15? here it is, liar:

[smyrna]

http://www.messiahtruth.com/gen315.html

Here's what some of that site states, liar;

"The woman (Eve) is the female progenitor of mankind. [The Jewish Sages accept the notion that homo-sapiens existed before Adam &amp; Eve, but that these were not endowed with the soul that G-d breathed into Adam’s nostrils which, in a sense, renders them as being sub-humans, or of the animal kingdom]."

Gee, looks like they taught that human existed BEFORE Adam and Eve!

So Frankie, if you want to accept the Jewish interpretation, then you have to accept it all the way, with its lies and it's clear deception of sweeping satan's role under the rug.

What little is said about snakes there, is a liw anyway, since the very word Nacash, which they conveniently do not tell you, means.

In the Hebrew this being or person is called 'Nachash.' The Hebrew word Nachash is translated to "shine" (like brass) or whisper (as in enchantment). The Nachash was not a literal snake. The Nachash was, to use literal Hebrew, a 'shining enchanter.'

Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Questions/Thewordsatan.htm

You are a liar, you don't know what you are talking about, you are a clown.

[wls]

"I currently do not believe the SS doctrine, but I think enough interesting points and such have been made, and enough scripture has been used, that it would be unfair and unwise for me to comment too much without further studying and comparing so I am solidly supported scripturally in my own conclusions. I may not agree with the SS doctrine, but I also don't feel like I could rip it apart easily either with scripture, so I want to be more sure of some things."

Ask for God's guidance and wisdom, He'll grant it to anyone who sincerely asks, and when He believes it's the proper time.

Be sure and remember "The Parable of the Fig Tree" (Luke 21), something Jesus said to <u>definitely</u> learn, not "maybe" learn it And the "Key of David" (Rev. 3), those things are necessary to understand the true Word of God, and not be deceived by the "flood of lies" during the End Times.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Good post Smyrna!</font>

[smyrna]

Ter,

You ought to check out those links. Frankie wants to side with the "Jewish" interpretation. There is (in the first link)an interesting comment about Paul "enhancing the interpretation" of Genesis 3:15, you we know what Glen/Frankie's mommy had to say about St. Paul, don't we?

I'm starting to think old Glen/Frankie here is a black Jewish guy, you know, like Sammy Davis Jr., a convert.

He denies the Epistles, and he denies the Christian interpretation of Genesis 3:15, all so he can hang onto his own home made snake eggs interpretation.

That would explain his reliance on Jewish interpretations,(even though he stuck his foot in his mouth with that one, because it was not even true that the Jewish interpretation speaks of snake eggs) and his obsession with anti-semitism and racism.

We don't like racism and anti-semitism either, but when you're obsessed with it, like anything, there is a problem. There are many other bad behaviors to address besides those, like lying, right, Glen?

I better say this before I close: The terms racism and anti-semitism describe vile and sinful states of mind, so (detractors) don't try and say I was making a veiled reference to "finding something wrong" with those issues.

We know the detractors will try anything, even manufacturing accusations, to try and discredit us.

It's interesting that Glen wants to use Jewish interpretations of Genesis 3:15, yet he rages when
the same sources speak of the Nacash having sex with Eve.

Next thing you know, he'll be saying those Jewish sages were Kenites, and can't be trusted.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[yaakov2]

wls

<font color="0000ff">Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't. The purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus. There was a second influx of them again in Old Testament times during the time of David, but they were eventually wiped out in wars.</font>

1) How did the Nephilim survive the Great Deluge?
2) Since the purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe out the Nephilim and your god caused the Great Deluge, you are saying that your god failed to wipe them out. How could your god fail at something? What does this say about your god?
3) You say that the Nephilim were eventually wiped out in wars. Are you saying that man succeeded in killing the Nephilim where your god failed?

<font color="0000ff">I have an opinion about the Nephilim which is to say, something not in Scripture. I believe the Nephilim were genetically engineered beings from the fallen angels in order to "take over" the earth and corrupt God's Creation.</font>

4) In your opinion, who did the genetic engineering on the Nephilim?
5) Since these created being were able to corrupt your god’s creation, are they more powerful than your god? If your god was more powerful, why couldn’t he stop the corruption?

<font color="0000ff">The Fallen angels may have been much more intelligent than even present day man, but they weren't God, consequently they couldn't produce beings as perfect as God's creation of man.</font>

6) Man is perfect? Since when?
7) Since Man has fallen and the creations of fallen angels haven’t, does this mean that the fallen angels are better Creators than your god?

[yaakov2]

watchman_2

<font color="0000ff">The Nephilim are angels. A flood would not kill them because they are not 'flesh'. In fact, when a flesh man drowns, only his flesh dies. His spiritual [angelic] body lives on and goes back to the creator.

The flood was designed to kill the offspring of the Nephilim -- not the Nephilim. Hence, the Nephilim's reappearance after the flood is consistent with the difference between angelic bodies and flesh bodies.</font>

This differs from what wls said. He said
<font color="119911"> Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't. The purpose of the Great Deluge was to <u>wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women</u> and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus.</font>

“Them” in wls’s post clearly refers to the Nephilim themselves, not their offspring.

[lutheratx]

Still with the Questions to accuse its cool though we all know what you are doing at this point you may not be a son of Cain (or you may) however you definitely are of the Pharisee doctrine. This is probably a compliment to you and if you like being called a Pharisee please elaborate.

[lutheratx]

The flood was to wipe out the Geber, but it also wiped out the plan of the Nephilim, and in turn wiped out the Nephilim. You can use the term wipe out as defeat too. So sorry feller close, but not really.

[yaakov2]

Smyrna

I've known Franklin a long time and have had many discussions with him. It's true that he can get very excited in his posts. While I don't know his skin color, take it from me. He ain't no Jew.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Yaakov,

The Kenites are not a product of the fallen angels and the daughters of Adam. They are a product of Eve and Satan.

God told Cain:</font>
Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

<font color="0000ff">God did this in order for prophecy to come to pass:</font>
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

<font color="0000ff">Jesus', (Eve's offspring, umbilical cord through umbilical cord), heel was bruised when he was nailed to the cross.</font>

[yaakov2]

Hello luther

Are you up to answering the other 8 questions?

Also, what's Geber?

(Message edited by yaakov2 on May 29, 2007)

[yaakov2]

Hello terluvire

I don't understand your post to me. You seem to be answering a question that I didn't ask. What is the relevance to my post?

[watchman_2]

yaakov2,

You wrote:
*****
This differs from what wls said. He said
Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't. The purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus.

“Them” in wls’s post clearly refers to the Nephilim themselves, not their offspring.
*****

Again, you are being a bit disingenuine.

wls' actual quote:
*****
Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't

The purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus. There was a second influx of them again in Old Testament times during the time of David, but they were eventually wiped out in wars. Post No. 27 on 5/27/07
*****

As one can see, the word 'them' is not contained in the same paragraph as 'Kenites' and 'Nephilim'.

Linguistically speaking, as written, it is unclear as to whom 'them' wls is referring to. On the one hand, one could assume that wls meant 'them' to mean 'Kenites and Nephilim'. On the other hand, wls describes in the paragraph containing 'them' those that eventually died out in wars.

Any Bible student would know that angels cannot be killed by man and that God has a purpose, set forth in Gen. 3:15, for the Kenites. Hence, there would be no reason to wipe out the Kenites.

Logic suggests that wls was referring to the offspring of the nephilim -- referred to as giants in Gen. 6.

You should ask wls what is meant by the term 'them' if it is unclear to you rather than jump to some illogical conclusion.

[smyrna]

"Smyrna

I've known Franklin a long time and have had many discussions with him. It's true that he can get very excited in his posts. While I don't know his skin color, take it from me. He ain't no Jew."

I was being facetious. If you had read carefully, you would have seen I started the sentence with:
"I'm starting to think..."

gibbowr

It means strong or mighty, describing the giants. Also the term nephilim though most appropriate for the fallen angels is also used at times for the offspring the nephilim, i.e. giants.

The giants are also called "sons of anak" in Numbers 13:33.

Sumerian texts speak of the fallen angels as the annunaki, literally "those who from heaven to earth came" of which anak is derived from.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Oops, Hi Yaakov,

I think I read something wrong which I just now realize.

So sorry, apparently my post doesn't have to do with anything you said.

My fault.</font> http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[yaakov2]

Watchman_2

Wls post # 27:
<font color="119911">Kenites are still around today, but the Nephilim aren't

The purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe them out so they couldn't interbreed with women and corrupt the genealogical line of Jesus. There was a second influx of them again in Old Testament times during the time of David, but they were eventually wiped out in wars.</font>

<font color="0000ff">As one can see, the word 'them' is not contained in the same paragraph as 'Kenites' and 'Nephilim'. Linguistically speaking, as written, it is unclear as to whom 'them' wls is referring to. On the one hand, one could assume that wls meant 'them' to mean 'Kenites and Nephilim'. On the other hand, wls describes in the paragraph containing 'them' those that eventually died out in wars.</font>

Interesting…

Yes, when wls said that Nephilim aren’t around today, I read “them” in the next paragraph as being Nephilim and he was explaining the reason that they weren’t around anymore.

However, whether “them” is either a) Nephilim b) Kenites c) Nephilim and Kenites, the fact is unchanged that wls claimed that his god TRIED to destroy them in the flood and failed. If Nephilim, there was another influx of them. If Kenites, you all say they are still around in the present day. If both, then they both survived past the flood.

<font color="0000ff">Logic suggests that wls was referring to the offspring of the nephilim -- referred to as giants in Gen. 6.</font>

As you agree, that is not what wls typed. Nowhere in his post is offspring mentioned or implied.

<font color="0000ff">You should ask wls what is meant by the term 'them' if it is unclear to you…</font>

I did. But you answered first.

[yaakov2]

No problem terluvire. It happens to everyone.

[yaakov2]

No problem terluvire. It happens to everyone.

[watchman_2]

yaakov2,

You wrote:
*****
Interesting…

Yes, when wls said that Nephilim aren’t around today, I read “them” in the next paragraph as being Nephilim and he was explaining the reason that they weren’t around anymore.
*****

Well, I agree that wls' post would be a bit confusing to you. Certainly, I have been guilty on more than one occasion of making a post and have to clarify it later after it was misconstrued by others.

If you are truly interested in the Nethilim, I suggest that you read the Book of Enoch, which will give more insight on these fallen angels. Contained therein is some passages indicating that these angels did petition God for mercy [I think -- cannot exactly recall], but were denied clemency.

As Christians, we know that these fallen angels will be released to return here again. As to how and when they were bound in heaven after the second influx after Noah's flood, I am not sure of the answer.

[wls]

Sorry if what I had written caused any confusion.

It seems that in my studies, "Nephilim" are used both as the fallen angels who came to Earth and seduced women, AND/OR used to refer to the offspring of the Fallen Angels....the giants. "Gibborim", "Rephaim", "Anakin" etc. and any other names they may be called.

Simply put, the giants have all been destroyed a long time ago, first during the flood, and during wars with the Israelites during their second influx.

God allowed the fallen angels to go down to Earth back then and the result was the giants.

Currently, until the Sixth Trump in Revelation, the fallen angels are being held in Heaven by Michael, and that's why we haven't seen any Biblical giants for millennia.

My point of reference was this:

Genesis 6:1 "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,"

Genesis 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

The "sons of God" are angelic beings, or angels, and their offspring are called the <font size="+1">"Nephilim".</font> These angelic beings, or angels saw the daughters of men were beautiful. These are the fallen angels of Jude 6, who followed Satan in his fall in the "world that was", which is the first earth age. Jude 6 reads; "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

[wls]

reference:

http://www.theseason.org/genesis/genesis6.htm

[wls]

No problem

[wls]

1) How did the Nephilim survive the Great Deluge?

They didn't. God is always in control. There was a second influx of them in the time of Exodus.

2) Since the purpose of the Great Deluge was to wipe out the Nephilim and your god caused the Great Deluge, you are saying that your god failed to wipe them out. How could your god fail at something? What does this say about your god?

Don't be ridiculous. If you mean why there was a second influx of them. I don't know, there's no scriptural documentation. It's foolish to say it was because God somehow wasn't in control of the situation however.

3) You say that the Nephilim were eventually wiped out in wars. Are you saying that man succeeded in killing the Nephilim where your god failed?

That's right, they were. Never take credit for something God helps us with. How could an Israelite shepherd youth kill a hulking ten foot giant with a mere slingshot? Man eventually defeated the race of giants with the divine help of Yahweh.

God was going to hand the Israelites the "Promised Land" (inhabited by giants), but the Israelites were afraid of the giants, even though God said they had nothing to fear, (He would've helped the Israelites defeat them). As a result, God made them stay in the wilderness for forty years until that generation died out so a more Godly one could claim the Promised Land. If we only did what God tells us to do, we'd be so much better off.

4) In your opinion, who did the genetic engineering on the Nephilim?

The fallen angels. Remember, that's a pet theory of mine, not Scriptural.

5) Since these created being were able to corrupt your god’s creation, are they more powerful than your god? If your god was more powerful, why couldn’t he stop the corruption?

For the first part, again, nothing in this Universe happens without the volition of God, whether we see the logic in it or not. So the answer is: "Don't be ridiculous, of course not".

For the second part of your question: "He did."

6) Man is perfect? Since when? You misconstrued what I was saying. The human, flesh body is a marvelous biological creation, albeit even if it's still only flesh. In my own little theory, the fallen angels went monkeying around with God's Creations with their superior knowledge (compared to mortal man's), to create the abominable giants. Think Dr. Frankenstein if you will. And in doing so, they were corrupting the Adamic genealogical line that Christ would be born through.

7) Since Man has fallen and the creations of fallen angels haven’t, does this mean that the fallen angels are better Creators than your god?

Not entirely sure what you mean by that question. The fallen angels did "fall" (rebelled) and came down to Earth. We all have free will, both in the First Earth Age and this one. As we will in the Third).

They would have had far superior knowledge than mortal man however, as they weren't born of woman without prior knowledge of the First Earth Age.


Well, my answers are a lot more jumbled and convoluted than I expected. I don't have the patience to write out long posts, but hopefully I answered things a little.

[oneway]

"In my own little theory, the fallen
angels went monkeying around with God's Creations with their superior knowledge (compared to
mortal man's), to create the abominable giants. Think Dr. Frankenstein if you will. And in doing so,
they were corrupting the Adamic genealogical line that Christ would be born through."

Actually I find your theory interesting and almost somewhat believable. How did they accomplish this?
I would be interested in hearing more of how you interpret this.

[xman3]

Well said there wls. Those were real good consise answers. Real interesting, and I like the way you say which stuff is just your opinion.

[wls]

"Actually I find your theory interesting and almost somewhat believable. How did they accomplish this?
I would be interested in hearing more of how you interpret this."

As far as the mechanics of how they did it is anyone's guess, quite likely through genetic manipulation of DNA. Remember the angels were divine beings, higher than flesh man. They had all the knowledge of the First Earth Age, whereas flesh man does not.

My opinions are based on the fact that angelic beings and flesh man are basically the same. They went in among men e.g. the ones who went to Abraham, the ones who got Lot and his family out of Sodom etc. They eat food that can keep us alive, i.e. manna and so forth.

Cain would've been part angelic being correct? But Scripture doesn't say he was a large, somewhat misshapen giant (although he could've, the Bible simply doesn't say). I'm led to believe that if angelic and human DNA were combined as such to conceive an offspring, they would be the same physical size and for all intents and purposes, look just like a human.

For some reason however, the giants were a product of human women and normal sized, albeit divine beings. They also were somewhat grotesque in shape, such as extra fingers and toes as recorded in Scripture. If one is to believe archaeology finds of huge giant bones throughout the world, they've been found with elongated heads, double rows of teeth and other physical anomalies. Why would that be? We know that in fact God utilizes high technology e.g. "circular vehicles" in Ezekiel. So it stands to reason the fallen angels also are familiar with technology also. The fallen angels could've reasoned, "why not utilize this technology, and thwart God's plan and mess with His Creations, while fancying ourselves as gods"?

Well, that's the gist of what I think, but I never said it was Gospel.

[smyrna]

Hey folks, I almost missed this one:

Godchild wrote (post#122 above):

"The word Celestial and ***Telestial*** is speaking of the stars."

Telestial Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The telestial kingdom is one of three "kingdoms" or "degrees of glory", in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is an eternal status in the afterlife to which some portion of humankind will be assigned following the Resurrection and Judgment Day."

Of course, she used it incorrectly:

"The word(s) Celestial and Telestial is speaking of the stars." -GC

But of course, misusing and redefining terms is a habit for Vivian, isn't it?

Smynra: Hmmm....looks like Godchild still has that sacred Mormom underwear on,using a term exclusive to the Mormons.

Maybe she should just stick to street slang and racial slurs, since scholarly speech is way over her head.

[oneway]

"Cain would've been part angelic being correct?"

I would say incorrect on that. Which brings me once again to this question. If something angelic did happen with the human race in Gen 6, why, if satan had already injected himself into mankind by having sex with Eve? I don't buy your interpretations of Gen 3 and I don't buy the first earth age stuff. Gen 6 is another story. There is definately something going on there that seems unnatural. Gen 6 seems to provide evidence of something out of the ordinary, but you scers have failed to provide evidence that satan had sex with Eve and there was a first earth age according to scripture.

I've already asked this before but appearantly it presented a problem and was never addressed.
God gave the commandment to Adam to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before Eve was created. This meant he could easily have partaken of the tree before Eve was created. If not, why did God give this commandment to Adam before Eve was created? How do you explain that, if partaking of this tree was a sexual thing with satan? How was satan going to inject himself into mankind thru Adam if there were no Eve. Also, without Eve there would be no mankind for satan to inject into.
Don't any of you ever ask yourselves these types of questions?

[stage_director]

QUOTE
I don't buy your interpretations of Gen 3 and I don't buy the first earth age stuff. Gen 6 is another story. There is definately something going on there that seems unnatural. Gen 6 seems to provide evidence of something out of the ordinary, but you scers have failed to provide evidence that satan had sex with Eve and there was a first earth age according to scripture.
END QUOTE

Ditto ...

[watchman_2]

oneway,

You wrote:
*****
<font size="-1">I've already asked this before but appearantly it presented a problem and was never addressed.
</font>*****

No. It does not present a problem. God's truth is simple enough for a child to understand. Hopefully, you will get it this time.
>>>>>

You wrote:
*****
<font size="-1">God gave the commandment to Adam to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before Eve was created. This meant he could easily have partaken of the tree before Eve was created. If not, why did God give this commandment to Adam before Eve was created?
</font>*****

When a baby first learns how to walk, what is one of the first things a parent teaches the baby? Well, in my case, I told my daughter what not to touch. When my daughter first walked into the kitchen, I told her to never touch the oven/stove. In fact, there is a long list of things that the child needs to avoid for the child's own safety.

So, Adam, though he was an adult in stature, was innocent in knowledge when God placed him in the Garden. Like a child, it was necessary for God to tell him the ground rules for his own protection. So, naturally, God would inform Adam of that which was dangerous to him.
>>>>>

You wrote:
*****
<font size="-1">How do you explain that, if partaking of this tree was a sexual thing with satan? </font>
*****

The word 'eat', which means 'partake of', is not restricted to a sexual act. God's command meant to have nothing to do whatsoever with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [Just like one speaks to a baby that has learned to walk.]

Gen. 3:6, in itself, is not dispositive as to what actually took place, since the words provided by God have many meanings, as you can see for yourself in Strong's. That's why Christ instructs us to study and rightly divide the Word [2 Tim. 2:15].

So, if you take the time to rightly divide the Word, you will learn that the only scripturally-sound interpretation of Gen. 3:6 is sexual activity, which led to the woman's pregnancy by Satan.
>>>>>

You wrote:
*****
<font size="-1">How was satan going to inject himself into mankind thru Adam if there were no Eve. Also, without Eve there would be no mankind for satan to inject into</font>
*****

There already existed mankind for at least one thousand years before Adam and Eve. The 6th Day creation was given the instruction to replenish the earth.

So, if it were Satan's sole plan to inject his DNA into mankind, he had all kind of opportunity to do so before and after Eve. Since the scriptures only identify the one intrusion by Satan, it is fair to conclude that Satan did not develop the plan to interfere until he knew which bloodline the Messiah was to come from [formation of Eve].

[Satan already knew the purpose of the second age.] After all, it had to be quite obvious what God was doing since He had already created mankind, rested, then formed this special Garden of Eden and placed this singular man there along with Christ and himself.

[oneway]

watchman_2,

Actually I liked the answers you gave in this post. And honestly, I can see where you're coming from and how you draw your conclusion. But I still have to respectively disagree with you.


"So, if it were Satan's sole plan to inject his DNA into mankind, he had all kind of opportunity to do
so before and after Eve. Since the scriptures only identify the one intrusion by Satan, it is fair to
conclude that Satan did not develop the plan to interfere until he knew which bloodline the Messiah
was to come from [formation of Eve]."


Actually this makes sense but I don't see it staying in context with the rest of the bible. And besides if partaking of the tree was a sexual thing, Adam partook of it too.
I've listened to AM teach on Genesis 3 via satellite and I noticed that he seem to skim over the part about Adam partaking too, pretty much ignoring the fact.

[watchman_2]

oneway,

Adam's participation in Gen. 3:6 has been addressed many times in the question and answer portion of the program.

You are correct in that the teaching of Gen. 3 does not cover the subject as thoroughly as I have done or would like PM to cover it. After all, I have spent most of the past 2 years here debating the first few chapters of Genesis with the many detractors that frequent these threads.

[scisthebest]

adam partaked in it through eve let me ask this one question if we are speakin of a literal tree...then people will say an apple...but the tree of life (Jesus) cause he is the one who gives life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (satan) are it..so theres no apple growing from there armpits lol...tree in the literal sense is backbone...so these are the backbones...but ya to answer that question adam partaked in that way through eve...and yes it is true cain is not in adams geneology...and chapter 4 talks about the sons of god partakin and knowing earthly women....so it kinda backs up arnold murrays views....and some people may ask well how is it possible for a women to carry 2 different beings children its easy one is in one egg the other is in a another....it is very possible and science itself prove that matter...but the reason why satan went after eve was because eve and adam are the first of jesus's bloodline hope i cleared it up a bit...it goes back to the old saying two wrongs dont make a right so if one partaked in this then went to another and that person partaked in it it dont make it right it makes it worse..

[oneway]

"and chapter 4 talks about the sons of god partakin and knowing earthly women....so it
kinda backs up arnold murrays views"


That's a pretty narrow minded reason on AM's part.
The early church fathers were uninamous for the most part, that the sons of God in Gen 6 were fallen angels, but as far as I can tell, none of them, or if any, very few of them thought Cain was satan's literal son.
I'm sure you've read the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, both support Gen 6 as fallen angels, neither support Cain as satan's literal son.
If you're going to take the Book of Enoch to heart, lol, then you may as well take the Book of Jubilees to heart also.
BTW, the Book of Jubilees indicates after God formed Eve, that Adam knew Eve. So it's highly likely that Adam and Eve's first child may have been a daughter, lol.

[godchild]

sci, Another problem with your evaluation is: angels aren't humans. There has never been scientific evidence of humans mating with an animal, let alone a spirit. Angels are spirit. Satan is a fallen angel, if you believe he is Lucifer. Spirit cannot be touched, let alone mated with (only in some people's imaginations).

[scisthebest]

well ummm ive heard of people mating with animals kinda disgusting but they do...its called <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> lol....and as far as the spirits mating with humans..i guess you never saw the entity which by the way is based on a true story...but who knows...ok let me ask this one question...if cain isnt of satans blood...then why was abel rightoues and cain not...why didnt abel kill cain instead of cain killing abel remember it was the first murder...well actually the first murder was when eve partaked in satans fun.....so in a sense this is the second murder like father like son i guess....but hey maybe you guys can help me clear it up im up for anything

[scisthebest]

they wont let me put it but ya you guys know what i mean...people do animals i dont know why its disgusting but they do

[stage_director]

QUOTE
if cain isnt of satans blood...then why was abel rightoues and cain not
END QUOTE

It didn't have anything to do with paternity ...

Hebr 11:4
4 BY FAITH Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Abel's offering was the real deal, while Cain's was an empty token. Sort of like playing religion ...

Had Cain given his gift from the heart it would have been found pleasing. God gently warns him to resist sin or it will devour him, and then reminds him that if he does well he, too, would be found acceptable. Instead of realizing his own shortcoming, Cain became bitter and resentful toward his brother ...

[stage_director]

You know, it wasn't Cain who was the murderer from the beginning ... but Satan. He murdered Adam and Eve as surely as if he'd shot them between the eyes ... even though they didn't die immediately. But because he deceived them they became corruptible flesh and subject to death. Unfortunately for him his plan was flawed as they had a Redeemer ... who didn't save their flesh, but their souls.

[scisthebest]

ya i said that in my post satan was the first muderer then cain...like father like son i said...and also satan doesnt give anything from the heart lol...so as you see it proves my point again..but again im open minded

[arron]

GOD ALMIGHTY traveling in a space ship... UTTER FOOLISHNESS AND CRAZYNESS TOO

[yaakov2]

<font color="119911">QUOTE
if cain isnt of satans blood...then why was abel rightoues and cain not
END QUOTE</font>

<font color="0000ff">Hebr 11:4
4 BY FAITH Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Abel's offering was the real deal, while Cain's was an empty token. Sort of like playing religion ...

Had Cain given his gift from the heart it would have been found pleasing. God gently warns him to resist sin or it will devour him, and then reminds him that if he does well he, too, would be found acceptable. Instead of realizing his own shortcoming, Cain became bitter and resentful toward his brother ...</font>

Shalom Stage_Director

That is the same as in my bible. Abel offered the best and most choice selection from his flocks, while Cain offered bruised and rotten fruit. Though this is way before the Torah was given by G-d, Torah states that valid sacrifices must be unbruised and unblemished.

[oneway]

yaakov2,

"That is the same as in my bible. Abel offered the best and most choice selection from his flocks,"


Who does your bible say the father of Cain is?

[scisthebest]

lol...hey i was just giving my thoughts on it lol..heres the thing though empty..right God dont make things empty so why would we be empty but satan makes things empty cause he is empty..meaning full of lies...decieving...but that is just my opinion lol

[abiyah]

<font color="000000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

Stage Director WROTE:
*********************************************** **
QUOTE: " Abel's offering was the real deal, while Cain's was an empty token. Sort of like playing religion ...

Had Cain given his gift from the heart it would have been found pleasing. ..... " END QUOTE
*********************************************** **</font><font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:3
" And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain BROUGHT OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE LORD. " </font></font></font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_right.gif If you'll note here.... Cain simply brought" THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND" for an offering unto The LORD. It does not Written that Cain brought his 'first-fruits' for an offering. We see here that Cain did NOT offer his very best to The LORD, he did not give Him the very best of his fruits. Perhaps he kept the firstfruits for himself ? I know not. What I do know is that Cain did not give his best to The LORD, like his brother Abel did.</font><font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:4
" And Abel, HE ALSO BROUGHT THE FIRSTLINGS OF his FLOCK AND OF THE FAT [ =meaning choicest, best part ] THEREOF. And The LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; "</font></font></font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_right.gif If you'll note here, we see that Abel gave unto The LORD the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof, the very best. Therefore, we see here how that Abel gave unto The LORD his very best, yet Cain did not.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
C
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
O
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
N
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
T
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
I
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
U
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
E
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif
D
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_down.gif

</font>

[abiyah]

<font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:5
" But unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. "</font></font></font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_right.gif Again... if you'll note... CAIN IS VERY ANGRY. And we see that Cain even looks mad/angry. </font><font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:6
" And The LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth ? And why is thy countenance fallen ? "</font></font></font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_right.gif What are you mad about ????</font><font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:7
" IF thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and IF thou DOEST NOT WELL, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Genesis 4:8
" And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, THAT CAIN ROSE UP AGAINST ABEL his BROTHER, AND SLEW him. "</font></font></font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/triangle_right.gif This is the FIRST recorded 'murder' in The Bible, in the Book of Genesis= meaning In The Begining. [ SEE THEN... John 8:44; Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51 ]</font><font color="ff0000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"><font size="+1">

Genesis 4:9
And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother ? And he said, I KNOW NOT [ -LIAR! ]; Am I my brother's keeper ? "

Genesis 4:10
" And He said, What hast thou done ? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the ground. "

</font></font></font>

[stage_director]

Abi, I have no idea what your point is. Are you disagreeing, or simply adding a comment?

[abiyah]

<font color="000000"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

Stage Director WROTE:
*********************************************** **
QUOTE: " Abi, I have no idea what your point is. Are you disagreeing, or simply adding a comment ? END QUOTE
*********************************************** **</font><font color="0000ff"><font face="times new roman,times,roman"></font>

Hey Stage.... Just simply adding a comment is all, and found no fault with your quote in which I put forth in my post.

Abiyah

</font>

[stage_director]

Oh. In that case, carry on ...
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[smyrna]

arron
Intermediate Member
Username: arron

Post Number: 226
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.206.202
Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 10:12 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOD ALMIGHTY traveling in a space ship... UTTER FOOLISHNESS AND CRAZYNESS TOO

Smyrna: Not anymore foolish or crazy than God Almighty travelling in a "pillar of a cloud" "pillar of fire" or Elijah being carried to heaven by horses and a chariot that were on fire, is it, Arron?

I usually ignore you stupid posts, but I couldn't help it this time. Too good to pass up.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[stage_director]

The "pillar of a cloud" represented the glory of the Lord, not his actual presence. Shep Chap keeps trying to fit God into a man-sized box. David's right ... It is utter foolishness to imagine that God requires transportation ... like mankind might need to explore space. God is so much more than I believe you people understand.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

[godchild]

I admit I used the wrong word when I was responding to terluvire's question about "celestial and terrestrial". I mistakenly used a mormon word "telestial". Maybe I can explain. Mormons believe there are three kingdoms of heaven; celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. I won't go into all the details. It explains my use of the "wrong" word, but does not deminish the fact that these words are used (by the catholic encyclopedia, the dictionary, Strong's, and the bible) to describe "stars".

smyrna didn't understand, apparently, and maybe he believes these words are describing us (bodies). scers seem to think when the word "bodies" is used, it refers to human bodies, at least in 1 Corinthians. smyrna ignored the point of my statement and chose instead to mock my use of another word by mistake, which is fine, but it does nothing to clarify what the bible is trying to teach us. Paul clarified his meaning with the next verse: "There is the glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." He is saying the spiritual is what God looks at, not the physical. God looks at the heart. Our physical heart is only a muscle. It is the "invisible" things, our thoughts that lead to our actions, that concern God. Verse 44 tells us "there is a natural (physical) body, and there is a spiritual (invisible) body." The definition for "terrestrial" is "earthy, or from the earth". We can see and touch the earth. Our bodies came from it. The definition for "celestial" is heavenly, or from above. The stars provide "light" (see Genesis). God is light. Revelation 22 tells us we will no longer need the (physical) stars God created to see, we will have Him (who is Spirit [John 4:24, "It is appointed MAN once to die." God is eternal. He never dies.)as our light forever.

smryna often tries to detract from the main points of these threads. He is a "detractor" as are all scers here. They hope to confuse and get people away from a true and honest study of God's Word by these methods. Oddly enough, he uses the fact against me that I was once a mormon. I chose to leave that cult more than 20 years ago. My interest in the am/sc cult derived from their distinct similarities to mormonism. I even started a thread to show some of these comparisons. watchman recently told someone to read the "Book of Enoch" for a better understanding. Joseph Smith, mormon's first (false) prophet, also used the Book of Enoch.

smyrna gets a charge out of speaking about mormons wearing underwear. Only those who go through the mormon temple (kind of like scer's belief they are "elect" or superior to others they consider less worthy) wear these ritualistic underwear as a sort of "protection", I personally never went to or through a temple. He can mock mormons all he wants, but he is mocking himself, because his beliefs are so similar to theirs, he should do a further study of them. Does he think they are a Christian church? What do the other scers think of the mormon church? Its a curiosity.

[godchild]

scer's really need to do their own individual study of the difference between what is spirit and spiritual (or figurative), to what is physical (or literal). Their whole belief system is based on a belief, number 1: That God has a physical body, number 2: That man was spirit first when the bible in 1 Cor. 15:46 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual," meaning man was first a physical being, and afterwards a spiritual one. vs. 47 The first man (Adam) is of the earth, earthy (or terrestrial): the second man (Jesus Christ) is the Lord from heaven (or celestial). Man was not a spirit living with God riding around in a physical vehicle before being born into a human body. God created the physical; ALL things. scers can't seem to understand that. They want foolishly to credit themselves somehow. Christians are happy and thankful for the adoption offered to us. scers had no part in the creation and will have no part in who will receive the glory reserved for our Lord. Just because a servant does a good or even excellent job for his master does not give him the promise of the Lord of the kingdom; only a place in it. Be grateful and praise God for that. Who is worthy of that responsibility? Can a man replace God? If any man thinks he is/can, he doesn't need God! "To God give the glory." We were CREATED by Him, not transformed somehow from being spirits (or angels), into human beings, physical, visible beings. God is life. He breathed life into the first human; who before was just a lump of clay, dirt, earth.

[scisthebest]

na when i think of bodies i think of 2 bodies your flesh body and spiritual body lol..but i understand where your coming from s_d cause i am a catholic...at least i was raised a catholic but i do not follow there beliefs atleast not all of it...but i understand and so what you had a mistake in words you used....i understood what you ment from the beginning...anyways God bless everyone

[scisthebest]

i made a mistake in names i ment to say godchild to my last post lol sorry again

[scisthebest]

actually i never looked at it like that s_d im not saying hes driving a vehicle..lol..but what you said it does make sense...

[scisthebest]

but godchild lol i never doubted anyones beliefs...i just get accused cause im a scer...so not all is here trying to do this or that..at least not me im just trying get open views is all..nothing wrong with that

[jeff_franklin]

scisracist: "i just get accused cause im a scer"

As an SCer YOU accuse Jews of being the spawn of satan!

You are the accuser! Don't pretend to be innocent of anything here. You are the accuser, the nazi, the racist, the Jew hater. You've got the blood of every Jew, man, woman and child killed in the Holocaust on your hands by your hate speech against them.

[smyrna]

scisthebest,

That should be no problem, that you are accused.

Part of the reason frankie is a total nutcase, is that he has NEVER been able to prove ANY SCers claim that Jews i.e. (those of the tribe of Judah)are Kenites.

So every time that this clown uses the charge that SC teaches that "Jews are the spawn of satan" he's lying.

But this slob doesn't care that he lies. He even lies about what race he is.

Look at this jerk rant and rave. I've never heard you use hate speech, but there he is accusing and accusing, at the same time saying YOU are the accuser.

What a joke! But that's why we love to have him around, because it's so easy to show that the detractors are crazy!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[jeff_franklin]

oh the old racist in the closet bait and switch manuever. The shell game.

"We don't call the Jews the spawn of satan cause the Jews aren't real Jews. Who you call Jews are the Kenites who are the spawn of satan. Who we call Jews are the German Gaelics, the lost 10 tribes. So nooooo we don't call the Jews the spawn of satan." http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

What a game of deception you play that fools no one. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Keep on trying to be closet racists and I'll keep shining a light in that closet. In there with you is your nazi brownshirt, a gestapo ss deathshead uniform and your klan sheets and hoods.

[smyrna]

Frankie wrote:

"oh the old racist in the closet bait and switch manuever. The shell game."

Hey Frankie, are you referring to your claims that you black AND white? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Hey Frankie, in case you haven't yet realized it, the NAACP, the media, and the ADL don't see it your way.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

They have no problem with the SC. After all, SC has been on for twenty years,and only nutjobs like you see what you see.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Maybe you should clean the visor on your space helmet!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif