Request for clarification [Archive]

deko

08-17-2006, 01:29 AM

I'm new to this discussion and would like to better understand the teachings presented by Shepherd's Chapel (SC). I'd like to hear primarily from the students of Shepherd's Chapel rather than detractors. I'm trying not to make any judgments until I fully understand what is being taught.

Here's what I understand so far:

On the Trinity:

SC: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three offices held by the one God.
QUESTION: Why is this an important distinction from the traditional idea of one God in three persons?

On Hell:

SC: Hell should be understood as eternal annihilation, not eternal punishment.
QUESTION: Again, why is this distinction important? Why is the idea of eternal suffering inconsistent with SC's understanding of Hell?

On Creation:

SC: The different human races were created on the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:26), and Adam and Eve were created after the seventh day (Gen 2:7).
QUESTION: Can you point me the other Bible teachers (preferably predating SC) who have taught this? Are there other sources of exposition on this idea? I've been taught that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are simply parallel accounts of the same creation.

SC: God first created men with spiritual bodies, then, after a rebellion in heaven led by Satan, God placed these souls into flesh bodies, born innocent on Earth, to die once in the flesh, returning to God in spirit for judgment. The Calvinistic idea of the "elect" corresponds to those who sided with God during the rebellion. Being "born again" is when a soul (a spiritual entity from another age) enters a physical body.
QUESTION: Other expositors of this doctrine?

On the Kenites:

SC:The Kenites are the descendants of Cain. Cain and Abel, born together as twins, were sired by different fathers: Abel being born of Adam's seed and Cain being born of Satan's seed (or "Serpent Seed", as it is sometimes referred to). This was the result of Satan having sexual relations with Eve, as well as Adam, in approximately the same time frame.
QUESTION: How new is this idea new? Has this "two-seedism" been taught by other Bible teachers in the past? I've a bit read about Daniel Parker - is he the only other teacher of this doctrine?

SC: The "lost" ten tribes of Israel migrated into Europe and the British Isles and their descendants are largely those of White European decent; the Jews of today represent the tribes returning to Judah after the Assyrian captivity (Benjamin and Judah). This sounds like traditional Anglo-Israelism (which is much different from, and much older than Christian Identity).
QUESTION: Does SC modify traditional Anglo-Israelism in any way? Does SC share any of the doctrines of Christian Identity (which, in my view is a corruption of Anglo-Israelism)?

Thanks in advance

ezekiel_37

08-17-2006, 05:51 AM

Hello Deko

You have a pretty good understanding of our views. You understand much more that the 'detractors' even if you do not agree with all of those opinions...yet....lol.

Here's what I understand so far:

On the Trinity:

SC: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three offices held by the one God.
QUESTION: Why is this an important distinction from the traditional idea of one God in three persons?

It is not, but some would have you belive that this view of the Trinity is blasphemey.
One God, not three....God the Father, God the Son(God manifest in the flesh) and God's Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

On Hell:

SC: Hell should be understood as eternal annihilation, not eternal punishment.
QUESTION: Again, why is this distinction important? Why is the idea of eternal suffering inconsistent with SC's understanding of Hell?

The differance is that those that believe in an everlasting torturous hell would have to believe that God and all of thr righteous souls are going to be having PARADISE at the same time as seeing uncle bob frying in hell. There are no tears in PARADISE, none.

I think that this goes to show the character of God. Is God One that will make souls cease to exist...... or torture them forever.

On Creation:

SC: The different human races were created on the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:26), and Adam and Eve were created after the seventh day (Gen 2:7).
QUESTION: Can you point me the other Bible teachers (preferably predating SC) who have taught this? Are there other sources of exposition on this idea? I've been taught that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are simply parallel accounts of the same creation.

Maybe another SC student could answer you better as to who taught this before SC. We contend that the bible is clear on this issue. Most, if not all of us were also taught that they are the same event told twice. However, with hard study, the truth is evident that they are differant accounts....one being mankind and one being Adam.

SC: God first created men with spiritual bodies, then, after a rebellion in heaven led by Satan, God placed these souls into flesh bodies, born innocent on Earth, to die once in the flesh, returning to God in spirit for judgment. The Calvinistic idea of the "elect" corresponds to those who sided with God during the rebellion. Being "born again" is when a soul (a spiritual entity from another age) enters a physical body.
QUESTION: Other expositors of this doctrine?

Again maybe another student could help you there.

ezekiel_37

08-17-2006, 05:54 AM

On the Kenites:

SC:The Kenites are the descendants of Cain. Cain and Abel, born together as twins, were sired by different fathers: Abel being born of Adam's seed and Cain being born of Satan's seed (or "Serpent Seed", as it is sometimes referred to). This was the result of Satan having sexual relations with Eve, as well as Adam, in approximately the same time frame.
QUESTION: How new is this idea new? Has this "two-seedism" been taught by other Bible teachers in the past? I've a bit read about Daniel Parker - is he the only other teacher of this doctrine?

Same answer.

I have heard that this was an early teaching from the 1st century.

Can't quite remember where I read that. Fact net/doctrines thread I think. I do not know Mr. Parker.

SC: The "lost" ten tribes of Israel migrated into Europe and the British Isles and their descendants are largely those of White European decent; the Jews of today represent the tribes returning to Judah after the Assyrian captivity (Benjamin and Judah). This sounds like traditional Anglo-Israelism (which is much different from, and much older than Christian Identity).
QUESTION: Does SC modify traditional Anglo-Israelism in any way? Does SC share any of the doctrines of Christian Identity (which, in my view is a corruption of Anglo-Israelism)?

Most of the students that I study with are not interested in putting titles on our beliefs. We just see it the way the Word presents it. We know that the white man is called Caucasion.

We know that history proves that these people were originally the Israelite scattered tribes, moving across the Caucus mountains into Europe.

We contend that we are now in the last generation, and that the time is short. If the bible was indeed written to the scattered abroad, then all of those biblical stories of Israel...are about our descendants, and the promises are to us, not a mythical lost jewish tribe....as most Christians cannot separate the 12 tribes from the 1 tribe Judah.

There is a difference in scripture, and when Judah is mentioned then it is about the Jews...likewise when Israel or Joseph is mentioned it is not about the jews but the seed of Abraham, scattered to the ends of the earth....and the promises to Joseph's sons, seem to implicate Britain and USA, and those of their roots.

Thanks in advance

You are more than welcome, although for some of the info you requested, another student could probably help you out better than I.

Peace in your studies through Christ

in His service
c

deko

08-17-2006, 08:46 AM

Thanks, ezekiel_37.

Starting with my last question about Anglo-Israelism, SC is in good company here. You should not hesitate to associate yourself with other Anglo-Israelites. This truth has been around for a while and there is some very good scholarship behind it. In fact, SC offers a video documentary, "The Stone of Destiny," which is based largely on the work of Raymond Capt - an Anglo-Israelite if there ever was one.

The important thing for Anglo-Israelites today is to distinguish themselves from Christian Identity, which, as I understand it, has some strange theology and mixes a nationalistic ideology into their beliefs (which only confuses the issue and is a departure from core Anglo-Israelite ideas).

Now, about the serpent seed doctrine: I believe this is the key distinctive of SC teaching. Your understanding of the creation story, the first earth age, sexual sin as the sin of Adam and Eve, and the idea of the Kenites - this package of ideas is far more significant than nuances of the Trinity, or even a non-suffering hell (I have some trouble with a hell without punishment, but I don't want to digress).

My point is this. Understanding your own tradition is important. Of course you will identify truths that can be categorized and traced back through history (such as Anglo-Israelism).

In my mind, the "Serpent Seed" doctrine needs to be researched, its roots traced, and its expositors identified. If it is true, you should expect to find other Christian scholars discussing it. I'm sure, somewhere, there is a sharp graduate student who has written such a dissertation. Perhaps Dennis Murray knows of some scholarship on this topic?

There are several themes here, however, and it seems to me like unraveling a ball of string. The first earth age idea sounds like the Gap Theory, which is not considered unorthodox. But the idea of humans as "shells" for fallen angels' spirits - to get a 'second chance', so to speak - that is new.

Similarly, the idea of sexual sin as the sin of Adam and Eve: I'm sure this has been bounced around throughout Church History. But a union of satan and Eve?

I am not making any judgment about these ideas - I am looking for a history of them. If they are true, they must be researched and examined in historical context.

This has been a longer note than I intended, but let me say this in closing. If you are truly interested in propagating and defending these truths (which I have referred to as SC distinctives) they need to be understood in the context of the historical Church. We are 2000 years down the pike. Others have gone before us and we risk our reputation if we ignore them and claim our ideas as novelties only we have found in scripture.

(Message edited by deko on August 17, 2006)

ezekiel_37

08-17-2006, 11:58 AM

There are several themes here, however, and it seems to me like unraveling a ball of string. The first earth age idea sounds like the Gap Theory, which is not considered unorthodox. But the idea of humans as "shells" for fallen angels' spirits - to get a 'second chance', so to speak - that is new.

I wouldn't call them(us)'fallen angels' for they are those who were not born in the flesh, but left their place and are the subject of Gen6 and Jude, called the sons of God.

...but I think I know what you mean.

So, there was a rebellion in the age before...

and all that rebelled and all that did not are given the chance at eternity, but we have to be born in the flesh to have that chance.

The fallen angels did not do this. They refused, and came here on there own.

but anyway.

I am not opposed to learning about the teachings (if any) of these SC understandings.

in His service
c

watchman_2

08-17-2006, 01:47 PM

Deko,

There is plenty of scriptural support for the various teachings, which you can find here under the Shepherds Chapel threads. For historical information, you may not find that much documentation here.

A good person to provide you with church historical information is Smyrna. He pops in and out of these threads from time to time.

deko

08-17-2006, 06:20 PM

Thanks, watchman_2

I watch Dennis Murray's broadcasts (I like Dennis better than Arnold), and have some of SC's materials, so I'm somewhat familiar with the scriptural support for SC teaching, some of which I find valid (Anglo-Israelism, for example).

The First Earth Age is essentially the Gap Theory rehashed, and the idea of sexual sin being original sin has been suggested before.

The main thing that is "new" is the Serpent Seed/Kenite idea. My question is just how new is it?

The idea of the Nephilim being the half-breed progeny of fallen angels is widely held. And the idea of trees as metaphors for men and angles in scripture can be demonstrated. So there is some support for the idea that the "forbidden tree" in the garden was Satan, and that he could have seduced/inpregnated Eve in sexual sin.

But surely Pastor Murray does not claim to be the first one to expound these ideas.

watchman_2

08-18-2006, 04:39 AM

Deko,

In the 11 years that I have studied with PM, I have never heard him claim to be the first one to teach as he does.

smyrna

08-18-2006, 08:38 PM

I welcome Deko, who apears to be very intelligent and asks very good questions.

In regard to historical allusions to the serpent's seed, we can go back to Medieval times and a German Abbess known as Hildegard of Bingen. She wrote of a literal rape of Eve, perhaps even seduction would be a better word, as I am not familiar with the precise translation. Documentation can be found in Anti-Christ: Two Thousand Years of Human Fascination With Evil by Bernard McGinn, written in the 90's.

But really, the Bible carries great weight in helping establish that indeed, Satan impregnated Eve. It is also supported by very strong evidence in texts that were and are considered sacred to Judaism and Christianity, like the Qumran scroll material as well as Apocryphal books.

I suggest you do an Internet search on the term Nephilim. When you see that the Book of Enoch as well as the Qumran material speak of beings that came from the sky and had relations with women, and that their offspring were hybrid giants, you may begin to make the connection between the Nephilim and Satan himself, who also was a fallen angel.

I think it is unfortunate that there are parts of mythology of different cultures such as the Babylonians that hold more truth than the interpretations of modern Bible scholars and of course many Churches.

In closing, I would also like to point you to appendixes 23 and 25 of the Companion Bible, also found online, that will assist you greatly in understanding that what the Chapel teaches regarding the Serpent's Seed indeed does have a historical basis.

There is so much more, but I'll wait to see what you come back with. Once again, welcome Deko, and may the Holy Siprit guide you as you seek the truth in God's Word.

deko

08-19-2006, 07:19 PM

Thanks smyrna,

I did some research and here's what I found (in case anyone else is interested):

First, regarding Hildegard:

Hildegard of Bingen, 1098–1179, German nun, mystic, composer, writer, and cultural figure, known as the Sibyl of the Rhine. An aristocrat educated in a Benedictine convent, she began experiencing mystical visions as a child. Entering religious life c.1116, she became an abbess in 1136 and founded her own convent at Rupertsberg near Bingen c.1147. Mystical and worldly, she was deeply immersed in religious life yet also involved in political and cultural affairs, maintaining a lively and wide-ranging correspondence. Her theological magnum opus, Scivias (c.1151), contains 26 visions. Today she is best known for her richly lyrical liturgical poetry set to her own innovative monophonic chants, composed mainly in the 1140s and collected in the 1150s. She also wrote a medical encyclopedia, scientific treatises, works of natural history, lives of saints, and other works. Widely proclaimed a saint, she has not been canonized; nonetheless, her feast day is celebrated on Sept. 17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_von_bingen
http://www.loislindstrom.com/hildegard.htm
http://www.themodernapothecary.com.au/page5/HVB/a_hvb.html

A reference to the seduction of Eve by this woman might be interesting, but clearly not the kind of doctrinal exposition I'm looking for. The wikipedia article has some quotes from her writings, but nothing referring to Eve.

As for the book "Antichrist" by Bernard McGinn:

Paperback: 369 pages
Publisher: Columbia University Press; New Ed edition (March 15, 2000)
ISBN: 0231119771

One reviewer says this book "interweaves evidence from history, theology, biblical interpretations, literary references from Dante to Dostoyevski and even pop bestsellers to rivetingly discuss the concept of Antichrist."

Does McGinn document Hildegard's idea of Lucifer's rape of Eve?

Sounds like interesting reading, but does it discuss the Serpent Seed doctrine in any detail?

deko

08-19-2006, 07:22 PM

Regarding appendices 23 and 25 of the Companion Bible:

This appears to be the work of Ethelbert William Bullinger:

The Companion Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1990. 1886 reprint. The Bible notes for this KJV edition were originally published in 1898, by the English scholar Dr. Ethelbert William Bullinger (1837-1913).

Bullinger's biographer is Juanita S. Carey:

E.W. Bullinger: A Biography
by Juanita S. Carey
Paperback: 288 pages
Publisher: Kregel Publications; Revised edition (April 2000)
ISBN: 0825423724

Interestingly, Bullinger is known as an Ultradispensationalist.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/ultradis.htm

Further:

This Bible was the foundation for many of the Dake notes. It is evident even by a casual comparison that Dake relied upon this work in a greater way than any other reference. For a comparison consult the notes for Genesis chapter one in The Companion Bible and in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. Of special interest is the fact that Strong used the KJV text of The Companion Bible with all of its grammar as a basis for his concordance. (Dake Annotated Reference Bible, Genesis chapter 1 notes.)

About the Dake Bible:

The Dake Annotated Reference Bible
Leather Bound: 1399 pages
Publisher: Dake Publishing; Brgdy Lthr edition (June 1989)
ISBN: 1558290699

Finis Jennings Dake (1902-87) was a Pentecostal pastor, teacher, and author whose most influential work is the Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. This study Bible, containing notes on the entire Old and New Testaments, was first published in 1963. The Dake Bible is considered the top "Pentecostal Study Bible" by many. In fact, the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements says, "His 'notes' became the 'bread and butter' of many prominent preachers and the 'staple' of Pentecostal congregations." Dake is very important within Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d47.html

In any case, the Companion Bible appendices are available here:

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/list.html

The notes are helpful in understanding the Nephilim, and I accept the idea that fallen angels had sex with women, their offspring being the Nephilim, hybrid giants of mythology. But I am still searching for the extension of this idea to Lucifer and Eve. Those notes from the Companion Bible make no such argument.

Arnold Murray, in his "Mark of the Beast" recording suggests evidence is found in the fact that Adam and Eve suddenly discovered that they were naked - which points to sexual sin, specifically the seduction of Eve by Lucifer.

Still, I'm still looking for a starting point to trace the development of this idea throughout Church history. What I have so far (referenced above) are disparate strands of Dispensationism (Bullinger) and Pentacostalism (Dake), neither of which are consistent with SC theology (at least not with Anglo-Israelism).

You mentioned the Apocrypha, specifically The Book of Enoch - could you be more precise with a reference?

By the way, I also found this site, which is helpful: http://www.theseason.org/

One conclusion that is safe to make at this point is that the corruption of human genetics has been the aim of our enemy, the purpose of which was to foil the incarnation. An implication of this idea is the existence of corrupt bloodlines.

(Message edited by deko on August 19, 2006)

(Message edited by deko on August 19, 2006)

smyrna

08-19-2006, 11:49 PM

Hello Deke,

You need not venture into unfamiliar material to establish that the Serpent Seed doctirne is valid. It is right there in Scripture. The problem lies in misinterpretation.
One example is the connection between those "sons of God" of Genesis 6 and the fallen angels i.e. nephilim.
For instance, it has been a long held belief that these sons of God were not angels at all, but merely descendents of Adam mixing with the women of other peoples, and variations of the same idea.
The book of Enoch http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

Brought to light the true interpretation of Genesis 6 and other passages related to establishing a validity of the serpent's seed.

Beleive it or not, even the Babylonian religious texts speak of Cain's connection with the "nacash" i.e serpent.
A book called Sargon the Magnificent available from Shepherd's Chapel or artisanpublishers.com
shows that the Sargon of ancient history was actually the Biblical Cain, and also sheds light on the connection with Satan and the bloodline of Cain.
As for Bullinger, Drake, etc, dispensationalism really has no relation to the serpent's seed, though I am sure someone can weave connections with the two subjects.
However, it must be realized that especially when you read of the various attacks on Scripture, that one must do some homework to cut through long standing traditions, and venture into a clearer understanding through diligent research.
When you see what scholars of ancient manuscripts have to contend with, you begin to understand how so many forces converge to bring confusion to understanding scripture.
For instance, look at the translation of Gen. 6. Doesn't it lead most people to automatically accept that the "sons of God" there were good and righteous beings, whether they are descendants of Adam, or angels, or beings from another planet?
But when you learn that they are called nephilim in Hebrew, literally meaning "to fall" and you tie them to II Peter three's "angels that sinned" as well as in the book of Jude, and you also learn of their escapades from reading Enoch (which Jude quotes, by the way)you learn they are far from righteous.
So now you may realize, that when God says there are two seeds, Gen. 3:15 it means children. When you see two separate geneaologies in Gensis, you know why. When you read of the serpent beguiling Eve, II Corinthians 11:2, you know it means "wholly seduced."
Finally, when you hear scientists speaking of the possibility of an 'evil gene', you may think they are on to something.
There is much much more, enough to fill a book.

smyrna

08-20-2006, 12:08 AM

More:

Check this site out for much more info: http://www.alienresistance.org/book_of_enoch.htm

It covers the history of the book of Enoch's realtionship with the canon and why it wasn't made part of the canon.
Now I know sharing all of this here with you will certainly shake up the detractors that I call the 'fab five' so don't be surprised if they post more of their snide, ingnorant rantings. After all, they are for the most part fundmentalists, people who stil hang on to Sunday school storis about a talking snake, a boat that carried every species of animal on earth, some evil guy making everyone wear 666 tatoos, etc.
They get their "theological training" from TBN, medieval art works, religious coloring books,and/or whacko conspiracy websites.
I know, suggesting you visit a site called "alien resistance" may cause you to think I'm doing the same thing, but I believe that there is a connection between the fallen angels of ancient times and UFO accounts of today.
After all, modern UFO abduction accounts speak of genetic manipulation and alien-human hybrid children. Far out stuff, I know, but not any more far out then ancient texts speaking of beings coming from heaven and mating with women.

deko

08-20-2006, 08:11 AM

Hi smyrna,

Remember, I'm not necessarily trying to establish the validity of the Serpent Seed doctrine. I'm more interested in researching the history of the doctrine and finding others who have expounded it.

As for the "sons of God" in Gen 6, it is widely held that these were fallen angels and the Nephilim were their progeny. That's not at issue. It's Lucifer's sexual seduction of Eve that's new to me. I've heard Arnold Murray suggest that the genealogies in Genesis support the idea. This is something I need to look into.

I have a copy of the Apocrypha and will spend some time reading Enoch. Thanks also for the link.

As for the book "Sargon the Magnificent" by Mrs. Sydney Bristowe:

Paperback: 196 pages
Publisher: Kessinger Publishing (March 2003 reprint of 1927 edition)
ISBN: 0766140997

This appears to be a good lead. Here's someone with archeological evidence suggesting Sargon of Akkad was Cain. There should be plenty of scholarly discussion out there on this. I may write my former history professor (a specialist in this area) about this.

Now, about the idea of aliens. The problem with devils (fallen angels) as aliens is that devils do not have bodies. Therefore, aliens cannot be devils. The idea of abduction begs the question: who is doing the abducting?

There are no "extra-terrestrial" beings in the universe. It's inconsistent with a biblical cosmology and is an impossibility.

As for UFOs, that's entirely different. But again, we can't blame the devil. You may have heard of scalar electromagnetic energy (if not, you should read up on this). This technology is frightening and can be used to control the weather, cause "natural disasters" (tsunamis, hurricanes) and propel "flying saucers."

So if you see a UFO, remember: it's a trick, it's technology - but it's not an alien! If you see a "little green man" of some kind, chances are it's a surgically altered monkey or something out of the genetic labs of NWO scientists. Don't be fooled! There are no aliens! It's just someone trying to scare and manipulate you.

smyrna

08-20-2006, 02:07 PM

Once you get through ancient indicators pointing to a literal seduction of Eve, and move into modern times, you ivariably come across the name William Branham. Doing a net search on Branham turns up material both pro and con, just like looking up anyone else. All I can say to that is many times when someone can't refute a message they don't like, they attack the messenger.
But there are many proponents of the SS doctrine.
Some belong to some not so savory groups, like white supremists. That's probably where most of the accusations about Pastor Murray being a racist comes from.
Do your homework,and you'll see what I mean.

As for your comments re aliens: Any life form that is not from earth is extra-terrestrial. This would
necessarily include the hephilim. The Bible, as wel as many other ancient texts, speak of physical beings coming from the sky.
Angels, also being made in the image of God, are both of spirit and substance. Appendixes 23 and 25 do a good job covering the matter froma Biblical perspective, and I'll add to that.
The two angels that came to Sodom (Gen. 19)were described as being men. Psalm 78 speaks of angel's food.
Couple these descriptions with accounts of men, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, travelling "in the spirit" as the Bible puts it, to the enumerable accounts of people having both voluntary and non-voluntary journeys out of the body, and we can see that both angels and man are quite similar, save the fact that angels are endowed with a great spiritual power, making it much easier for them to affect supernatural phenomena.
On other words, angels can and do appear as men, but can and do operate entirely in another dimension, where time and space do not matter.
It really all comes down to belief and personal experience. If you see a UFO and or have an abduction experience, then you obviously will have a greater receptivity to others who have had similar experiences, same goes for out of the body experiences, psychic events, etc.
As for the position that there are no aliens, just because we don't have one locked up in a zoo or in hanger 18 or whatever,I'm taking a wait and see attitude.
But I share the view of many who understand the vast expanse of the universe, and wonder why God would bother creating such an expanse, with millions of stars and presumably planets, but create life on only one little speck of dust.
It is like creating oceans miles deep and thousand of miles across, and putting all the fish and other marine life in what would amount to a small glass of water.
I'll leave you with a few random recods, which can be drawn out at a later time.
"To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places that might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God" Ephesians 3:10 cf. Eph. 6:12, Colossions 1:6
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their place of habitation"...Jude 6.
The angels descended on Mount Hermon during the days of Jared. There were 19 leaders mentioned in 1 Enoch, who were also called 'the chiefs of ten.'

"they took wives unto themselves, and everyone (respectively) chose one woman for himself, and they began to go unto them. And they taught them magical medicine, incantations, the cutting of roots, and taught them (about) plants.” 1 Enoch 7:1-5

deko

08-20-2006, 06:56 PM

Thanks for the tip on Branham. I'm still piecing together the strands, but starting to get some perspective. At least I have starting point for further research. Other suggestions are still welcome!

As for "racism" - anyone who shies away from truth for fear of being called a racist is a spineless coward. The term "racist" is bandied about so much today that it's lost its meaning. It might as well be replaced with "heretic" since it usually denotes deviation from what is politically correct.

My understanding of Christianity is that God loves repentant sinners and offers salvation to every man regardless of race or pedigree. This makes Christianity the most anti-racist religion there is. Who am I to reject what God has accepted? Remember Peter's vision in Acts 10.

It's understandable that men will take issue with Serpent-Seedism, however. Any doctrine that makes me less human or defines my destiny based on factors outside my control is easy to despise.

So the question needs to be raised: If I have some trace of serpent blood in my genealogy, or am of a race that was created before Adam, can I be saved?

To be consistent with the rest of scripture, the answer must be yes: if you repent, believe in the Lord Jesus with all your heart and are baptized, you will be saved.

* * *

We are digressing a bit on aliens, but it's an interesting question.

Regarding your comments:

"Any life form that is not from earth is extra-terrestrial. This would necessarily include the Nephilim."

Why do you think the Nephilim are not from earth? As I understand it, they were born of woman, impregnated by fallen spirts (devils). As for the mechanics of the union, I would have to say it was some kind of incubus.

"I share the view of many who understand the vast expanse of the universe, and wonder why God would bother creating such an expanse, with millions of stars and presumably planets, but create life on only one little speck of dust."

God did indeed create an infinite universe. But life exists only on earth. To think otherwise degrades the stature of man and insults Christ. The God of the universe assumed human form and that form was assumed into the Godhead. This is the ultimate affirmation of humanity and guarantees that we are his exclusive creation in the universe. The idea of other created beings (aside from the host of heaven) is completely foreign to a Christian world view.

terluvire

08-20-2006, 08:28 PM

Hi Everyone,

I don't mean to interrupt, Smyrna does very well on church history. But I did want to make one comment. Deko, your quote:
So the question needs to be raised: If I have some trace of serpent blood in my genealogy, or am of a race that was created before Adam, can I be saved?

To be consistent with the rest of scripture, the answer must be yes: if you repent, believe in the Lord Jesus with all your heart and are baptized, you will be saved.

We all agree with the above. Race has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, even a kenite is able to obtain salvation.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I do want to add that your demeanor is very pleasant and you seem to be an intelligent and an analytical thinker. It is very refreshing!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

smyrna

08-20-2006, 08:57 PM

Deke,
Over time, Nephilim came to be a term used for the giants as well as the "sons of God", and that can be a source of confusion to astute minds such as yours.
However,as the very term means roughly those who fell, not only from God's grace but also literally from the heavens, the term is intended to describe
the fallen angels themselves.
Which brings me to another point while on the subject. In Numbers 13:33, we read that the spies who went into Canaan saw there the "sons of anak"
Anak is an abbreviated term of Babylonian origin. The Babylonian term for their gods (fallen angels) that came down from heaven to earth was Annunaki.
Those who have read Zechariah Sitchin's Earth Chronicles series will be familiar with this term, which means, "those who from heaven to earth came."
For the record, Sitchin is a modern Babylonian priest, for lack of a better description. You will appreciate that statemtn much bettwe after you read Sargon the Magnificent.
Now you say that "The idea of other created beings (aside from the host of heaven) is completely foreign to a Christian world view."

If I were to embellish your comment with the word 'traditional' then I would find it more palatable.
Christians do not have a monopoly on knowledge, and the Bible only covers mainly what goes on here on earth. The angels, both righteous and otherwise, are God's created beings that work into God's plan for humanity, and thus must be part of God's Word as we have received it.
One clue to this view being correct is the encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus. (John 3)
Nicodemus wanted Jesus to teach him about heaven, which certainly may include other worlds, dimensions, and maybe even states of existence we are unaware of. But Jesus said to him that "If I have told you about earthly things and ye believe not, then how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
Then again, one need not speculate about life on other worlds, other than those called the host of heaven. For among them are the fallen angels, who, in their acts of deception, can assume any appearance they may wish to.
They have the will to do so, just as we have the will to change our appearance, though in a more crude fashion than those with angelic powers.
Therefore, when we read of the locusts from the bottomless pit in Rev. 9, (also in Joel)we certainly can speculate that they are the beings we have come to know as the "grays" in modern UFO lore.
There does seem to be a similar paradigm behind these modern accounts of aliens and genetic manipulation, and accounts of the fallen angels and their genetic pollution of humanity, and also the first assault of that kind on Eve.

deko

08-20-2006, 11:19 PM

Thanks for the kind words terluvire, and for the clarification on who can be saved.

smyrna, I think we should stick with your suggestion that "one need not speculate about life on other worlds, other than those called the host of heaven. For among them are the fallen angels, who, in their acts of deception, can assume any appearance they may wish to."

The key word is speculation, which is not necessarily bad, but can lead to a lot of wrangling over nothing and spiral down into a pit of preconceived ideas.

One caveat I would stress is that modern man possesses powerful technology (scalar electromagnetics) that can do some pretty incredible stuff. We should not attribute to God (or to devils) what is actually the work of men.

Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke

As for the Serpent Seed doctrine, I think this much is true (aside from the idea that Satan had sex with Eve): Lucifer and his devils have historically attempted to corrupt human genetics (Gen 6). The extent to which they were successful is difficult to tell, but I think it may help us understand God's instruction to the Israelites to "utterly destroy" some nations (Deut 7), exterminating men, women, children, cattle (Josh 6) and literally "all that breathed" (Josh 10). The prohibitions against intermarriage (Deut 7, 1 Kings 11) could also be understood in this light.

If this unholy genetic corruption has persisted into modern times, Dan Brown should revise his novel. Or perhaps The Da Vinci Code has hidden its real message? We all know Jesus was not married. There is no debate. So what bloodline is being alluded to? Are the occultist elite of this world telling us something? Do they know the bloodline from which the Antichrist will come?

But now I've jumped into the deep end of speculation... http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

(Message edited by deko on August 20, 2006)

smyrna

08-20-2006, 11:28 PM

You are an entertaining personality Deke, I'm glad you are here. If you read the threads, you'll see why we are thankful that you come here with civility, intelligence, and an open mind.

deko

08-20-2006, 11:52 PM

Thanks, smyrna, but please note it's deko (not deke) http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Here's a passage that shows that terluvire is right on the money:

Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

--Amos 9:7

We cannot rely on the fact that we are Israel's seed. Apostasy will reduce us to a status worse than any Kenite, and righteousness will raise any Kenite above any corrupt Israelite.

smyrna

08-21-2006, 12:11 AM

Sorry about the mistake on the name Deko. Regarding the Philistines, are you aware that some of them were giants?

ezekiel_37

08-21-2006, 05:27 AM

Hello Deko, Smyrna...

I go away for a few days and...bamm...gc's up to her usual, and you two are having this awsome conversation that I wish I was involved in....

so, that said....

Smyrna...
"I share the view of many who understand the vast expanse of the universe, and wonder why God would bother creating such an expanse, with millions of stars and presumably planets, but create life on only one little speck of dust."

I think God created all of this universe, and some of which must be able to support life, for a specific reaason....but I do not believe that there is intelligent life out there now.

Deko...
God did indeed create an infinite universe. But life exists only on earth. To think otherwise degrades the stature of man and insults Christ. The God of the universe assumed human form and that form was assumed into the Godhead. This is the ultimate affirmation of humanity and guarantees that we are his exclusive creation in the universe. The idea of other created beings (aside from the host of heaven) is completely foreign to a Christian world view.

I too believe that we are the only life right now, however I fully believe that the universe was created with many, almost uncountable planets, for a reason.....Future inhabitation.

Afterall, we have an Eternity......we might get bored on Earth after a billion years....and need a change....who knows.

Deko...
If this unholy genetic corruption has persisted into modern times, Dan Brown should revise his novel. Or perhaps The Da Vinci Code has hidden its real message? We all know Jesus was not married. There is no debate. So what bloodline is being alluded to? Are the occultist elite of this world telling us something? Do they know the bloodline from which the Antichrist will come?

I have not read the DaVinci Code but understand that they allude to a Divine bloodline. Are you presently under the understanding that the antiChrist will be born a human? if you are, I might suggest asking your new SCN friends about that subject, as we are certain (most if not all of us here anyway) that the antiChrist is the Devil/ Satan himself, playing his role as the antiChrist. So, as we understand it, as Pastor Murray's also teach, the antiChrist will NOT be a man, but rather a fallen supernatural angel with physical form, albeit not flesh.

He looka likea man.....as the angels in Sodom did.

That's my opinion anyway.....

in His service
c}

deko

08-21-2006, 10:11 AM

As for The Da Vinci Code, I saw the movie out of curiosity. It's pure fantasy. But the theme of a bloodline and the Illuminati is real. The bit about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and Opus Dei and all the rest is just filler.

I consider the movie to be a production of the Illuminati, and the message seems to be "We have a bloodline." The implication is that their Antichrist is going to claim a "divine right" to rule based on that bloodline. It's almost like Brown is affirming Anglo-Israelism. Even so, the bloodline in question may well be the kind we have been discussing in this thread.

If I'm going to base my eschatology on a movie (!), I suppose The Da Vinci Code is better than Tim LaHaye's Left Behind

All this talk about devils appearing on earth without a (possessed) human body sounds strange to me. I'm aware of Gen 19 and the angels that appeared in physical form, but those were emissaries of God. Lucifer and his devils are disembodied spirits - they have no body. In fact, they have nothing but contempt for us "clots of mud."

Are you suggesting earthly demonic appearances are an apparition of some kind? Do they just form a body out of matter? I think that would be overestimating their capability.

smyrna

08-21-2006, 01:35 PM

Ancient cultures that were only literate in rudimentary pictographic language unique to their immediate area painted graphic images of "gods" on the walls of their cave dwelings.
The fallen angels, as recorded in Enoch, a book
quoted in the New Testment in Juse, described the fallen angels in human terms, even attributing to them the ability to teach cultures such as the Sumerians metallurgy and other arts. This allows us to explain how ancient man was able to produce such high technology for their time period.
These fallen angels, and the term demon applies to them, had enough physicality to impregnate women.
In adddition, we do have some physical evidence of the presence of some outward influence of a very high technology.
The pyramids are one example, but they arestill in the hands of egyptologists that claim man was able to build them. I agree they could sling the mortar, but to design these structures with clearly intentional positioning, placing them in a stretegic spot in the desert which shows the designers had a thorough knoweldge of geography, astronomy, and a host of other disciplines is a bit much to apply to the egyption culture. And even if one is persuasive in their argument that we understimate the abilities of that culture, we still are faced with things such as water erosion on the Sphinx, in a time were the desert was known
to be dry, suggests the Sphinx was in place long before the egyptians occupied that land.
Cont'd

smyrna

08-21-2006, 01:48 PM

The point I'm trying to make here is that cultures other than those directly influenced by the Adamites came into possession of knowledge that enabled them to do things that can only have been accomplished with the help of an outside agent i.e the fallen angels.
Now to tie them in with demons will lead us back into a discussion of the dually shared abilities of both man and angels.
It is known that man can travel outside his own body, the Bible claims this, as do many other religions, as well as even science, if you accept the accounts recorded in such books as Psychic Warrior, which is an account of a highly decorated military man who was involved in a government project called Stargate, which trained what they call remote viewers.
Angels, who based on the evidence I have already put forth, appeared as powerful and highly intelligent physically present supermen, for lack of a better term, certainly would also have similar abilities, but with much more control.
We must take also into consideration the stories in the Bible of angels appearing with special messages in dreams, and use that as a way to determine that fallen angels would necessarily have the same powers, but use them to deceive man rather than help him.
If there are good angels and evil angels, then it stands to reason the only thing that separates them is their actions, not their abilities.

terluvire

08-21-2006, 02:51 PM

Hi Deko, Smyrna, and Ezekiel,

I agree Smyrna, many ancient cultures speak of beings coming from the sky. Here is one tribe I found awhile back. Their astromical knowledge was impressive. They had no modern means to know the things they know. The tribe is called "Dogon", the name is very very close the fish god Dagon. Here is an excerpt:

The Dogon are famous for their astronomical knowledge taught through oral tradition, dating back thousands of years, referencing the star system, Sirius. Sirius is the dog star. It is linked with the Egyptian goddess Isis. The astronomical information known by the Dogon since that time, was not discovered and verified until the 19th and 20th centuries, making one wonder how the Dogon came by this knowledge. Their oral traditions say it was given to them by the Nommo. The source of their information may date back to the time of the ancient Egyptian priests.

As the story goes ... in the late 1930s, four Dogon priests shared their most important secret tradition with two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen after they had spent an apprenticeship of fifteen years living with the tribe. These were secret myths about the star Sirius, which is 8.6 light years from the Earth.

The Dogon priests said that Sirius had a companion star that was invisible to the human eye. They also stated that the star moved in a 50-year elliptical orbit around Sirius, that it was small and incredibly heavy, and that it rotated on its axis.

Initially the anthropologists wrote it off publishing the information in an obscure anthropological journal, because they didn't appreciate the astronomical importance of the information.

What they didn't know was that since 1844, astronomers had suspected that Sirius A had a companion star. This was in part determined when it was observed that the path of the star wobbled. In 1862 Alvan Clark discovered the second star making Sirius a binary star system (two stars).

In the 1920's it was determined that Sirius B, the companion of Sirius, was a white dwarf star. White dwarfs are small, dense stars that burn dimly. The pull of its gravity causes Sirius' wavy movement. Sirius B is smaller than planet Earth.

The Dogon name for Sirius B is Po Tolo. It means star - tolo and smallest seed - po. Seed refers to creation. In this case, perhaps human creation.

By this name they describe the star's smallness. It is, they say, the smallest thing there is.

They also claim that it is 'the heaviest star' and is white in color.

The Dogon thus attribute to Sirius B its three principal properties as a white dwarf: small, heavy, white.

This tribe also speaking of beings coming down from the sky.
http://www.crystalinks.com/dogon.html

smyrna

08-21-2006, 08:51 PM

terluvire,

Excellent link you posted, thank you. I've long known about the Dogon, sicen I believe it was Erik Von Daniken's Chariot's Of The Gods, which I believe was published in the late 60's mentioned this tribe. But other books dealing with 'ancient astronauts' have done so as well.

Now the portion of the site about the Dogon mentioned their identifiaction of the star system Sirius. It reminded me of the modern UFO case of Betty and Barney Hill, where post-regression hypnosis revealed that Betty saw a drawing while being held by the beings that was later identified as a star chart of the constellation Zeta Reticuli.

To read more about that account, go to:

http://www.astrosurf.com/lunascan/hillzeta.htm

This admittedly sounds so far out, but when you consider the backround established, about how the
ancient cultures developed such a high degree of thecnology for their time, that they thmeselves attributed to beings from the heavens, then it
is no longer a quantum leap to believe accounts of either the Dogon or Betty and Barney Hill.

terluvire

08-21-2006, 10:16 PM

Thanks for the link Smyrna. I had heard of Betty and Barney's account years ago, but I didn't know about the star chart.

Many ancient cultures spoke of beings from the sky visiting them. If anything it gives credence to the fact that fallen angels where here, though many of the cultures weave mythylogical gods in them, they still have truth in their stories.

When you look at stuff such as ancient batteries which were discovered, I don't know when though, it was aired on either the discovery channel or the Learning Channel; it does show that ancient cultures had technology way beyond their means.

There are also the large, ancient, picture drawing in the ground which can only be viewed while in the sky.

When you put everything together, it more than validifies the Bible, that the "sons of God", ie angels, did come down to earth.

deko

08-21-2006, 10:53 PM

In summary...

The proposition is that devils do, in fact, take human form and have in the past (if the angels of Gen 19 can assume human form, so can devils).

I'll have to think about this.

Historic appearances of these unholy visitors is suggested by ancient images of gods drawn on cave walls. Also, the accomplishments of the ancients, astrological and otherwise, (that appear impossible without technology from a later period) can be explained by intervention of these supernatural advisers.

This, I think, is more speculation than biblical theology.

As for the Antichrist: Is he a man, or is he the devil himself? My guess is SC teaches the latter.

Here's a link to a site with some info about the Illuminati - who some think are currently grooming the leader (Antichrist?) of the New World Order: http://www.postpositive.org

I may not be back this way for a while, so I wanted to say thanks for your answers to my questions.

cheers,

deko

ezekiel_37

08-22-2006, 03:44 AM

The proposition is that devils do, in fact, take human form and have in the past (if the angels of Gen 19 can assume human form, so can devils).

I contend that they have always had a physical form, and that they look pretty much like us....

Not flesh and blood but something else that still has form....can build cities and homes (1st age-Jer4)...and flesh people can eat angels food(manna) and they can eat our food, as at Sodom.

All angles were created equal....the SCN teaches that we all were the angels (for lack of a better word)and that all must be born in the flesh to obtain Salvation and have a 'chance' at everlasting life. The fallen angels did not do this and instead left heaven and came here in their form (not flesh) and had offspring, called giants and mighty men....geber....

As for the Antichrist: Is he a man, or is he the devil himself? My guess is SC teaches the latter.

Correct!

By the way, I studied the Illuminati for a while, and this is one of the reasons why I started to study the bible. It totally changed my life. After a few years now, the past knowledge of the illuminate has become illuminated by the Word. I Imagine that the illuminati exists and has one goal.....

What does the Word say about this.....!

Well, on the flip side, God has His selection here to "bruise" them in the end.

in His service
c

smyrna

08-22-2006, 12:31 PM

Ezekiel,
Re the Illuminati: It is certainly possible that the Illuminati exist as flesh born emmisaries of Satan, just like there are people belonging to the Church of satan and other groups of whackos.

But see that is my problem with accounts of the Illuminati. Whacky conspiracy theories always swirl around attempts to convicne people the Illuminati exist. Did you check out that 'post positive link'that Deko posted? It has two articles that immediately jumped out at me. One was the old "we didn't land on the moon, it was faked" theory.
The other was the absolutely insane accusation that children are being sacrificed in satanic rituals in a secret room under the Vatican.
There's some 9/11 video also on that site that I assume is part of another whacko theory, that our own governement orchestarted the attacks, and/or a plane didn't even crash into the Pentagon.
What disturbs me most about these theories are not the theories themselves, but that there are actually intelligent people that believe this garbage.
Once you take a trip to the Land of Whackos, and start reading all these conspiracy theories,it seems infinite, like you've entered another universe, where nothing you have ever learned is true.
Everything from the the earth doesn't really move, everything moves around it, Jesus never existed, or if He did, he didn't die on the Cross and He won't even touch ground again, all these are stuff LLM believes in.
But there are so many others: The earth is hollow, reptilian aliens live at Area 51 in Nevada and eat people fed to them by our governement so they won't destroy the earth, yes, people really believe that stuff!
The ones that disturb me most involve the Catholic Church. It's the largest and oldest Christian body of believers of course.So it stands to reason the Catholic Church would be the biggest target for satan.
That is why even though there have been many cases of child molestation by clerics in other denominations, the media only trumps those that involve Catholic priests.
As for the latter, this is not an indication that the Church itself is evil, only that there are clerics who have sold out to satan, and in a way we can view them as infiltrators in an otherwise strong and enduring institution founded by Christ Himself, who stated that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
But one can see that once the media has saturated the airwaves with a few stories of sicko priests, some of them guilty, but many of them accused by people just wanting a cash settlement (ever wonder why 99% of these accusations come more than ten years after the alleged incidents?)that it would naturally be easier to beleive stuff like satanic rituals under the Vatican, and that the Pope is the anti-christ.
These are all attacks against the Church, an institution that does not teach priests to molest children, any more then it does not teach that the congregation should smoke crack, steal, be homosexual, etc.
I'm going too far here in defending the Church here on an SC oriented forum, but really look at how the SC is being attacked as well. There are similarities, how these Churches, and others, are being attacked by people within and without Christianity.
Getting back to conspiracy theories as a whole, like I said, once you go down that slippery slope, it is hard, nearly impossible, to keep your head on straight, if it ever was in the first place.

angie0401

08-22-2006, 03:43 PM

smyrna,
I read it too and you're right - it is like you're entering some kind of alternate reality where nothing is as it seems. I had to stop reading it before I got trapped in its "web".

I also agree with you on the Catholic priest molesting children. It's not like priests, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, policemen, pastors, etc suddenly become child molesters. The people that commit these atrocities were ALWAYS child molesters. Pedophiles are really good at finding ways to get close to children, while gaining the trust of them and their families.

It's like I've always told my children, if they "looked" like a child molester, they would never be able to get close to any child. They set out to put themselves in these positions of trust and to exploit the trust associated with it. It has nothing to do with them being priests, pastors, teachers....it has everything to with them being pedophiles.

angie0401

08-22-2006, 03:46 PM

smyrna,
I read it too and you're right - it is like you're entering some kind of alternate reality where nothing is as it seems. I had to stop reading it before I got trapped in its "web".

I also agree with you on the Catholic priest molesting children. It's not like priests, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, policemen, pastors, etc suddenly become child molesters. The people that commit these atrocities were ALWAYS child molesters. Pedophiles are really good at finding ways to get close to children, while gaining the trust of them and their families.

It's like I've always told my children, if these people "looked" like child molesters, they would never be able to get close to any child. They set out to put themselves in these positions of trust and to exploit the trust associated with it. It has nothing to do with them being priests, pastors, teachers....it has everything to with them being pedophiles.

terluvire

08-22-2006, 03:48 PM

HI Angie and Smryna,

Smryna you are right. Once you start reading at all those conspiracy websites, you get lost in what's truth and what isn't. I stay away from them.

Angie, you said:
It's like I've always told my children, if they "looked" like a child molester, they would never be able to get close to any child. They set out to put themselves in these positions of trust and to exploit the trust associated with it. It has nothing to do with them being priests, pastors, teachers....it has everything to with them being pedophiles.

I couldn't agree with you more. Very well said!

godchild

08-22-2006, 06:31 PM

quote: The ones that disturb me most involve the Catholic Church. It's the largest and oldest Christian body of believers of course.
As for the latter, this is not an indication that the Church itself is evil, only that there are clerics who have sold out to satan, and in a way we can view them as infiltrators in an otherwise strong and enduring institution founded by Christ Himself, who stated that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
end quote

Much of sc doctrine centers around 'serpent seed' and 'kenites'.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach these things. This is what they say about Kenites: (from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
(A.V. Kenites).

A tribe or family often mentioned in the Old Testament, personified as Qayin from which the nomen gentilicium Qeni is derived. In spite of several attempts at a solution, the origin both of the name and of the tribe is still obscure. Hobab the relative (brother-in-law?) of Moses was a Cinite (Judges, i, 16, iv, 11; as Hobab is also called a Madianite (Numbers 10:29), it follows that the Cinites belonged to that nation. Judging from appearances, the Cinites were true worshippers of Yahweh. Some scholars, on the strength of Ex., xviii, go even so far as to assert that it was from them that the Israelites received a great portion of their monotheistic theology; the passage, however, deals directly and only with social organization.
to be cont.

godchild

08-22-2006, 06:34 PM

cont.
At any rate, the Rechabites, a clan of the Cinites [I Par. (A. V. I Chron.) ii, 55] were even ascetics and insisted on retaining the nomadic habits of the followers of Yahweh (Jeremiah 35), Though calamities were foretold for the Cinites by Balaam (Numbers 24:21 sqq.), they are always represented as being on friendly terms with the Israelites. Owing probably to their alliance with Moses and also to the bonds of a common religion, they befriended the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert [Num., x, 29-32, 1 K. (A.V. I Sam.) xv, 6] and joined them in their march on Chanaan (Judges, 1, 16). There is no intimation that there ever was any enmity between the two nations (cf. 1 Samuel 27:10, 30:29). The Cinites dwelt south of Palestine with the Amalecites, as is evident from Num., xxiv, 21 sqq., I K., xv, 6, and probably from Judges, i, 16 if, instead of the Massoretic version, we use an alternate Hebrew reading -- a reading which is supported by several Greek manuscripts and by the Sahidic Coptic Version (cf. Ciasca, Fragm. Copto-Sahidica). One clan of the Cinites left the tribe and settled in the north under Haber, at the time of Barac and Debbera (Judges 4:11); Jahel, who slew Sisara, was the wife of Haber the Cinite (ibid., iv, 17 sqq., v, 24 sqq.). From the facts that we find the Cinites south and north, and that in Aramaic the root from which Qayin is derived implies the idea of a smith, Sayce (in Hastings, Dict. Bib., s.v. Kenites) draws the conclusion that the Cinites were a wandering guild of smiths. This view has against it the obvious meaning of the texts (see especially Genesis 15:19). Apparently the Cinites shared in the Babylonian Exile and in the Restoration, but they do not appear any more as a distinct tribe and very likely were assimilated with the Jews.
-----------------
Since the 'oldest and largest church that Christ Himself founded and said the gates of hell would not prevail against it' (according to smyrna) do not teach am/sc doctrine, yet you believe am/sc doctrine, have the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic church or have such old and learned teachers simply decided this was not an important (perhaps hidden) doctrine to put in their canon of scripture? As a Catholic and a scer, who has the truth, the Pope or am? Would God give certain knowledge to one and not the other, which is considered so important to am's teachings? Have you shared this info with the Catholic church, or has am?

godchild

08-22-2006, 06:52 PM

Also from the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the definition of satan:
As may be gathered from the language of the Lateran definition, the Devil and the other demons are but a part of the angelic creation, and their natural powers do not differ from those of the angels who remained faithful. Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body, and in their original state they are endowed with supernatural grace and placed in a condition of probation. It was only by their fall that they became devils. This was before the sin of our first parents, since this sin itself is ascribed to the instigation of the Devil: "By the envy of the Devil, death came into the world." This is so contrary to what you believe as scers. How do the Catholic scer's respond to this, or anyone else for that matter? Is the Pope wrong, or is am? Is the Catholic church wrong (as in teaching false doctrine), or is sc teaching false doctrine?

terluvire

08-22-2006, 08:17 PM

godchild, you once asked on another thread why we don't proselytize on the other religion threads (something to that effect). That's not what we are here for. We are here to defend against the lies which are targeted against Pastor Murray and SC.

Who is anyone, to go into a church or denomination and tell them they are all wrong?? Who is that perfect in their knowledge to be in a postion to condemn a whole group??? I don't mind discussing different doctorines, but I will not discuss or pick apart other religions, as I'm sure many other SC students would agree. All that should matter is God's truth regardless of which religion or denomination one belongs to.

smyrna

08-22-2006, 10:34 PM

I agree Terluvire,

The differences between Catholic theology and the theology of the SC are not in my opinion severe enough to make it an issue. Rather, I look for what is similar.
I do however have conversations with Catholic theologians and many of them have been quite intrigued by the idea of the serpent's seed. As I've mentioned in this forum many times, a Catholic medieval abbess (head of a convent) and a very famous writer from that era, Hildegard of Bingen, wrote of what she discerned as a "rape" of Eve, and a literal one at that.
In addition, we may find in the future that such a teaching may be incorporated into the dogma of the Catholic Church.
Because I have gained so much spiritual insight
from the superb spiritual writings of Catholic mystics such as the Desert Fathers and Mothers, and the early doctors of the Church such as Augustine, Tertullian, Origen and so many others, I would never abandon studying them as supplements to the reading of Scripture itself.
One may ask why one would need any "supplements."
That is like asking why we would need a council to decide what books should be made part of the canon. For indeed, many of these doctors of the Church were either directly involved in the process, or relied upon by those who were.
So it stands to reason that one would naturally want to know what their insights were, as well as to study how they applied what they learned from Scripture into their lives. They were thus very good models by which to pattern ourselves as later followers of Christ.
In closing, I definitely believe the Catholic encyclopedia's position regarding satan and the fallen angels. However, it is an overly simplistic view, and there is a vast difference between an article from an encyclopedia, and the actual teachings of the Magisterium (teaching authority of the RCC)Not contradictions necessarily, but more extensive and detailed expositions of subjects can be found.
Godchild's extreme ignorance of the formation of Catholic Church doctrine would entail several pages of text in order to correct her.
What I will say is that for very good reasons the Catholic Church takes a very long time to amend teachings, and like I've already said, many fellow Catholics, including theologians, are both intrigued and edified by some of the SC teachings I've shared with them.
For the record, the Pope does not soley mandate what is taught in the Church. The office of the Pope does aid the process through Papal encyclicals, but not one Pope alone determines what has been taught, obviously, for centuries.

ezekiel_37

08-22-2006, 10:36 PM

gc

the 2 bold statements above

Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body

The fallen angels are like other angels, as we also believe, except for their fall.

Sodem's events would seem to state another conclusion than the one you quoted....no flesh body, but obviously a pure spirit body.

would you agree gc? Did the angels at Sodem have bodies? Did they eat? Did they sit? Did the towns homosexual men want them in a sexual way?

Yes to all? Do you agree?

This was before the sin of our first parents

We do not disagree with this.

in His service
c

smyrna

08-22-2006, 10:49 PM

OH YEAH!

I have spent many many hours in conversations with monks that have theological backrounds(not all do)and one thing I want to add to my post above is that none of them think that there was a literal talking snake in the garden, though some of the early writings of the Church reflect that is what some most believed, but only because they did not have the ability to translate texts but only read transliterated texts.

Thus, many times even the most learned of medieval theologians did not realize that many words or phrases in scripture were hebrew idioms and thus the line between literal and figurative interpretations were blurred.

So much so that even the Protestant churches and later denominations just accepted these erroneous interpretations, and later fears of apostasy have made the process of interpretation a necessarily tedious, and difficult task. Same goes with changes in dogma or doctrine.

Here is one example:
When the Qumran or Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, more Psalms written by David were found. One in particular was even known in the Ethiopian Church for centuries. This Psalm 151 was never obviously added to the canon of the RCC.
Can you imagine what it would take for them to be added? Probably a third Vatican council!
And the same goes for the other denominations. They would have conferences, investigations, all kinds of things would have to happen before they even considered adding them to the Bible.
Food for thought.

ezekiel_37

08-22-2006, 10:54 PM

Smyrna, I have heard them ALL, almost...lol

Before I became addicted to the Word, I looked for answers elsewhere. One of the places I searched for the answers of Life was the radio. There is a show on every nite, "coast to coast"(weekdays) and "overnite"(weeekends), syndicated radio show..100's and 100's of affiliates.....anyway huge show.

Freaky subjects, call in, guest experts. Consp. theories, aliens, monsters, religion, out of body experiences, weird science, and almost any other different subject that you can think of. I followed this show for a while. Still tune in from time to time.

Using God and His Word as a filter, learning is possible, as I have understanding with many 'out there' theories....may allow me to witness better, knowing many angles and directions that others think in and believe.

Ever heard of this show?

in His service
c

terluvire

08-23-2006, 01:30 AM

HI Smyrna,

I have to say, your knowledge of the RCC is rather extensive. I do enjoy reading your posts. They are very informative. I do not have near the understanding of the RCC history...lol

One thing I will not do is discuss (put down) someone's denomination. But what I will discuss is God's Word. Many Christians make the sad mistake by bashing this religion or that denomination. If they would just stick to our Father's Word, they would make much more headway.

Hi Ezekiel,
Yeah, I heard of Coast to Coast. My father listens to it pretty often...lol I actually listened to it once and it was just a few nights ago. They were talking about the lizard people...lol I can't believe that there a people out there which actually believe that stuff..lol One thing I can say about Coast to Coast is that it is very entertaining..lol

terluvire

08-23-2006, 01:49 AM

I just had to comment on godchild's bold typed statement:
Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body

Ah, who told you this? Was it God? Does He describe angels as having no body?? Seriously godchild, where do you get your information, or better said, your understanding? How did you come to the understanding that angels do not have bodies?

abiyah

08-23-2006, 05:14 PM

Terluvire WROTE with regards to godchild's quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Quote: " I just had to comment on godchild's bold typed statement:
" Like the other angels, they are pure spiritual beings without any body " END QUOTE
-------------------------------------------------

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gifGood Afternoon to you Terluvire & ALL !

And thank you FACTnet for coming back up so that we can discuss Father's Word here. : )

Anywhoooo... yea Terluvire, you are so right with regards to Vivian's statement, because unforetunately Vivian's understanding of angelic beings does greatly err, and her above comment is contrary to that which is written in The Word of God. Perfect example why no one should listen to man, but to get into The Word for themselves allowing The Holy Spirit to be their guide so that they can obtain wisdom [ Proverbs 1:7 ].

As God's Word certainly does describe many of the angelic beings, at times describing what they looked like, what they wore [ Mark 16:5 ], and even at times what they ate. Remember the two angels that accompanied The Angel of The LORD as they visited Abraham [ Genesis Chapter 18 ]...... I mean the two angels along with The Angel of The LORD, sat down and enjoyed a meal before the two angels set off to Sodom, and Gomorrah [ Genesis 18:3 -8 ]. And not only that, but how about the children of Israel while in the wilderness, they ATE ANGELS FOOD, Manna, which came down from Heaven [ Psalm 78:23 -25 ]. If angels did not have a body, then why would they have need of Manna, which is angels food ? Well... the answer is simple of course, its because angels do have bodies, spiritual bodies, remember how that The LORD said, in speaking to the angels
" Let us make man in our IMAGE " [ Genesis 1:26 ]. And even Paul in I Corinthians 15:38 and the following verses explains and gives understanding to the spiritual body.

Vivian's/godchilds above stated quote in which Terluvire has highlighted above here is indeed false, meaning its not Truth, indeed she lacks knowledge & understanding from God's Word regarding angelic beings.

Hosea 4:6
" My people are destroyed for LACK OF KNOWLEDGE; because thou hast REJECTED knowledge,...... "

Abiyah

david_munson

08-23-2006, 05:36 PM

Abiyah,
just wanted to share something I think is very interesting with you.
Today while factnet was down I used that very verse on another site I frequent.Hos.4:6.

I love seeing that happen.It remeinds me of how good God really is.
It was in the context of "the dangers that Christians face."
Lack of knowledge is the most devestating thing in a believers life.It leads to deception,faithlessness and vulnerability to spiritual deception.

Thank God that He provides us with the ability to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
2Peter 3:18.

}

david_munson

08-23-2006, 05:36 PM

terluvire

08-23-2006, 05:49 PM

Hi Abiyah,

Very good post. God's word shows that angels eat, the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sexual relations with them, they walk (satan told God that he was walking up and down in the earth, Job. satan is evil but he is still a supernatural being and he was walking), they talk, they see, they hear...ect. They must certainly have a body to do all these things. They don't have flesh and blood bodies as we have but they still have bodies albeit made of a different substance. They are spiritual, so their bodies would be made of spiritual substance.

godchild, please show examples in God's word that angels do not have bodies.

smyrna

08-23-2006, 06:03 PM

In regard to Godchild's comment about the angels being pure spirit, it is true, but she fails to understand the points that terluvire brought up, about their physical abilities while still in their angelic state. They are, as she said, of a different substance, but in the same image (design) and they are capable of acts that we are not, as well as any that we are capable of.

Therefore, even though Godchild highlighted the description of angels from the Catholic encyclopedia, it is correct, which of coruse dissapoints her, because now she has one less issue in which to compare the teachings of the Chapel with the RCC.

EZEKIEL:

Oh yes, I still listen to Coast-to-Coast, it's entertaining stuff. Besides, when I'm up late listening to the radio, there is not much else on, except the endless music stations!
I'm sure you know the show also has an extensive webiste. LLM probably spends quite a bit of time there, based upon all the whacky stuff he comes up with here at Factnet.

terluvire

08-23-2006, 06:52 PM

Hi Smyrna, I think godchild is only trying to cause discord by bringing in the description of angels from the Catholic Encyclopedia..lol I think this because of what she said here:
This is so contrary to what you believe as scers. How do the Catholic scer's respond to this, or anyone else for that matter? Is the Pope wrong, or is am? Is the Catholic church wrong (as in teaching false doctrine), or is sc teaching false doctrine?

So I just ignore the denominational topic.

godchild, how do you explain these verses:

1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
1Co 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.

AND
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
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.

The word "body" or "bodies" in the Greek is:
soma
so'-mah
From G4982; the body (as a sound whole), used in a very wide application, literally or figuratively: - bodily, body, slave.

This word is the same word for the natural [flesh] body. The word body means the same for the natural [flesh] as well as the spiritual body.

abiyah

08-23-2006, 06:57 PM

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifGood Afternoon to you ALL !

David...... thank you for your above post.... I enjoyed it. : )

And also, if I may, I'd just like to reiterate, or perhaps be clear on the angelic being, in that THEY ARE NOT, I REPEAT, THEY ARE NOT FLESH AND BLOOD ! The angelic body is 'the house' so to speak, that the soul/spirit dwells in. There is a natural body [ flesh & blood ] and there is a spiritual body [ I Corinthians 15:44 ].

Proverbs 3:13 : )
" Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. "

Abiyah

smyrna

08-23-2006, 10:20 PM

terluvire,
Your post above is excellent. Too bad Godchild will just spend her time trying to find something about it to argue about. Even if she learns from it, we will never know. Her ego, which is such a deceptive illusion for her, will not allow her to admit it.

My prediction is that she will copy and past some verses that are totally irrelevent to the discussion, to try and deflect attention from the fact that once again, she has been proven WRONG.

terluvire

08-23-2006, 11:04 PM

HI Smyrna,

Yeah, godchild will look for something to argue about though what I posted was straight from God's Word.

I think many peoples understanding of spiritual beings is the main stumbling block.

If one believes that spiritual beings do not have a body, that they are spiritual energy blobs, or whatever they think they are, there is no way then in their minds that a supernatural being can intermix with humans. They can't see the sin in the garden, or accept the fact that Gen.3:15 is speaking of satan's children and Eve's. Nor can they see that satan himself is coming here to play Messiah. Sadly, I believe that until they can get past that stumbling block, they will never see the deeper truth.