Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Starting to sound like many of the other Ideologues on your side. You probably have the same contempt for your parents.

Please leave my parents out of the debate.
Thank you.

Fair enough, now leave your insults out please.

what insults? it's a fair question to ask if gods or angels have genitalia...
what insulting is your puritanical view of sex .....
the "my virgin ears /eyes" shtick...is unbecoming for a mature adult!

 

[daws101]

As you can see that Angel was God himself.

Do angels or Gods have genitalia?

bump

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize. It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence. It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior." But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior. We just may not know what it is. Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain. But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.

Similarly, time is a period or interval; a continuous succession of equal (self defined) increments, of a hypothetical nature, between any set of given events. It is a measure of convenience. Time is not universal, but based on the relative position and acceleration of the observer to a given event, or set of events. Currently we find it convenient to establish the following basic relationships.

• Speed/Wavelength = Frequency
• 1/Frequency = Time
• 1/Time = Frequency

(SIDEBAR for THOUGHT)

Saint Thomas Aquinas once said that there are three (3) things God cannot do:

• God cannot sin.
• God cannot copy himself.
• God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees.

How do we define the nature, powers, and characteristics of God? Define it!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Derideo_Te]

the way I see it physical death, a natural part of life, is a blessing. If no one ever died it would take about three geological minutes for this planet to become an unspeakable hell.

Maybe so, but scientific discoveries and known facts should be used as a constraint on what might be any possible interpretation of any written story that is supposed to have taken place on this earth in this reality.

Have you never considered that there is another way to interpret the story that does not require blind faith or contradict reality ?

I have been doing just that. Haven't you noticed?



You must have noticed that I stand with you against all who would insist scripture is a historical document relating the literal truth.

all that I am saying is that there is much more there than what meets the literal eye.

To say it is not there is as silly as to claim that God diddled a virgin to father himself to so that he could become a fully human God without a human father..

Do you think that well known and long established literary techniques - allegories, metaphors, homonyms, hyperbole, etc., etc., - do not apply to scripture, the Torah, which literally means instruction?

C'mon now, pay the piper.

I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount.

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.

It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.

Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. So the 2 lessons are to only heed those who have spent time thinking things through and to not believe everything that is written and/or said.

From my own perspective I see it as always remaining true to myself first and foremost. Self deception is no different to deceiving others and neither is good. As for the ability to "perceive God" that might be a skill that not everyone shares. Just as there are those who have musical talent and those who are tone deaf this ability to "perceive" what others believe has never worked for me. Since I abhor self deception I am not about to lie to myself and say that I can "perceive God" when I cannot.

Instead I make allowances for those who not only claim to "perceive God" but who also behave in word and deed as if they did. Those who profess to "believe" but behave in "unchristian" ways strike me as being dishonest not only about their beliefs but about themselves too. Disclaimer: This applies irrespective of the actual religion in question just in case anyone believes that I am picking on Christians only.

So unless you have some different way to "perceive God" that I have never heard of before you might just be "singing a tune" that I will "never hear" in a manner of speaking.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Very strange question.

As you can see that Angel was God himself.

Do angels or Gods have genitalia?

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[hobelim]

I have no problem admitting that I am missing something here. What I am having a problem with is trying to figure out where you are coming from. So keep me honest here but if I understand your position you are saying that behind all of the myths, fables and arcane language there is something of substance. Is that correct? If so then what do you see as substantive? Please don't get me wrong. I am an Atheist but I respect those with genuine beliefs and who understand that it is more than just a "get out of hell free pass". Jesus didn't tell the story of the good Samaritan merely as a warm up to John 3:16. He didn't go around healing the sick and caring for the less fortunate just as a way to pass the time between sermons on the mount.

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.

It goes even further as far as I am concerned. As an "avowed" Atheist I have no expectation of a "reward" or an "after-life". Instead I do what I can to help those less fortunate and make this world a slightly better place because it is the right thing to do for those that will still be around long after I am gone.

Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. So the 2 lessons are to only heed those who have spent time thinking things through and to not believe everything that is written and/or said.

From my own perspective I see it as always remaining true to myself first and foremost. Self deception is no different to deceiving others and neither is good.


As for the ability to "perceive God" that might be a skill that not everyone shares. Just as there are those who have musical talent and those who are tone deaf this ability to "perceive" what others believe has never worked for me. Since I abhor self deception I am not about to lie to myself and say that I can "perceive God" when I cannot.

Instead I make allowances for those who not only claim to "perceive God" but who also behave in word and deed as if they did. Those who profess to "believe" but behave in "unchristian" ways strike me as being dishonest not only about their beliefs but about themselves too. Disclaimer: This applies irrespective of the actual religion in question just in case anyone believes that I am picking on Christians only.

So unless you have some different way to "perceive God" that I have never heard of before you might just be "singing a tune" that I will "never hear" in a manner of speaking.

What I meant by saying that you are not far from being capable of perceiving God is that you already are adept in the foundational discipline of integrity required to wade through all the bullshit that surround belief in God which like thick dark clouds inhibit accurate perception..


I didn't mean that you are close to having the ability to pretend to believe in what you cannot perceive and become a three dollar bill like the majority of believers..

I think its safe to say that you will never die in that way.


As far as another way to perceive God, if you are willing I can show you a rational way to interpret everything from the creation story to feeding 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air to the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus which will paint a picture of a completely different God unlike the God created by a literal interpretation of those same stories, an unseen God that you already know.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if God existed he would have been intimately involved in your life already, even for all of your life ?

That's where you should look.

With a new understanding of what God is like, you will see what has always been there and it will be impossible for you to not learn to sing a new song.

I will caution you that knowing what the majority of the world does not and maybe cannot know will separate you from the rest of the world in a very profound way.

If you are a seeker of smooth things or dream of easy street, do yourself a favor and run like hell....

 

[daws101]

et al,

Very strange question.

Do angels or Gods have genitalia?

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

 

[edthecynic]

et al,

Very strange question.

Do angels or Gods have genitalia?

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't that also make Jesus a Nephilim?

 

[edthecynic]

et al,

Very strange question.

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you and yes, I am saying there is much substance behind these myths and fables as there are in all myths and fables.

Stories in scripture with snakes and donkeys talking that obviously and irrefutable contradict reality are intentionally put in there like a giant X on a treasure map marking a place where something of great value is buried and hidden.



And example of that substance can be seen in kosher law with the understanding that it is not intended to be taken literally preserved in the command of Jesus to eat his flesh.

In the law, the specific defiling and contaminating quality of swine is that they do not ruminate which has direct implications about people who swallow the flesh, figurative for teaching, of people who do not ruminate.

This is the wisdom; If you fill your mind with the teachings of people who do not ruminate, that teaching will defile and contaminate your mind and you will become a creature that can not ruminate.








Try not to think of it as a reward or punishment. It is more of a consequence as in cause and effect.

People who allow falsehood to ENTER their thoughts, as a consequence, distort and pervert their own perceptions of everything they see, feel, think, and imagine...

This is not a punishment from God and is true whether God exists or not.

Obviously you have stood guard and have been discerning about what you allow into your head or not. As a consequence your mind functions better than those who have failed to do the same.

This is not a reward from God either and is true whether God exists or not.

If you can see this, you are not far from being capable of perceiving God.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. So the 2 lessons are to only heed those who have spent time thinking things through and to not believe everything that is written and/or said.

From my own perspective I see it as always remaining true to myself first and foremost. Self deception is no different to deceiving others and neither is good.


As for the ability to "perceive God" that might be a skill that not everyone shares. Just as there are those who have musical talent and those who are tone deaf this ability to "perceive" what others believe has never worked for me. Since I abhor self deception I am not about to lie to myself and say that I can "perceive God" when I cannot.

Instead I make allowances for those who not only claim to "perceive God" but who also behave in word and deed as if they did. Those who profess to "believe" but behave in "unchristian" ways strike me as being dishonest not only about their beliefs but about themselves too. Disclaimer: This applies irrespective of the actual religion in question just in case anyone believes that I am picking on Christians only.

So unless you have some different way to "perceive God" that I have never heard of before you might just be "singing a tune" that I will "never hear" in a manner of speaking.

What I meant by saying that you are not far from being capable of perceiving God is that you already are adept in the foundational discipline of integrity required to wade through all the bullshit that surround belief in God which like thick dark clouds inhibit accurate perception..


I didn't mean that you are close to having the ability to pretend to believe in what you cannot perceive and become a three dollar bill like the majority of believers..

I think its safe to say that you will never die in that way.


As far as another way to perceive God, if you are willing I can show you a rational way to interpret everything from the creation story to feeding 5000 people fish sandwiches out of thin air to the resurrection of the dead and the ascension of Jesus which will paint a picture of a completely different God unlike the God created by a literal interpretation of those same stories, an unseen God that you already know.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if God existed he would have been intimately involved in your life already, even for all of your life ?

That's where you should look.

With a new understanding of what God is like, you will see what has always been there and it will be impossible for you to not learn to sing a new song.

I will caution you that knowing what the majority of the world does not and maybe cannot know will separate you from the rest of the world in a very profound way.

If you are a seeker of smooth things or dream of easy street, do yourself a favor and run like hell....

Wow, you are such a condescending little fuck.

And just why do you think that your grasp of God as a concept is so much superior to everyone elses?

Fuck you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

et al,

Very strange question.

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't that also make Jesus a Nephilim?

No, it would not. How the fuck do you get that?

 

[JimBowie1958]

et al,

Very strange question.


(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).



Most Respectfully,
R

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

The group labeled 'sons of God' does not equal the group labeled 'angels'.

You are being presumptive, no surprise there.

 

[Boss]

Boss, et al,

I have to agree in part.

Too many times, the question of god's existence becomes bogged down in just this kind of argument. Man has created religions and with them, images of god they can't support, but have established faith in. I'm not here to present an argument for any of those, they are the manifestation of what I am talking about, spiritual nature and man's ability to connect with it. In order to remain objective in evaluating spiritual existence, we have to be willing to set aside religion and religious arguments. This does not mean they are not valid arguments or can't be true, it just means that we can't allow them to interfere with our objective analysis regarding spiritual existence itself.

(COMMENT)

A "definitive proof" cannot be based on faith, icons of faith, or post facto documentation (ie the Koran, Torah, Bible) based on hearsay; and organizational constructs built around that hearsay (organized religion).

As for "spiritual existence," or anything "spiritual" in nature, it requires some faith. And while many people may be of a mind to believe in it, it has no "definitive" quality about it. It cannot be used as "proof." Having said that, circumstantial evidence can be accumulated if it has some temporal or material quality to it that can be quantified.

In this regard, we still haven't defined what "God" is; or what we mean by the term. If it cannot be defined, it cannot have an associated "definitive proof."

Most Respectfully,
R

I see what you are saying, but doesn't everything require some faith? I mean, we rely on the properties of nature to be consistent tomorrow the same as they are today, do we not? Doesn't that require some degree of faith? Of course, the properties of nature have remained unchanged for a very long time, so our faith they will continue doesn't have to be much, but we do have to have it. Everything in the universe is a probability, nothing is totally impossible or totally absolute. A gamma ray burst could vaporize our planet in a few seconds, and where are any philosophical or scientific questions then?

We do not have to "define" in order to confirm presence. I covered this early in the thread, if not in the OP itself. I gave the courtyard example: I can see a figure standing in the courtyard, I see it is a person... I do not need to define if it is male, female, up to no-good, or anything else, to confirm what appears to be a person in the courtyard. From there, I can begin to examine various aspects, is the object moving? If not, it could be a statue which appears to be a person, but if it is animated, it's most likely not a statue. But all of this will come after the confirmation of SOMETHING present. It does not require further definition.

We have to approach the question in step-by-step analytical fashion, in order to get to a definitive answer of any kind. The first step is to confirm that 70k years of humans being spiritual is not a fluke, not a delusion, not imaginations run wild, but an unassailable fundamental attribute humans can't function without, or never have been able to do for any broad length of time in all of human civilization. It is what distinguishes us from the rest of the living world, our ability to spiritually connect. Before the further discussion of God can happen, we have to first establish the spiritual connection humans have the ability to make, is legitimate and real, and not simply "in their heads" as has been suggested.

I think 70k years of history confirms that humans have always been believers in a spiritual nature of some kind, and this is so diverse across so many various cultures found in all corners of the world, that we can't dismiss it as superstition or imagination. The "figments of imagination" arguments go out the window with Darwinist theory, because the primates in our ancestry who weren't hindered by their 'superstitions' and rituals, would have eliminated us, or become superiors to us. We would have abandoned superstition with the advent of science, and as we can see, people did abandon superstitions, they don't dominate the lives of people as they once did, they still exist, but mostly in a quaint and novel version for a laugh. Human spirituality is different, it has persisted through the ages, and it always will be our most defining attribute, really, our ONLY defining attribute, as a species. Anything else you can name, is driven BY our spiritual attribute.

"God" for the purposes of definition in my argument, is a metaphoric representation of spiritual nature that humans connect with. I don't have to assign attributes to God, in order to prove presence. Humans do spiritually connect to something, and it appears to be God.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't understand what you are asking me here. 70k years of human spirituality is a behavioral attribute found in our species, which is unique and different from any other living thing. Setting aside all prejudices and preconceptions, the fact that this behavioral attribute has existed as long as the species, proves the attribute is fundamental and essential to the species. Even Darwin supports this.

I keep hearing "prove" this and "prove" that, but what is meant is, "give me physical proof" and spiritual energy poses a problem in that department. There is all kinds of spiritual proof, but one must first accept that spiritual nature is real.

What a great argument. A similar version has been used by scam artists, carnival barkers, snake oil salesmen and Kool Aid drinkers for as long as there have been those gullible enough to mouth the bait:
"What I'm telling you is the truth. You must believe me. You can confirm I'm telling the truth by believing I'm telling the truth. There are rewards if you do."

Well, I am sorry you interpret the argument that way, but there is nothing at all similar about my arguments and those of scam artists and carnival barkers.

What I am telling you, is the truth. You can confirm it is the truth if you are able to evaluate the spiritual evidence. You do not need to take my word for this, you can prove it to yourself, if you can evaluate spiritual evidence. I have not promised you a reward if you do, and I personally don't care if you do. My argument takes your viewpoint into account, within the first two paragraphs, and I have not deviated from that argumentative point. You have the inability to analyze things through a spiritual perspective, you lack understanding of spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual evidence. You continue to illustrate how my point is made, that some people are unable to accept spiritual evidence, and thus, are unable to answer the question of god's existence.

The fact that some people are unable to wrap their minds around something, doesn't mean that it's not real. Others, who have not closed their minds to spirituality, are able to objectively evaluate the argument I have made, and it definitively proves the existence of god... or something we can generally relate to as a supreme spiritual force, greater than man. You don't have to believe this, I don't care if you do, it your own loss if you don't. The evidence is still there, the case has still been made, and you've not refuted it. You can't refute it with anything more than "I say so" arguments you accuse me of. That's pathetic.

The Creator ... physiology

ok then, are the physical and spiritual nature of an individual separable ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

et al,

Chaos is the term we humans use to describe activity in which we are unable to detect or observe some orderly fashion we can recognize. It does not mean that there is no order or logical sequence. It is a term of convenience in the absence of another descriptor; we sometime say "nearly unpredictable behavior." But it does not mean that there is not a rationale or explanation for the behavior. We just may not know what it is. Reductionism and chaos are extremely difficult to explain. But there is more to chaos than meets the eye.

Similarly, time is a period or interval; a continuous succession of equal (self defined) increments, of a hypothetical nature, between any set of given events. It is a measure of convenience. Time is not universal, but based on the relative position and acceleration of the observer to a given event, or set of events. Currently we find it convenient to establish the following basic relationships.

• Speed/Wavelength = Frequency
• 1/Frequency = Time
• 1/Time = Frequency

(SIDEBAR for THOUGHT)

Saint Thomas Aquinas once said that there are three (3) things God cannot do:

• God cannot sin.
• God cannot copy himself.
• God cannot make a triangle with more than 180 degrees.

How do we define the nature, powers, and characteristics of God? Define it!

Most Respectfully,
R

God is infinite in power, knowledge and holiness, but these are not limitations, but perfections. So sin is not a limit to God's power/knowledge/etc, it is a facet of His perfection.

God cannot do what is untrue by definition. A triangles angles add up to 180 degrees as we define degrees and have observed about triangles. This is not a limit to Gods power or knowledge.

As to completely defining God, I'll do that when you can completely define the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory. none of these are as complicated and nuanced as the definition of God.

 

[RoccoR]

edthecynic, et al,

No.

et al,

Very strange question.

bump

(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).

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

Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't that also make Jesus a Nephilim?

(COMMENT)

Not by the Biblical Definition. Nephilim are the off-spring of the "Sons of God;" taken in translation to be fallen angels.

Jesus is the off-spring of the God of Abraham, not Arch Angels, and not Seraphim.

"And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.

There are many interpretations; this being representative. It follows a similar theme to the Sons of Zeus ("Zeus being the Father of Gods and men"), who was himself the off-spring of Cronus and Rhea (the parent of the Olympians). The famous Son of Zeus, was of course, Hercules.

I diverge here a bit, but to answer your question, Jesus is not a Nephilim. Jesus is a divine entity of the Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[JimBowie1958]

Boss, et al,

I have to agree in part.

Too many times, the question of god's existence becomes bogged down in just this kind of argument. Man has created religions and with them, images of god they can't support, but have established faith in. I'm not here to present an argument for any of those, they are the manifestation of what I am talking about, spiritual nature and man's ability to connect with it. In order to remain objective in evaluating spiritual existence, we have to be willing to set aside religion and religious arguments. This does not mean they are not valid arguments or can't be true, it just means that we can't allow them to interfere with our objective analysis regarding spiritual existence itself.

(COMMENT)

A "definitive proof" cannot be based on faith, icons of faith, or post facto documentation (ie the Koran, Torah, Bible) based on hearsay; and organizational constructs built around that hearsay (organized religion).

So what Matthew wrote and what Paul wrote and what Jeremiah wrote, all that was hearsay? Really?

In this regard, we still haven't defined what "God" is; or what we mean by the term. If it cannot be defined, it cannot have an associated "definitive proof."

God as a concept can be discussed and 'defined' forever.

He needs to be defined only to the degree that it is relevant in similar fashion to how mathematicians defined things incompletely unknowingly for millennia and yet did so in a useful way.

You don't have to have a 100% perfect crystal clear definition of God to think rationally on who and what He is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

edthecynic, et al,

No.

et al,

Very strange question.


(RUMOR)

Goliath of Gath and Samson were believed to be a Nephilim, offspring of a fallen angel (not a Seraphim).



Most Respectfully,
R

Wouldn't that also make Jesus a Nephilim?

(COMMENT)

Not by the Biblical Definition. Nephilim are the off-spring of the "Sons of God;" taken in translation to be fallen angels.

Jesus is the off-spring of the God of Abraham, not Arch Angels, and not Seraphim.

"And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.

There are many interpretations; this being representative. It follows a similar theme to the Sons of Zeus ("Zeus being the Father of Gods and men"), who was himself the off-spring of Cronus and Rhea (the parent of the Olympians). The famous Son of Zeus, was of course, Hercules.

I diverge here a bit, but to answer your question, Jesus is not a Nephilim. Jesus is a divine entity of the Supreme Being.

Most Respectfully,
R

No one knows who the fathers of the Nephilim were supposed to be except that they were not angels or fallen angels, as the latter would make them demons.

Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are effectively two views[13] regarding the identity of the nephilim, which follow on from alternative views about the identity of the sons of God:
Offspring of Seth: The Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) fragment 4Q417 (4QInstruction) contains the earliest known reference to the phrase "children of Seth", stating that God has condemned them for their rebellion. Other early references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain, are found in rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.
Offspring of angels: A number of early sources refer to the "sons of heaven" as "Angels". The earliest such references[14] seem to be in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek, and Aramaic Enochic literature, and in certain Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch (mss A–Q) and Jubilees[15] used by western scholars in modern editions of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.[16] Also some Christian apologists shared this opinion, like Tertullian and especially Lactantius. The earliest statement in a secondary commentary explicitly interpreting this to mean that angelic beings mated with humans, can be traced to the rabbinical Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and it has since become especially commonplace in modern-day Christian commentaries.

Fallen angels[edit]

Main article: Fallen angel

The New American Bible commentary draws a parallel to the Epistle of Jude and the statements set forth in Genesis, suggesting that the Epistle refers implicitly to the paternity of nephilim as heavenly beings who came to earth and had sexual intercourse with women.[17] The footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible suggest that the Biblical author intended the nephilim to be an "anecdote of a superhuman race".[18]

Some Christian commentators have argued against this view,[19] citing Jesus' statement that angels do not marry.[20] Others believe that Jesus was only referring to angels in heaven.[21] However, Genesis does not speak of marriage between the women and "the sons of God".

Evidence cited in favor of the "fallen angels" interpretation includes the fact that the phrase "the sons of God" (Hebrew, בְּנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים; literally "sons of the gods") is used twice outside of Genesis chapter 6, in the Book of Job (1:6 and 2:1) where the phrase explicitly references angels. The Septuagint's translation of Genesis 6:2 renders this phrase as "the angels of God."[improper synthesis?][22]

Second Temple Judaism[edit]

Main articles: Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Watcher (angel)

See also: Second Temple Judaism

The story of the nephilim is further elaborated in the Book of Enoch. The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees obtained in the 19th century and held in the British Museum and Vatican Library, connect the origin of the nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the egrḗgoroi (watchers). Samyaza, an angel of high rank, is described as leading a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to have sexual intercourse with human females:


And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it...

—[23]

In this tradition, the children of the Nephilim are called the Elioud, who are considered a separate race from the Nephilim, but they share the fate as the Nephilim.

According to these texts, the fallen angels who begat the nephilim were cast into Tartarus (Greek Enoch 20:2),[24] a place of 'total darkness'. However, Jubilees also states that God granted ten percent of the disembodied spirits of the nephilim to remain after the flood, as demons, to try to lead the human race astray until the final Judgment.

In addition to Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) also states that ridding the Earth of these nephilim was one of God's purposes for flooding the Earth in Noah's time. These works describe the nephilim as being evil giants.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the nephilim as Shemihaza and the angels in the name list from 1 Enoch.[25] b Yoma 67, PRE22 and 1 QapGen ar ii 1 also identify the nephilim as the angels that fell.

There are also allusions to these descendants in the deuterocanonical books of Judith, Sirach 16:7, Baruch 3:26–28, and Wisdom of Solomon 14:6, and in the non-deuterocanonical 3 Maccabees 2:4.

In the New Testament Epistle of Jude 14–15 cites from 1 Enoch 1:9, which many scholars believe is based on Deuteronomy 33:2.[26][27][28] To most commentators this confirms that the author of Jude regarded the Enochic interpretations of Genesis 6 as correct, however others[29] have questioned this.

The descendants of Seth and Cain[edit]

Orthodox Judaism has taken a stance against the idea that Genesis 6 refers to angels or that angels could intermarry with men. Shimon bar Yochai pronounced a curse on anyone teaching this idea. Rashi and Nachmanides followed this. Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:1–3 may also imply that the "sons of God" were human.[30] Consequently, most Jewish commentaries and translations describe the Nephilim as being from the offspring of "sons of nobles", rather than from "sons of God" or "sons of angels".[31] This is also the rendering suggested in the Targum Onqelos, Symmachus and the Samaritan Targum which read "sons of the rulers", where Targum Neophyti reads "sons of the judges".

 

[edthecynic]

so they do have genitals?
I can't imagine a heaven (if one existed ) being populated by GIjoe and Barbie knockoffs!

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

The group labeled 'sons of God' does not equal the group labeled 'angels'.

You are being presumptive, no surprise there.

Don't tell me they equal the group labeled 'mankind.'

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would guess that that means that angels at least have penises and testes to impregnate human women with.

The group labeled 'sons of God' does not equal the group labeled 'angels'.

You are being presumptive, no surprise there.

Don't tell me they equal the group labeled 'mankind.'

OK, you are using a common misconception popular in our culture.

An angel is simply a messenger from Heaven. Who knows what they look like? In the book of Genesis they were similar enough to human beings in appearance that they were confused several times for being strangers or travelers.

They don't necessarily have wings, that is an Etruscan concept handed down to the Romans who then gave it to Christianity.

Not everything that is in Heaven or that comes down from it is either human or angel.

The book of Revelations describes a great assortment of 'people' worshipping God that do not even look human.

Revelations Chapter 4:
6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.