Converting to Judaism in ancient times

[Malthus]

IIRC this is pretty hotly debated as the plural in ancient Hebrew is sometimes confusing.

Not being fluent in Hebrew myself, I have no independent input into this: Hebrew-speakers have told me that it is plural, and not in the sense of a "royal we".

However, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

[Caliga]

However, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

Yes, correct, but see my earlier post.  Nephilim = half human, half angel.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hell, in Genesis "God" expressly refers to himself in the plural, and has "sons" who mate with human women to produce heros - very familiar to the Greek notions (and those of many other peoples). Nowhere is there any hint that other gods don't exist, merely that "thou shalt have no other before me". It is pretty clear that Jewish-style monotheism, in which there is only one god and it lacks much in the way of human attributes, was a relatively late development.

I think the typical Christian take on this passage is that the "sons of God" being referred to are angels.

That doesn't really resolve the issue though; it just adds another referent. 

Ie what is the difference between a "god" who is the offspring of God, and an immortal divine being created by and in service to God (an angel)?

[Caliga]

That doesn't really resolve the issue though; it just adds another referent. 

Ie what is the difference between a "god" who is the offspring of God, and an immortal divine being created by and in service to God (an angel)?

Well, I mean you might as well take it to an extreme and conclude that all men are sons of God... if the dude created all of existence than this must be figuratively true.

[Malthus]

However, there is I think no dispute about the 'sons of god mating with pretty women to make heros' business in Genesis 6.

Yes, correct, but see my earlier post.  Nephilim = half human, half angel.

The "Nephilim" are something else again - the same passage mentions both "sons of god", the offspring of those (mighty men or heros) and "nephilim" - three different categories of mythological beings.

Other parts of genesis mention what could be called "angels" specifically as such (i.e., the "cherubim" who guard Eden after the expulsion), so it is odd to use a circumlocution for "angel".

Makes more sense to imagine Christ had some really horny older bros. 

[Caliga]

Some individuals and groups, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, St. Augustine, John Calvin, and the Latter-day Saints, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, i.e., those who were descended from Cain. Not only is this unequivocally stated in Ethiopian Orthodox versions of I Enoch and Jubilees, but this is also the view presented in a few extra-Biblical, yet ancient works, particularly the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. In these sources, these offspring of Seth were said to have disobeyed God, by breeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children "who were all unlike", thus angering God into bringing about the Deluge.

[Queequeg]

Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh". 

[Caliga]

Wright, in the fantastically interesting Evolution of God, points out that several poems and stories in the Old Testament appear to be directly taken from Phonecian religion, with "Baal" replaced by "Yahweh".

Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat. 

[HVC]

Makes more sense to imagine Christ had some really horny older bros. 

more proof jesus is gay. His brothers come down and lay multiple hot chicks, Jesus comes down and touches no woemn and has a penchant for hanging around burly fishermen. Then he goes and dies in an extreem case of S&M gone bad. God must be so ashamed

[Malthus]

Some individuals and groups, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, St. Augustine, John Calvin, and the Latter-day Saints, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, i.e., those who were descended from Cain. Not only is this unequivocally stated in Ethiopian Orthodox versions of I Enoch and Jubilees, but this is also the view presented in a few extra-Biblical, yet ancient works, particularly the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. In these sources, these offspring of Seth were said to have disobeyed God, by breeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children "who were all unlike", thus angering God into bringing about the Deluge.

But this interpretation makes no sense of the text. There is no indication that the "mighty men, men of renown" were wicked, or indeed that they formed the whole population (rather the contrary, I would think). Genesis 6(2) states that God found humanity as a whole at the time wicked, with the singular exception of Noah; there is absolutely nothing in the Biblical text to indicate that God was pissed at the offspring of the sons of god. Mankind as a whole was expressly described as god's target.

5(C) The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every(D) intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And(E) the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it(F) grieved him to his heart. 7So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8But Noah(G) found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

The explaination you quoted is a gloss that contradicts the text.

[Caliga]

@ Mal
I only added the wiki quote because it was germane to the discussion and I thought it was vaguely interesting. 

[Caliga]

OMG I just remembered something....

The mitre (the hat-thingy I couldn't remember the name of) comes from the cult of a fish god indeed.  The god's name? DAGON.





"IA!  IA!  Paternoster fthgn!"

[Eddie Teach]

Kinda like what I said to Spellus, what authority do you have to decide that?  Mormons of course believe themselves to be Christian, and since it's ALL nonsense to me, I'm not bothered by what they claim vs. the significant differences between them and the other self-proclaimed Christian religions.

The Book of Mormon. 'Real' Christians haven't been adding scripture for millennia.

Plus it annoys Mormons to say so.

[Caliga]

The Book of Mormon. 'Real' Christians haven't been adding scripture for millennia.

So?  The Ethiopian church has added books to the Bible but I don't see anyone saying they "aren't real Christians".

[Queequeg]

Interesting, but not surprising.  The fish-hat thingy Benedict wears descends from some Sumerian priest hat. 

Fish hat?

It is very, very common for big hats to symbolize religious importance.  Compare these four hats:





The second is the national dress of Khazak women, the third an ancient description of eastern Scytho-Sarmatians, the last is an image of an early modern Armenian priest.  They all seem to come from an early Indo-European, possibly Proto-Indo-European or early Indo-Aryan religious hat that is reflected in the ceremonial attire of societies as far away as Korea, and currently still reflected in the Pope's hat, the King of Thailand's crown, etc....   Interestingly, it might have originally been a hat for women, or perhaps became one in later Indo-Aryan society and is reflected in later (and, interestingly, Turkic) costume.