I just blogged about this over at Naked Bible, and figured Facade fans would find it interesting. I just came across an online journal article that provides an overview of pre-Reformation and Reformation opinion on Genesis 6:1-4. It’s by a historical theology professor and it’s entitled, “Demon Semen: Traditional and Metaphysical Assumptions in Early Lutheran and Reformed Treatments of Genesis 6:1-4.”
- Biblical Studies
- Fringe History
- Join Community
I just read the first paragraph. This is one of the reasons the Jewish and Roman Orthodox Catholic and Christian Church has lost respect from so many of us scholarly writers. They continue to ignore the reality of aliens as the real messengers between their human hybrids and the gods. It sickens me to read this because it is more lies piled on top of a stack of lies.
From your link, can you explain this:
A preternatural reading of the “sons of God” episode would have presented Lutheran and Reformed commentators with some disturbing implications. Unlike many modern scholars, to admit the “sons of God” were angelic or semi-divine would entail the acceptance of an historical event that was prima facie repugnant to reason, and downright spooky.
I think that’s the point of the post. They didn’t have the worldview of the biblical writers. That’s one reason why my book will be controversial – I’m saying that (which of course begs the question for Christians – lay people all the way to scholars — how much of what the biblical writers believed are you comfortable rejecting? THAT is why they didn’t want to think about it – rationalism – an overly materialistic view of reality. (But to be fair, Calvin and Luther and others were closer to the biblical worldview than many Christians today). THAT will really irk readers.
In reading that article, you can see the modern view of materialism taking shape. The rejection of the spiritual began in the first 3 centuries A.D. Was it a knee-jerk reaction to the Pharisees/Kabbalists, and the Gnostics? Did that result in the absolute rejection of anything spiritual? Why does the “spiritual” have to be an opposite of “material”… I do not believe that it is, nor does it seem that way when reading ancient texts. It seems that the material world is more of an “expression” of what exists in the spiritual world. It is does not have to be opposite sides of a coin.