Angels

There are estimated to be around 1 million descendants of King Edward I around today. Edward was a member of the Plantagenet dynasty, who were descended from the Counts of Anjou. According to legend, the Angevin house was descended from a strange woman that an early count married. On forced to remain in church for the elevation of the host, she took her younger children in her arms and ascended through a window into the sky. She was supposed to have been the lamia, or demoness, Melusine, daughter of Satan. It was later used as an excuse for bad temper and behaviour, not least by Richard the Lionheart.

If you believe in this, then there are a million descendants of Satan walking around. A bit like believing everywhere is teeming with unseen angels.

I did some research and, allegedly, I am a descendant of the Grail Kings, and ultimately from Morgause, the sister of King Arthur. There is a lot of bizarre stuff about.

Martin said:

If you believe in this, then there are a million descendants of Satan walking around. A bit like believing everywhere is teeming with unseen angels.

People can be open to believing anything, even semi-angelic agents of darkness.

I think a lot of the beliefs people have can come from images in art and popular culture. If you ask a group of Christians what sort of fruit Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden, many will say “Apple”, yet the Hebrew text and English translations don’t specify the type. Traditionally art has depicted an apple tree in the Garden of Eden. 

Martin said:

If you believe in this, then there are a million descendants of Satan walking around. A bit like believing everywhere is teeming with unseen angels.

People can be open to believing anything, even semi-angelic agents of darkness.

I think a lot of the beliefs people have can come from images in art and popular culture. If you ask a group of Christians what sort of fruit Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden, many will say “Apple”, yet the Hebrew text and English translations don’t specify the type. Traditionally art has depicted an apple tree in the Garden of Eden. 

Iain said:

brothers and sisters to make babies

The answer will be that it wasn't a sin until later, when it became avoidable. They got a sort of get-out-of-jail-free-for-incest card for the first few generations.

I'm just making this up, but will I be wrong? ...

DaughteroftheKing said:

I believe we came from 2 people. It does add up. Their genetics were not suffering mutations like ours, they were pure.

It is not the genetics I was making this point about, but rather the fact that it would have required brothers and sisters to make babies together for the whole procreation thing to work.

Iain said:

Look at the creation story - are we to believe that we are descended from 2 people in the garden of Eden? How did their offspring have offspring without in-breeding. How did the other races come about? The facts don't add up.

I believe we came from 2 people. It does add up. Their genetics were not suffering mutations like ours, they were pure. But I'm not smart enough to put it in words. If you are brave enough, here's all the scientific info you could ever want - especially listen to foundations restored and they have a youtube channel, with the talks about genetics - check out Pam Acker

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation – A Catholic apostolate dedicated to proclaiming the truth about the origins of man & the universe

Iain said:

Isn't the entire old testament all myths and stories though?

No! If you had read my earlier reply to you, you would see that the entire Old Testament is not all myths and stories. (See Assyrian Campaign at Lachish 701BCE). It is primarily a work of theological concern, rather than historical facts.

However, it is a myth that Eve was Adam’s third wife in the Old Testament.

The New Testament doesn't say much about Jesus' growing up years, other than he would go out and speak to his elders to teach them some spiritual truths about a new spiritual law. He went out once and his parents went out looking for him as he was keen on his special mission in life as the Son of God. These pictures may help based on the Bible story and real life event.

ArchaeC said:

“Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism” by Howard Schwartz contains exactly what the title suggests, a collection of myths

Isn't the entire old testament all myths and stories though? Almost everything I have looked at is a story from a translation from an earlier text that was a compilation of older works from an oral tradition etc.

This trickle down effect of old stories means it is incredibly hard to give any credence to the truth in them.

Establishing the facts around the old testament is like nailing jelly to the wall.

Look at the creation story - are we to believe that we are descended from 2 people in the garden of Eden? How did their offspring have offspring without in-breeding. How did the other races come about? The facts don't add up.

But I guess it isn't supposed to be factual but a story - a way to make you think there are fantastic creatures struggling for our souls and only the church can save you, so get some money in the collection plate quick matey and indoctrinate your kids into the church or they will suffer eternally if you don't.

I guess I like to see all the holes in the absurdity of it all - a part time special interest.

TheCatWoman said:

More interesting to me, are Jesus's missing years. Did he just grow up an normal person, following his father Joseph and learning carpentry, seemingly unaware of his spiritual calling until he was 30, when he bursts into the world? Did he travel with his uncle Joseph of Aramathea to Britain and India on trading journeys? Maybe a mix of both?

Yes, the account of his missing years didn’t seem to be important to the writers of the Gospels. There is just that one short account of him when he was 12 years old in Luke, when his parents couldn’t find him because he was “sitting among the teachers and listening to them and asking questions. Lk2:41-52. I wonder was this account important enough to be inserted because it shows he is fully human, in that he needs to learn from others.

The birth narrative is in only two of the four gospels, some biblical theologians think it was a later addition in order to make the account of Jesus’s life complete. The Gospel of Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel, 70CE, and it doesn’t have anything of Jesus until he is an adult. 

Who knows indeed what Jesus did during those missing years. Archaeologists and historians  believe he might have known a significant town called Sepphoris which is near Nazareth. Building would have been going on constantly there during his life, so Joseph’s carpentry/building skills are likely to have been put to good use there, and perhaps Jesus followed him for a while. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepphoris

Iain said:

Since the bible was created from such poor quality source material and has been heavily edited through the millenia I find it has little value other than as a tool of an organised religion to promote themselves and (until recent decades) to keep the people in line.

That is rather unfair as there is nothing wrong with its source material from a theological perspective. The sources for the Bible are believed to have been to have been transmitted orally until they were put into writing, some of which eventually made their way into the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), and some were redacted into the Christian Old Testament of the Bible. 

There are historical documents that provide date evidence of the assembly of the Christian Bible into its present form. Biblical theologians, historians and philologists have used different models of textural criticism to date and translate the texts, they have also distinguished several different sources for the texts, although we don’t know what those sources were. 

You may be right about some elements of organised religion using it as a tool to promote themselves and to keep them in line, but that is not universal.

Iain said:

There is no evidence for almost anything in the bible

Some books of the Bible are known as historical books, one of which is The Book of Kings. There is a section of interest to archaeologists, historians & anthropologists of all faiths and none, because it has an account of the Assyrian campaign against Judah in 701BCE. A similar account of the campaign is in contemporary Assyrian historical documents. Moreover, archaeological evidence supports the Assyrian account of Sennacherib’s campaign of destruction at Lachish and the surrounding area.  When there are two separate credible sources of an account of mass destruction in 701BCE, the third source of a Biblical account adds some interesting information of how things were from a Judean perspective. We have evidence of historical events, which is more than we can say for myths about Genesis, Eve, Lilith and the flood account. 

I am not claiming Assyrian historical sources and archaeology prove the Bible is historically accurate,  because they certainly do not. I am saying that the Bible is of interest to academics and others who do not have faith. The Bible has worth in addition to its value for Christians, and it can’t be written off completely. 

Are you not getting your old and new testaments mixed up a bit Iain? The OT is the Hebrew holy book or bible that was was taken over by Christians, the NT is from the birth of Jesus until his death and ressurection.

There is little evidence to support Jesus, although like many I do think he existed, but what he was, messenger from God, rabble rouser, terrorist or just a pain the Roman behind is something we probably will never know. The nativity story is taken from the birth of Mithras, a near contemporary of Jesus, Mithraism was very popular, especially amoung the Roman legions, there's evidence of Mithraums at several Military sites in Britain and Europe.

It fascinates me what made it into the Bible and what didn't, why were certain books left out? The gospel of Thomas is pretty obvious, as it says Jesus was married and talks of his brothers and sisters. jesus having brothers and sisters has always been a bit of a problem for the church, although St James is widely acknowleged, he was at odds with St Paul over the direction of Christianity after the death of Jesus, with James saying it should be only open to Jews and Paul, who after all never met Jesus deciding it should be open to gentiles too. Jesus having siblings was also a bit of a spanner in the works of the church who were promoting Mary as a virgin and it's pretty much irradicated any attempts to portray her as having other children.

More interesting to me, are Jesus's missing years. Did he just grow up an normal person, following his father Joseph and learning carpentry, seemingly unaware of his spiritual calling until he was 30, when he bursts into the world? Did he travel with his uncle Joseph of Aramathea to Britain and India on trading journeys? Maybe a mix of both?

ArchaeC said:

There is plenty of strong evidence suggesting that elements of the Old Testament and Hebrew Bible have come from  myths handed down, historical events, narratives of supernatural events, oral tradition etc,

We agree on this. The majority of the old testament is a hodgepodge of made up stories, often mangled through translation and cherry picked to suite the ends of the writer.

ArchaeC said:

Myths about Lilith may have been around before the Old Testament came into being, but there is no evidence that suggests they have.

There is no evidence for almost anything in the bible. Many stories were written decades after the events happened, there is no proof of the life story of Jesus as written in the bible (there is consensus that he existed as a person (his babtism and crucifiction are the only events with proof) but that is about it).

Since the bible was created from such poor quality source material and has been heavily edited through the millenia I find it has little value other than as a tool of an organised religion to promote themselves and (until recent decades) to keep the people in line.

I have no issue with faith or belief but organised religion is mostly not worth the time of day in my personal opinion.

I do not see evidence from what you have provided that:

Iain said:

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions before it was edited

Iain said:

The sources go back to the Hebrew Genesis Rabbah that pre-date the bible and are the source for the Old Testament

The Genesis Rabbah of c.400CE - 450CE is not the source of the Christian Old Testament because the Christian Bible was affirmed in it present form at the Council of Rome in 383CE, which was before the Genesis Rabbah was written. There are no earlier forms of the Old Testsment than that. The Christian Old Testament is a slightly edited version of the Hebrew Bible which is known as the Tanakh.

The Genesis Rabbah is a composite document which contains some writings from and about Genesis, as well as some earlier source material on the Jewish Torah. Its purpose was as a companion work to the Torah for Jewish theological study, so it is a commentary on Genesis rather than a holy book with the same status as the Torah. 

“Lilith” is a Hebrew transliteration of a proper name that may be a Mesopotamian night demon, but it is mentioned only once (with no theological meaning) in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. 

Your Wikipedia link states that the original Hebrew word from which Lilith is taken is in the Book of Isaiah, although Lilith herself is not mentioned in any Biblical text.

Your link states that the Jewish sources for Lilith, including the Babylonian Talmud, date from 500CE onwards, and folklore dates after c.700CE, and the oldest form of the “Lilith as Adam’s first wife dates between 8-10th century CE.

Iain said:

Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls provides a nice synopsis and references primary sources

“Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism” by Howard Schwartz contains exactly what the title suggests, a collection of myths. It is a good collection of Jewish myths but they are literary representations from sources dated after the canonisation of the Christian Old Testament.

Wikipedia has a more accurate overview of Lilith in Mesopotamian mythology:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

The Spirit in the Tree in the Gilgamesh Cycle

Iain said:

these have been cherry picked to create the old testament to suit the intentions of the Christian church.

Yeahhh that’s one of many reasons why my faith crumbled. The Bible isn’t particularly the most reliable book ever written.

ArchaeC said:

I don’t believe this is correct. What is the source and dating?

The sources go back to the Hebrew Genesis Rabbah that pre-date the bible and are the source for the Old Testament. They make for fascinating reading, especially when you see how these have been cherry picked to create the old testament to suit the intentions of the Christian church.

Howard Schwartz's Tree of Souls provides a nice synopsis and references primary sources.

copying and pasting the relevant parts on the second wife:

    177. THE FIRST EVE

    God wanted to create a helpmate for Adam. So God created the first Eve right in front of him. As Adam watched, the first Eve was created from the inside out—first her bones, then her flesh, and finally she was covered with skin. But when God offered her to Adam, he fled in disgust and hid in the Garden.

    So the first Eve was taken away, never to be heard from again. Nothing is known of her fate. Then God put Adam to sleep, and when he awoke there was another woman, and this time he found her to be beautiful.

So the Eve we know is really version 2.0 of the original design and Adam couldn't see past her "construction" stage.

Lilith came before this - also sourced from the original Jewish texts and is explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

What we see in the bible is a sanitised version of the original story. Adam was a bit of a unit for rejecting the first Eve.

Iain said:

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions

I don’t believe this is correct. What is the source and dating?

profdanger said:

You’re thinking of Lilith!

Ah, Adams first wife, a demon from hell. God had a twisted sense of humour.

There is even less mention of his second wife - she was literally dusted out of existence.

Eve was his third according to the old testament - well the older versions before it was edited to stop all those awkward questions from the flock.

There is so much of the original bible missing that it really questions the value of what is left - it is more a corporate handbook for the church these days.

You’re thinking of Lilith!

I’m not familiar with Melusine, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she was a river goddess as many of the ancient sources link water with goddesses and sea nymphs. The Egyptian goddess Isis, under her adopted name Satis, had control of the River Nile’s water flow, and of women’s fertility. The Mesopotamian goddess Nammu was linked with the creation myth. Closer to home, Irish Celtic spirituality is centred around the life giving waters of rivers and holy wells. 

I haven’t heard any legends about a previous wife of Adam. 

Yes, most Christian’s would believe that God is omnipotent and created everything, but God created the angels as spirits with free will. Satan was originally a good angel, but pride and ambition got the better of him so he became a “fallen angel”, believing he could become greater than God. God continued to allow Satan free will, just as humans enjoy free will. This “free will” argument has been the sticking point for Christians and non Christians for hundreds of years, and there hasn’t been a satisfactory conclusion.

Defining “free will” is a complex philosophical task, and arguments over cause and effect with regards to God’s omnipotence are not satisfactory in human terms either. Christians might answer your question by saying “God’s ways are not our ways, so we don’t understand God’s plan for our future/God is fully revealed in the decision for the second person of The Trinity, Jesus Christ, to become fully human and fully divine, yet Jesus didn’t know everything when he was alive on earth. Many theologians would simply say, “it is a mystery”.

I've looked into legends of Melusine, she seems to have been a river or lake Goddess/Spirit. I got into reading a bit more about her after reading Phillipa Gregory's The White Queen, Elizabeth Woodville's mother Jaquetta was suposedly another decendent of Melusine.

If God's omnipotent, then how come he didn't see Lucifer's rebellion and if he did then why let it happen, the same with Adam and Eve?

I've heard other legends, very sketchy ones about Adams first wife, before Eve, any thougts on this anyone?

I didn’t notice anything missing. I am understanding Martin’s post to be about a legend of the daughters of Satan. Some Christians believe Satan is a fallen angel, so Satan’s daughters could be semi-angelic. 

I feel like I've missed a bit here? Did someone post something that was later removed?