Rachel weeps for her children,
SisJ answered this one for me when I wondered aloud about it. Great question and one I didn't know, either. SisJ thinks it's because Rachel was the mother of Jacob, who was later renamed Israel. If Rachel is the mother of the nation of Israel, then it would use her name to be symbolic of all the Israeli mothers weeping. Makes sense to me, anyway...
OK, warning. I love to debate for the fun of the thinking, so if you don't want to get into all this kind of things, you may skip the rest of my post.
AnneRene' wrote:Also, (not because of any bona fide knowledge), I always thought the Son's of God (back then anyway) were Angels but always wondered why God allowed them to mingle with us humans.
That's a common theory. You definitely aren't alone in thinking that (or having thought that in the past). The problem I have with it is that it contradicts much of the rest of the Bible, and one has to make an exceptions in order to make it work.
As well as what I already mentioned, that the term "sons of God" is most often used in the Bible to meant humans who honor God, other passages in the Bible tell us that angels don't have gender or breed in any way. There are discriptions of times when angels or demons took on human form, and some believe that allowed them to "mingle" with humans, but that raises another issue. Humans are made in God's image and the plan of salvation and reconnection with God is only through belief in Jesus or (if they lived before that) looking forward to the Messiah. Angels, on the other hand, had a choice to follow God or follow Satan. They made that choice once and it holds forever. Also, humans right now are said to be "a little below angels".
So my question is how something can be half of one and half of the other. Can something be half in God's image? Half above humans and half equal with them? What way were they offered salvation, then? Did they have no chance to be saved, because their "angel fathers" had already made the choice to go against God, or were they able to have salvation by believing in God because their mothers still had that choice?
I just don't see how God could allow half angels and half humans. It seems to go against the basic laws of nature that He set up, not to mention against the plan of salvation. And since there is a simple explaination that makes sense in the context, it makes sense to me that the "sons of God" were men who happened to be very large and strong and were desiring to honor God, and "daughters of men" were women who were rebelling against God.
But, this is an issue that isn't one of the essentials. Someone can believe they were angels and still be a Christian, so it's something that I find fun to debate but that I wouldn't want to divide a relationship or church, if that makes sense.
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:04 pm
Honestly, in this body I would hate that. But obviously most of them must have been healthy. It seems like the whole body aged slower, don't you think? I tend to think of them as growing to adulthood by 20 and then just staying healthy for forever, but I'll bet they matured slowly and stayed "children" longer, too. Sounds like a lot of them didn't even start having kids until their 60s.
LIKE MEGA LAUGH OUT LOUD....you see....for awhile now, I've had this image of you....waaaaaaay back in the back of my mind when you say certain things that I see as funny and dag nabit, if tonight, you didn't nail it, SO NOW I HAVE TO officially give you this nickname. You are the 'female' counter-part to Garfield Kitty. Seriously, when you said 'oh bother' about your Mom being stoic and all....I lost it. Come on guys....anyone else see it?
