.
Last edited:
Enoch
- Thread starter LearningToLetGo
- Start date
I was not happy being laughed at. Thank you for your understanding. Apology accepted.
Last edited:
My dear friend.... I removed the comment..... as it was not my intention to be perceived as laughing at you.
Thank you for forgiving me. Love DA silly sheep
LearningToLetGo are you planning to continue your reading of pseudepigraphal texts after Enoch?
I don't think so my dear friend.I do appreciate your contributions to this thread. This has been quite educational. I hope you continue to discuss such unconventional topics since there are twenty-two additional books still yet to discuss.
You have shown that you are determined to extoll some kind of fascination over a production that is clearly Occultic and Satanic. Personally, I do not think that is the correct thing that we as Christians need to be doing on a Christian forum web site.
Then, It is clear that the more you uphold this book the more I denounce it and around and around we go.
Ephesians 4:29 says.........
"Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up the one in need and bringing grace to those who listen."
That being said I am going to just allow you to post your observations without any input from me.
Will I post regarding them? Possibly. I'm not sure yet. Will I read them for my own knowledge? Absolutely! I did buy the book after all.
Last edited:
I'm almost done reading the book, only a handful of chapters left, and came across this bit.
92.1 And now, my son Methuselah, call to me all thy brothers and gather together to me all the sons of thy mother; for the word calls me, and the spirit is poured out upon me.
The language here immediately caught my attention. We have "word", which I assume would be similar to logos, and "spirit" both in the same sentence. That's two of the trinity in a Jewish text from at least a hundred years before Jesus. I find that fascinating.
92.1 And now, my son Methuselah, call to me all thy brothers and gather together to me all the sons of thy mother; for the word calls me, and the spirit is poured out upon me.
The language here immediately caught my attention. We have "word", which I assume would be similar to logos, and "spirit" both in the same sentence. That's two of the trinity in a Jewish text from at least a hundred years before Jesus. I find that fascinating.
I finished reading the book. En. 105:2 was another odd verse.
"For I and My son will be united with them for ever in the paths of uprightness in their lives; and they shall have peace: rejoice, ye children of uprightness. Amen."
The above words are purportedly from God himself, so the obvious connection to Jesus is a bit shocking.
All in all I have to say Enoch was interesting. Some parts are bizarre, others terrifying. The entire book hinges on 71:14. Whether that verse sets up Enoch as the Anointed One or not, well, that's the real question. I can see why Jews and Christians alike distanced themselves from this since it's just so very volatile. Fortunately the church in Ethiopia kept the book otherwise it would be lost to time.
Final verdict? I won't call it inspired, but there are parts that really do shed light on otherwise cryptic Bible verses. If you enjoy this kind of thing then do check it out. If not, then stay away and don't worry about it. You won't be any the worse.
"For I and My son will be united with them for ever in the paths of uprightness in their lives; and they shall have peace: rejoice, ye children of uprightness. Amen."
The above words are purportedly from God himself, so the obvious connection to Jesus is a bit shocking.
All in all I have to say Enoch was interesting. Some parts are bizarre, others terrifying. The entire book hinges on 71:14. Whether that verse sets up Enoch as the Anointed One or not, well, that's the real question. I can see why Jews and Christians alike distanced themselves from this since it's just so very volatile. Fortunately the church in Ethiopia kept the book otherwise it would be lost to time.
Final verdict? I won't call it inspired, but there are parts that really do shed light on otherwise cryptic Bible verses. If you enjoy this kind of thing then do check it out. If not, then stay away and don't worry about it. You won't be any the worse.
Last edited:
many though do hold to fallen angels copulating with human women
Agreed! There are evangelical scholars who hold that view, and it is considered one viable option. It is the earliest known interpretation of the Genesis text in both Jewish and Christian sources. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me which interpretation one chooses.
Which speaks to the inability of those to read the Bible and grasp what it actually says in Matthew 22:30........
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Since humans are created in the image of God, and angels are not, and since only humans can be the recipients of God’s redeeming love, as demonstrated through Christ Jesus in John 3:16, then resurrected humans will neither marry nor be given in marriage in heaven, just as angels do not marry. Angels are "Spiritual Beings" and do not have the physical ability to have sexual relations hence they are AXEXUAL.
Humans are different from angels in all respects, except that just like angels, they will not enter into the state od sexual relationships in heaven as we will all have glorified bodies. This is the point of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:30.
That means that angels, whether they be fallen or not can not have sexual relations with humans!
They could though if they were actually possessing the human bodies, using them for that very purpose
Think that view would be the most held viewpoint, and to me just seems to fit better the revelation that those beings who were involved in those sins were being hld chained and captive until their judgement day now, and that their crime was :lusting after strange flesh", which would not seem to be strictly human
This interpretation is based on the belief that angels have the ability to manifest in different forms or appearances.
Some have said that angels have the capability to assume human form and we have certainly seen that in the Scriptures. However, what we have not seen is the sexual "Physical" act of a spiritual being producing a physical offspring!
That would be diametrically in opposition to the Word of God in Genesis 1:24.........
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind'; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. "
That means cows produce cows. Birds produce birds. Dogs produce dogs. Fish produce fish.
Angels who are spiritual beings can not produce humans who are spiritual. It is impossible!
If a man is demonically influenced/possessed by a demon has sex with a human female, it is still a human male and not a demon.
That would not be spiritual beings having sex with humans though. It would still be humans with humans even if there was some kind of spiritual influence. The bottom line then is that there is no biblical support for such a manifestation of fallen angels in human form having sexual relations with human females.
I would think that it would make a difference to you.
The idea of demon sex is certainly as old as Genesis but that does not make it correct...just old.
The “Book of the Watchers” suggests that fallen angels are the source of human civilization. The “Book of the Watchers” had a long life within Jewish and early Christian communities until the middle ages. Its descriptions of fallen angels were widely influential but IMHO wrong according to the Scriptures that say angels can not have sexual relations with humans in the New Test.
It doesn't.
Good morning, Major;
I can't add what you've already shared. Well said.
I do remember as a child angels were our guardians. Later we're taught they're God's appointed role of messengers and worshipers.
The thought of angels having sex with human women is a suggested "mystical tradition" originated long ago by a human author. I wonder what lust thoughts were going through his / their heads?
God bless everyone.
Bob
Only Rod Sirlin and Stephen King would know!
To this day, it has always amazed me that people can read exactly what God says in the Bible on a certain topic, and then say .......
"Ya but I think".
That right there is the problem of almost all false teachings........."Ya but I think"!
God says that resurrected humans in heaven will be just like angles, ASEXUAL. No Sex. No marriages!
But those people who are adamite on the Sons of God being the Nephilim or Giants or half-bred human and demons say......
"Ya but I think!"
It is not and never has been what we think!!! It is always what God has said. We either take it or we leave it but we can not make up what we THINK it doctrine!
Very good biblical summary here though
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? | GotQuestions.org
Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4? Did the fallen angels mate with human female to produce the Nephilim?
www.gotquestions.org
Interesting speculation who the two witnesses are in Revelation to be Enoch and Elijah.
Wonder if indeed this turns out to be true they will go by those names as they speak out?
Wonder if indeed this turns out to be true they will go by those names as they speak out?