Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallels

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I understand that. But those are all presuppositions. The story is much older than any pagan myth. And, it appears to even explain that whatever transpired is the origin of most of those pagan demigod myths. Much of it grounded in the heavy rationalism that influenced theology in both Christianity and Judaism. Why would such a belief be any more based on a pagan-like mythological notion than the stories of the sun standing still, Jacob physically wrestling with an angel, or accounts were an angel is described as slaying thousands? The truth is that the Bible is full of the supernatural. Why would such an idea be any different?

Because when the bible says the sun stood still, it stood still. (Thus destroying heliocentricity and a rotating earth, by the way, lol.) When the bible describes a "supernatural" event, it does so, by describing it as a supernatural event. Genesis 6 does not describe a "supernatural" event as far as the sons of God taking the daughters of men. In fact, the Bible elsewhere seems to completely rule out even the possibility that angels could mate with humans.

Understanding the sons of God in a non-angelic or non-supernatural sense is not a result of "heavy rationalist presuppositions" at all. But rather it is a resuly of letting the bible interpret and explain itself, and a result of not reading pagan superstitious beliefs into the Bible.

Hang on a minute...














































Okay, now I'm ready.

lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because when the bible says the sun stood still, it stood still. (Thus destroying heliocentricity and a rotating earth, by the way, lol.) When the bible describes a "supernatural" event, it does so, by describing it as a supernatural event. Genesis 6 does not describe a "supernatural" event as far as the sons of God taking the daughters of men. In fact, the Bible elsewhere seems to completely rule out even the possibility that angels could mate with humans.

Understanding the sons of God in a non-angelic or non-supernatural sense is not a result of "heavy rationalist presuppositions" at all. But rather it is a resuly of letting the bible interpret and explain itself, and a result of not reading pagan superstitious beliefs into the Bible.

Hang on a minute...














































Okay, now I'm ready.

lol

LOL

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In fact, the Bible elsewhere seems to completely rule out even the possibility that angels could mate with humans.

The only references I read that have been used to rule out that possibility are the following:

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

But based on the actual words found in these texts, all I can conclude relating to this topic is that the "angels of God in heaven" do not marry. And that in the resurrection, nor will the redeemed. However, none of these texts tell us anything at all about what an evil or fallen angel could choose to do, or might be capable of.

If one thinks about it "the angels of God in heaven" don't possess people either. But evil, or fallen angels, obviously do.

I think the more rationalistic tradition has us going well beyond what is actually being said in these texts.

I mean, do you see any statement in these texts regarding what a fallen angel might choose to do or be capable of?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The only references I read that have been used to rule out that possibility are the following:

Matthew 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

But based on the actual words found in these texts, all I can conclude relating to this topic is that the "angels of God in heaven" do not marry. And that in the resurrection, nor will the redeemed. However, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what an evil or fallen angel could choose to do, or might be capable of.

Why would angels have the ability to procreate? And how would they be able to procreate unless it was "kind after kind"? Meaning, what possible mechanism could there be (much less what possible reason could there be) for angels to be able to procreate with humans?

If the children of the resurrection do not marry nor are given in marriage, then this indicates there is no "son and daughter" role, and thus no possible "husband and wife" role. And the reason given is "they shall be as the angels", meaning the angels do not have a son or daughter role, and therefore no husband and wife role. Which in turn suggests they were NOT MADE to have those roles. Since in the resurrection the sum total of humanity will have been achieved, and all (surviving) humanity will be immortal, there will be no purpose for procreation. No purpose, no faculty or ability. Since the angels are immortal, and since our resurrection will make us like them, it follows that they too have no purpose of, and therefore no faculty or ability of, procreation.

If angels could procreate and take wives (MARRIAGE!) it must have been prior to them becoming angelic. Which is absurd, is it not?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why would angels have the ability to procreate? And how would they be able to procreate unless it was "kind after kind"? Meaning, what possible mechanism could there be (much less what possible reason could there be) for angels to be able to procreate with humans?

Angels are spirits. I don't think that angels are able to procreate with humans, have a mechanism to procreate with humans, or even a reason to procreate with humans... in their original spiritual form.

But we could also ask...

Why would an angel be able to sit down and eat with humans, by what mechanism would an angel eat with humans, and for what reason would an angel have to eat with humans? (Genesis 18:2-15)

Why would an angel be able to physically wrestle with humans, by what mechanism would an angel physically wrestle with humans, and what for reason would an angel have to be able to physically wrestle with humans? (Genesis 32:22-31)

It would appear that if an angel assumes a physical form a lot of these presuppositions go out the window. They can eat. They can wrestle. Why? Because the angel appears to be able to do whatever the physical form it assumes can do.

Now, what if there was a time when evil angels felt free to assume the physical form of human males? What might they be capable of? What kind of wickedness could they inflict on the world? Murder, rape, war, abuse, false miracles, signs, and wonders, the teaching of dark arts? The possibilities are a nightmarish thing I don't think any of us would even want to think about. I'm sure that standing in what they might consider a silly human marriage ceremony with the purpose of trying to integrate into man's society and perhaps even sire demonic children would be nothing to them. In fact, from their perspective, it might even equate to mocking the order of the Creator. And not being of our "kind"... what kind of deformities or variations from the norm might their "offspring" have? Might these offspring be shorter, taller, stronger, weaker, sickly, of superior constitution?

We know that similar events like this (whatever they were) took place even after the flood ("and also after that"). Might they have advanced various post-flood civilizations, leaving us amazed at the capabilities of such ancient civilizations as found in various ruins and artifacts? Might they have even wiped out entire advanced civilizations overnight leaving their ruins standing and the fate of those who built those civilizations an archeological mystery?

If so, what might God have done to reign in these "angels that sinned"? What might He have done with them to make them an example demonstrating that He will not allow such to happen to His creation? Might He have bound them in chains of darkness to await the judgment? Might such a confinement have deterred other fallen angels from taking physical form and doing the same? Isn't it conspicuous that from that point on in Scripture, holy angels assume physical form at will... but there isn't even a single possible reference to evil angels choosing to take physical form? Doesn't it seem like evil angels have chosen to avoid it like the plague?

I'm only asking that we entertain possibilities and implications before just ruling it out. We assume that because holy angels don't marry... evil angels must be just as noble. The truth is, the Bible tells us very little about what an evil angel is capable of if allowed to do as it desires.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't think we can put much stock in the book of Enoch.

Good, now tell that to the guys that say the Apostle Jude was reading it and using it to teach the church.

Thanks.

[Sean]

Personally, I believe the Jewish (and pagan myths) concerning "fallen angels" or "gods" coming down and mating with women and producing demigods or "giants" or what have you is a paganised superstitious legendizing of the Genesis 6 account. Meaning the events of Genesis 6 have survived in altered corrupted forms amongst pagans. These pagan ideas were introduced into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity and intertestamental period (and possibly earlier), and have been introduced into popular Christian belief as well. This apparently began in the first century (as my posts here address), and the apostles were trying to warn the brethren about allowing these paganising gnostic theories and myths from infiltrating the church.

Which is why the Apostle, Jude would have NEVER introduced passages from the book of Enoch to the 1st century Church.

That would be akin to Bro. Haney introducing a verse to edify the saints, directly out of the book of Mormon at Landmark conference next week.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sean

Which is why the Apostle, Jude would have NEVER introduced passages from the book of Enoch to the 1st century Church.

That would be akin to Bro. Haney introducing a verse to edify the saints, directly out of the book of Mormon at Landmark conference next week.

That's why I keep returning to the notion that the references to the "angels that sinned" must be referring to something found in the Scriptures; something that the original readers would have understood or recognized. Else, the original readers would be left either looking at the rather spurious Book of Enoch, or wondering what in the world Peter and Jude were talking about.

[jediwill83]

There are days like today where I realize that I dont have a clue...

[houston]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

There are days like today where I realize that I dont have a clue...

I know, right?