Originally posted by Gollwog
AA it doesnt say enoch wrote anything in the bible, he is only mentioned about twice

Well the bible is not all. The bible is but a selected few of the books and scrolls the Jews kept and still keep. According to tradition it was Enoch who was the first human to write a book. He is said to have received the first Alef Bet from God. He is also said to have found the ever infamous "Spark of Heaven" which was originally given to Adam, but which he later lost. This may have been some kind of book or Alef Bet.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by soothsayer
The Book of Enoch was once part of the Old Testamet... it was a mainstay for rabi's. Eventually, however, the Church had the Book removed because of a main fact:

Enoch told of how the angels were of a physical nature, and that they were prone to doing... mortal things; such as taking wives, having children...

Surely you've heard about there having been two Angelic Rebellions? There was the one involving Lucifer (most commonly known rebellion), and the second was when a group of angels called the Nepilum (?) left Heaven and took wives from the daughters of mankind; these angels God degreed to be totally abandoned by the other angelic hosts.

This is why, in some older churches, it is required that the women cover their heads with hats/bonnets, so that the angels do not get tempted again.

Enoch also wrote in his book the workings of Heaven and celestrial bodies (he was taken to Heaven to be God's right-hand man).

The Chruch didn't like the fact that angels were solid and emotionally vulnerable... so the Book was removed.

Enoch, as the person, has been quoted several times in the Bible. Also, accounting to the research notes included in the Book of Enoch, much of what Jesus said was taken from that prophet.

Do your homework.

First: The Book of Enoch has never been part of the Bible or the Tannakh, but part of what is often refered to as the Old Testament Pseudigraphica or something. It wasn't even written or gathered at the time the Tannakh was written down.

Secondly: No angel called Lucifer has ever existed. Lucifer is a Greco-roman demigod.

Thirdly: The Nephilim weren't angels, but giants. They were mixed offspring between members of several different orders of angels (oftenly refered to as the Watchers, which in itself isn't an angelic order, the Watchers were mostly Seraphim it seems) and human women. The Book of Enoch explains how and why the Flood came and how the first world was built up etc.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

From "Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch", which contains the entire Book of Enoch, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Second Book of Adam and Eve, Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch, extensive notes by Richard Laurence.

To quote:

"And then there was the Book of Enoch. Once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians-precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels.

"Its theme so infuriated the later Church Fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it as heresy. Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book's teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century AD pronounced a curse upon those who believe it."


To quote:

"Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"- the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.

"Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.

"At first the Church Fathers devoted much attention to the subject of the fallen angel whom they knew as the biblical Satan. The early Fathers often quoted the Book of Enoch to make their case for good against evil... with the earlier Fathers and Apologists it [the Book of Enoch] had all the weight of a canonical book.



No Lucifer in the Bible? Ha! To quote:

Isaish 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

*I'll have to pause here and re-read my hideous errors and uneducated baffonery, so I can get this post right. Edit it a little bit...*

Okay... Watchers as angels...

"to preserve for a far-distant generation of light-bearers, concerning the true nature of the fallen angels known as the Watchers."

"Samyaza feared to descend alone to the daughters of men, and so he convinced two hundred angels called Watchers to accompany him on his mission of pleasure."

"The angels taught the duaghters of mensorcery, incantations, and divination-twisted versions of the secrets of heaven."

There's more, but to the next uneducated ramblings I earlier posted:

Read the Book of Enoch, Chapters 71-18. Each tells of the workings of the sun, moon, earth, stars, seasons, lunar months, solar years, rotations, orbits, axis, etcetera. To further explain that Enoch was taught about celestrial maechanics, among other things, to quote from the Book of Enoch:

79:1-2

"In those days Uriel answered and said to me, Behold, I have showed thee all things, O Enoch;

"And all things I have revealed to thee. Thou seest the sun, the moon, and those which conduct the stars of heaven, which causes all their operations, seasons, and arrivals to return."

80:1-2

"He said, O Enoch, look on the book which heaven has gradually dropped down; and,reading that which is written in it, understand every part of it.

"Then I looked on all which was written, and understood all, reading the book and everything written in it, all the works of man."

Now, you and I have gone circles in other threads. I've had to "prove" myself time and again, with quotes, sources, all the while you sitting back and accusing others of being uneducated, illiterate, of not researching... when will you, oh mighty Mik, prove thyself?

All I have ever seen you do is accuse others of being wrong when it doesn't fit with what you believe in. You use sentence structures and speak of hidden tomes to make yourself seem "higher", and yet you never name names, or give direct quotes.

Like I said, we've done this before (remember... Lilith, Gates, and the meaning of "the gods"? By the way, familiar with Christian Gnostics? You know, founded by Thomas... seems early Dead Sea Scrolls studied by the ancient Hebrews talked about the Ankor... the gods which existed before our current one... but that doesn't fit here, does it?)

I have never belittled someone when I disagreed with something. I have never accused others of being nothing short of idiots because what they believe goes against what I feel. And yet you do.

I would have thought that when you changed your name, you would have changed your attitude. Guess not.

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by soothsayer]

Originally posted by soothsayer
From "Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch", which contains the entire Book of Enoch, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Second Book of Adam and Eve, Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch, extensive notes by Richard Laurence.

To quote:

"And then there was the Book of Enoch. Once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians-precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels.

And bladibladibla. The Bible is a compilation of books that were earlier separate works collected from a wide variety of schools and ages. The Biblia was basically made by Constantine the Great. The so called churchfathers just danced to his pipe (and later on his grave), those who disagreed with the loyals were dealt with, and since most of these works like the Enochian books which crashed with the whole Pax Romanus Luciferian Babylon agenda, so they stuffed it away, edited out some referances even in the books they included through translating them. Cunning like serpents.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

I 'did my homework'... I quoted, I set reference points, gave examples for my earlier statements, and overall defended everything typed, and the great and all incompasing Mik can only say 'bladibladida'?

You know, I think that even proved my point of you trying to seem 'higher' than others.

You could use an education bud, your logic is close to the Raelians....

Originally posted by Hamilton

Originally posted by soothsayer
From "Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch", which contains the entire Book of Enoch, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Second Book of Adam and Eve, Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch, extensive notes by Richard Laurence.

To quote:

"And then there was the Book of Enoch. Once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians-precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels.

And bladibladibla. The Bible is a compilation of books that were earlier separate works collected from a wide variety of schools and ages. The Biblia was basically made by Constantine the Great. The so called churchfathers just danced to his pipe (and later on his grave), those who disagreed with the loyals were dealt with, and since most of these works like the Enochian books which crashed with the whole Pax Romanus Luciferian Babylon agenda, so they stuffed it away, edited out some referances even in the books they included through translating them. Cunning like serpents.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Not to sound... idiotic (freaking tired right now)... but who are you referring to? You quoted both Mik/hamilton and myself. Just tired and confused right now.

lol oops.. sry soothsayer, I think your response was right on the mark.

I know this is far off topic, and this is all I am gonna say about this, but anyway, here it is.

Here's a short list of important happenings in the fourth century. Before you argue that Constantine did infact create the Bible and Catholic "Christianity", you should know it was him who ordered the first copy to be written, and it was the Mithraist Sol Invictvs worshipping Constantine whose arse every Catholic priest wanted to kiss. Everything Catholic prior to the Council in Laodikea where the Canon was nailed for good, was attempts at getting Constantine to endorse Christianity, which they eventually did, when they reshaped paganism and made it look like Christianity.

312: Cæsar Constantine, who is a sworn Mithraist and practicing Sol Invictvs worshipper till his death, receives his famous Vision of the Cross.

313: Constantine stops persecuting the Christians. Religious freedom is established all through the Empire.

321: Constantine demands that everyone living in the Roman Empire keeps Sunday holy to honor his god Sol Invictvs. The Roman Emperor is Pontifex Maximvs, i.e. heathen high priest with his roots stemming back to Babylon and Nimrod and is the highest title among the Ba'al priesthood there. His tail "the Great", is directly linked with this title. As is Alexander the Great and all the other emperors who have called themselves great since Ramses II the Great right up to Pontifex Maximvs Pope John Paul II. The title is linked to the mystical Tower of Babel which Nimrod the Great built to be a bridge between Earth and Heaven, known to most of us as the Zodiak which is the heaven Ba'al is said to have created.

325: The Council of Nicea is lead by Pontifex Maximvs Constantine. Celibacy is established, Arianism is condemned, Constantine blesses the Church and wants unity and wants to use the Church as a tool of stabilisation of the Empire. He clearly points out that he wants to have nothing to do with the Jews.

364: Synode in Laodikea: Canon XXIX. Sabbathkeepers are condemned and called Judahists.

366: The Rosary is standardised and ordered. It's origin is India.


376: Bishop Demasius in Rome claims the title Pontifex Maximvs

379-395: Catholic christianity is made state religion. Roman citicens are all forced to become Church members.

388: Sol Invictvs' main day of worship is announced as the birthday of Jesus. The day is 25th of December

394: The first Roman Catholic mass.

By doing your homework I mean to really do your homework, not just rechew whatever is handed to you. But to study the times and see what consequences etc. the Church stood over for if they didn't comply with Constantine's wishes. If they didn't agree, he would simply eradicate them like his kinsman Nero had done with the Jewish community and the converts a couple of hundred years earlier.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Hamilton]

I assume you mean mount Ararat in Turkey? (I'm a little hazy on it, but pretty sure)...

In any case, even finding such a boat would prove little...as it is of course, impossible to fit those animals (and their food) for 40 days and nights, in a boat of the dimensions given in the bible...

And revelation doesn't exactly have a date affixed to it...it could be describing a time that's come and gone...

I remember watching a special on NOVA about Noah's Ark. It had a renactement of a man who took his son up to the ark. The man climbed inside of the ark, but couldn't see anything because of the dark. Interesting special it was.

Originally posted by Hamilton
I know this is far off topic, and this is all I am gonna say about this, but anyway, here it is.

Here's a short list of important happenings in the fourth century. Before you argue that Constantine did infact create the Bible and Catholic "Christianity", you should know it was him who ordered the first copy to be written

I'm not saying Constantine didn't have his hand in all sorts of places and that certain things that have been handed through the Roman church don't have pagen roots. But I will hold to the canon existing before Constantine. Church fathers such as Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Irenaeus all begin to lay down what should be considered canon and what should not be canon. And all of them were before AD 200. Were there lists exactly the same as what was officially recognized by the RCC later? No, not exatly. But the material was all there and most of it had been hashed out well before Costantine's lackeys got it.

Here's some dates before the 300's...

150 AD- Tatian, an early apologist, supported Enochian texts, by going into detail as to the forms of which the angels originaly had, and had degenerated into.

170 AD- Athenagoras, from his work called Legatio, regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office".

180 AD- Clement of Alexandria speaks and refers to the Book of Enoch.

190 AD- Tertullian wrote an entire work discussing the apparel of women in which he adjures women to dress modestly, without adornment, or what he calls "the tricks of beautifying themselves". He uses the Book of Enoch as the sturdiest evidence in his case against such "trappings". The desciple Paul, too, wrote several verse in this relation in his first letter to the Corinthians; 11:10 originally read as "For this ought the woman to have a covering on her head-because of the angels".

270-290 AD- Lactantius, an apologist, believed that the fall resulted in a degradation of the angelic nature itself (the fall being the taking of wives).

2nd/3rd Century- The Clementine Homilies, a Christian work not officially recognized by the church, also affirms the account of the mating of lustful angels, saying that the angels changed themselves into the nature of men and partook in human lust.

Several other Church Fathers- Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milan, also approved of the Book of Enoch.

3rd Century- Bishop of Lyons (Irenaeus), makes several direct references to the Book of Enoch.

*Papyrus manuscripts bearing substantial portions of the New Testament have been discovered, dating from about 200 AD, preserved in Egypt's dry climate.

*The earliest parts of the Bible to be composed were the sequence of Old Testament books from Genesis through Kings. By the middle or late sixth century BC, scribes were writing them down in a form whose content and perspective are recognizable today.

*Oldest complete Hebrew Bible is the Leningrad Codex, aged at 1008 AD, written by the Masoretes (early medival Jewish scribes).

*Oldest complete copy of the New Testament is from the forth century discovered in1844 at the monestary of St Catherine at Mount Sinai, known as the Codex Sinaiticus. A nearly complete and equally ancient copy is the Greek Codex Vaticanus. It is possible that both these works were commissioned by the emperor Constantine.

*The bulk of the New Testament was accepted by Christians by 200 AD; other books, regarded as less authoritative but sometimes added to the Bible, are called the Apocrypha.

Ahh, the quoting game... and to think, only Satan can quote scripture as well as Jesus...

So, my homework isn't a rehashing of what I heard second hand or saw on some half forgotten television show. My homework isn't some gibberish or wild ramblings without source or reference. As can be seen on this posting, and the one I made before it, the Book of Enoch was held in a high status; maybe I should have taken direct quotes to show why it wasn't allowed in the Bible... ehh... next time. And, as can also be seen, biblical works were known to have existed before the great emperor Constantine; what you failed to mention was the fact the he also "collected" religious artifacts and charged enormous amounts of money for them to be viewed... not exactly what I would call a prime example of a biblical believer.

Now, I hate to do this, but I make one and only one defense in Mik's honor... without those commentaries of his, we'd never have gotten so far off the thread path! Seriously, though... debate is good, and for every quote or date Mik/Hamilton can come up with, I can find another.

At one time the book of Enoch was part of christian, and jewish theology.

That it was excluded later does not change this historical fact.

Who actually wrote what is in the various versions cannot be known today. But someone wrote it, and it was important enough to be kept to this day by a few small groups.

Soothsayer. Very well with your findings, nothing new there. I was not saying that Constantine had the honor of making the canon, I said that Constantine destroyed a whole tradition by having this canon made. He wouldn't have the bible printed (or hand copied to be more precise), which cost an enormous ammount of money, unless he had complete and full control over exactly which books were in it. As I have said before, the Catholics were really a rather small and insignifficant sect at that time, and they sure didn't represent a good view of Christianity as a whole. My point was that the Book of Enock has never, NEVER, been part of the Bible, which is per definition the Roman Canon ordered by Constantine the Great. It has neither been part of the Apocrypha, which is a set of New Testament æra books which are "on hold". However it was part of, and still is part of, the extended Tanakh, often refered to as the OT Pseudigraphica. It was studied by priests, rabbis and prophets alike. The book which was available for all to read was the Torah, the five first books of the Tanakh. Besides, Enoch seldom refers to the Book of Enoch we know today, but a whole tradition with hundreds of books and manuscrips. It could be compared to the difference between the "Book of Elvis" and everything known about Elvis. Enoch was more a tradition and a school than it was a book. Enoch is maybe the greatest hero in Hebrew culture. Up there together with Mosche and Elijah.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Hamilton]