What about the book of Enoch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2024
- Scripture: Genesis 6:1-4, Jude 14-15, Daniel 4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17
Calvary Chapel Franklin: calvarychapelfranklin.com/
Email: info@calvarychapelfranklin.com
The Parsons Pad Website: parsonspad.com/
Telegram: t.me/parsonspadpodcast
Rumble: rumble.com/c/c-1006557?date=t...
Twitter: / ccfranklintn
Facebook: / calvarychapelfranklin
Subscribe to the audio podcast: parsonspad.buzzsprout.com/
Calvary Chapel Franklin meets at:
Sunday mornings: 1724 General George Patton Drive, Brentwood TN 37027
Wednesday evenings: 7113 Peach Court, Brentwood TN 37027
Mail: PO Box 1993 Spring Hill TN 37174
If you need a Bible, please download the free Gideon’s app for iPhone or Android: gideons.org/
If you would like to support this outreach, please consider donating via PayPal (Calvary Chapel Franklin is a 501c3 tax exempt religious entity): www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
Another good teaching. I have also read Michael Heiser’s books and also Chuck Missler’s teachings. Very interesting studies.
Nicely put. Thank you 😊
I have throughly enjoyed biblical scholar, Dr. Michael S Heiser’s books: “Unseen Realm”, “Supernatural”, “Angels”, “Demons”, “What Does God Want”, “The Old Testament in Revelation” I also have his Commentaries-on Enoch.
Greetings from Massachusetts. Thank you for answering this question. I wondered about that book. Genesis 6 is very interesting but strange. Blessings 🙏
Confirmation TYVM
When I read Enoch for the purpose of academia and i didn't notice anything being divine but more less an account of what Enoch saw and experienced. No instructions or commands at all. It was just an account of what Enoch experienced like a biography. I didn't find anything dangerous but it gave some amazing descriptions of what God's throne looked like according to Enoch. great descriptions for the imagination of how awesome God's throne and heaven looks like. whether it's legit or not I don't know but honestly the way things are described seem like something a human would have a hard time imagining. Read it to read it but nothing more.
Jude
I personally have been diligent in my walk with Christ by avoiding any book that would take me away from God's Word alone. It's too easy for satan to use (other) books as an open door to pull Christians away from the Lord. Not their Salvation, but their devotion to God
Gary Wayne also has a book "The Genesis 6 Conspiracy" that is a great read.
Wasn't there several authors of the book of Enoc?
How do the "watchers" mentioned in Daniel 4 relate to this?
Satan is a fallen angel. In Gen 3 God describes 2 "seeds" or DNA lines. 1 is the seed of the serpent and the other is the seed of the woman. If Satan has "seed" then he is able to reproduce. Just because Jesus said Angel don't marry doesn't mean that they are incapable of marriage. Only that they are not allowed to marry. That is why it is such an abomination unto God for angel to be having relations with humans.
Yes, heard the book of Enoch is "not" an inspired word of God. Heard the book of Enoch was thrown out of the bible because it wasn't an inspired word of God. Heard there's an original book of Enoch, but/& there are a lot of fake ones out there too. I never read it, & since it's not by God never will. Love, & Blessings, to you Pastor Brian, in Jesus Holy Name. :)
Enoch's "Watchers" are Genesis-6 "Son's-of-God." Know this because Enoch's 'Watchers' fit Genesis-6's "Son's-of-God' description. Enoch's 200 Watchers are long condemned and chained by the time Daniel was born. Daniel-4's 'Watchers' may well be describing other Son's-of-God, but not the same 200 as in Genesis-6. Son's-of-God are separated and delineated from Angels in Job 1, 2, 38 - they are a separate species in heaven. New Testament (eg Jude, Peter) calls them "Angels," presumably lumping all heavenly-beings into one category (thus conveniently leaving Jesus as the 'only Son-of-God'). However, Jesus is not the only Son-of-God, He is the only "begotten" (meaning 'born of human') Son-of-God. These different names for the same species can be confusing, but Bible gives more than sufficient clues to figure out who is who.
written after the flood by gnostics.
Im curious as to what makes a book "inspired." Is it simply a consensus of a majority? Does God have a writing style? Can His inspiration work throigh a person who may have a fanciful wrinting style? If Enochs book parallels people, dates, and instances in other books, doesn't that make it reliable, and therfore inspired? Just some thoughts.
My brother, you are wrong. An ungodly Kabal, the forerunners of the Catholic church gave us the 66 books. There is more our father wants us to learn. I often ask myself why we can believe a man could be murdered and come back to life, but our faith stops there. " As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the son of man. Father forgive us for presumptuous sin.
Enoch.....not Enick.
When you talk about the christian canon which canon are you talking about? The protestant canon? The Catholic canon? The eastern Orthodox canon? The syrian canon? The egyptian coptic canon? The Ethiopian christian canon? The eritrean christian canon? You do realize each one of these communities have their own version of divinely inspired texts right? I assume you are speaking about the authority of the protestant canon but who is to say your canon is correct and the other christian groups incorrect? The Ethiopian and eritrean christian bibles both include the book of enoch an divinely authoritative biblical scripture with just as much weight as revelation the 4 gospels psalms Ezekiel Jeremiah genesis everything. So you are saying your christian canon is true and their christian canon is not, but based on what? You do realize that many of the church fathers did not want to include revelation as canon neither jude nor 1st 2nd & 3rd john because they thought it was pseudographic literature. Also many scholars today seem to think 2nd peter was not written by peter. Also the didache is surely authoritative and yhe apocalypse of Paul is unbelievable. Also 2nd esdras the wisdom of solomon and the book of jubilees are unbelievable texts and authoritative. Even the book of the giants found with the dead sea scrolls seems to be divinely inspired. Most everything found with the dead sea scrolls can be considered canonical and who are you to say otherwise? What do you base this judgement off of? Marcion's 27 NT book canon? The 2nd century just OT canon? The 2nd temple period OT canon? Athanasius' 27 book canon of the 3rd century?