I really appreciated his humble attitude and ease with saying that there's not clear answers to some things. I appreciated he said more than once, "I don't know", instead of running with wild speculations that go way beyond the parameters of the biblical text. That why I tend to stay on the fringes of this stuff and never fell into the Michael Heiser rabbit hole. People get obsessed with this stuff to the point where the clear teachings of the Bible are no longer much interest.
In reference to time stamp @22:00 Greek Gods were mentioned in the bible but they were given their dark angel name by God/Jesus. Example Zues, his presence and altar is mentioned in Rev 2 12-13. Biblically speaking, Zues' name is Balaam. again Rev 2 12-13. Jesus is warning people not to follow the doctrine of Balaam in Rev 2 12-13. People in Pergamum (Turkey) worshiped Zeus, the chief god of the Olympian gods. During the same time that Jesus is warning against the doctrine of Balaam, there was an altar in Pergamum.called The Altar of Zues. In actuality, the Altar of Zues is the throne of Satan (in this case Balaam, which is one of the forms of Satan). Belial, Belzeebul, Balaam, Ba'al, all titles of Satan.
Two ways I can interpret Jude 6-10. Angels who left their proper dwelling and now await the day of judgment and like Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in sexual immorality. Orrrr… Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities who like wise engaged in sexual immorality serve as an example by undergoing punishment of eternal fire along with the Angels who left their proper dwelling.
What does "make them the lens by which we read" even mean? Why is Augustine or Western medieval European or Post Reformation concerns the correct lens?
This is correct… another way to put it, why should we care less about original intent and more about what is academically acceptable by men who came hundreds and thousands of years later? These medievals, though brilliant and well intended, should have cared enough to ask what the people believed who wrote the text before forming dogmatic opinions that affect the major spiritual framework of the text. I think the issue was limited access to manuscript information as James white often rightly points out on other subjects.
I've always thought of them, not just as fallen angels, but also the inspiration for the pantheon of gods. They dwelt in Mount Olympus, they were constantly copulating with humans, they were known for their prideful, vain, greedy, vengeful natures... And their offspring would be the inspiration for demigods. Edit: I didn't know CS Lewis wrote about this, I just saw the correlations lol
Hey Apologia. Thank you guys for making such a difference. So many good churches are wonderful places that faithfully preach the gospel. However, they can be so desperately lacking in training their congregation to accurately and biblically defend the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. In so many ways, they seem stagnant or unable to move outside their 4 walls and truly engage the world. Praise God for the light that you are and above else, the boldness you have in glorifying God. Soli Deo Gloria!
What about the passage in Genesis six says that the children of the daughters of men and sons of God were super human? I don’t see anything there. What is told of them and their deeds could be said to be much the same as of Nimrod in Genesis 10. AMBA AMBA
and why is this written: "The women ought to have sign of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS." 1Cor. 11:10. ??? Is this related to Gen.6 or Jude 6, 7 ?? Why would Paul write that?
A couple theories I have on that verse: angels also wear signs of Gods authority on their heads. Angels rejoice when they see us follow Gods commands. Mike Winger has an in depth video on the topic.
If “angel” is a role, perhaps “watchers” is also. However, where is the Scripture making any connection that the watchers are the sons of God or had anything to do with Genesis 6? AMBA
@DeaconBean eww piffy 😑 So, that's Your response when You read GOD'S Command/s! We will all give an account to The HOLY. See y-o-u there -you'll Know who i am, as This comment will come up!
When we studied the book of Genesis and came to Genesis 6, I was the only person in my Sunday school class that brought up the supernatural aspect of “sons of God.” The teacher thought I was crazy. I brought up the Jude passage and book of Enoch- and even pagan pantheon of gods. He still looked at me with utter disbelief. Then I get attacked that Jesus said angels don’t marry nor are given in marriage. My reply was they are not to do such things, but it doesn’t mean they can’t. These are rebellious “sons of God.”
What's crazy to me is we already believe God placed Jesus in Mary's womb. Why is it harder to believe the fallen angels would try to do a poor imitation of God's ability to spiritually impregnate a virgin with the Son he promised in Genesis?
Yes because they obviously have free will also and are subject to corruption, as evident by lucifer.. But I imagine the real reason it was left out of the Bible was more to do with his description of the 7 heaven's. But it also gives testimony and credence to the coming messiah, it makes sense to me at least. Also explains why the flood was necessary.
Genesis 6 says that “there were giants on the Earth in those days”, speaking of the Nephilim. Then says, “and after that” the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men, they bore children who were men of renown, mighty men. Therefore, since the Nephilim are mentioned before the birth of these children, how can we know that those children of those unions are actually the Nephilim? AMBA
As much as love cultish, these 1 Enoch episodes have been rather weak on content. And it doesn’t seem either person knows the fullness of the situation. Many major players in the Bible either directly cite 1 Enoch (Jude) or reference it directly through presupposition (Jesus & Paul.) Jesus calls the source for “no angel marriage” scripture. This is a concept only found in Enoch, nowhere else in scripture in Matt 22. Again, that is the context, it’s found nowhere else. Some might say Jesus is an authority. And this should raise some flags. Brushing it under the rug with academic gobbledygook and timeline conflations of belief is just not helpful. Likewise, Paul presupposes the narrative of Enoch as he instructs women to wear head coverings, clearly believing angels can still lust and fall for women. Plain reading of the text. Simply equating Jude’s citation of 1 Enoch to the fact Paul cited Greek works to evangelize is not the context. For Jude Jesus or Paul. The authors, instead assumed the reality of 1 Enoch and used it to justify their following statements. It was a justification of belief assuming truth found in “scripture.” If it’s the Glory of God to conceal a thing, so His will would be carried forward, perhaps He did. The fact is, before Augustine, it was held as the prevailing belief, though lack of textual proliferation and verification of authorship kept it from the cannon. Still, Many lobbied for its inclusion due to its perceived accuracy. Many early church fathers cited it in their apologetics and quoted from it alongside scripture. Read Justin Martyr & Irenaeus for context in how these early church fathers believed. Among many disagreements as to soteriology and baptism, no respected church father was proven to hold a belief outside of 1 Enoch until Augustine, who leveraged the post resurrection Jewish sentiment. He was likely over-reacting later in life due to his earlier bout with manacheanism. After which it was far safer to err on the side of naturalistic materialism.
@ and because they believed it… From Jesus to Paul and Jude. Again… Jesus called his reference “the power of God” and “scripture.” In our cannon. Your unwillingness to believe and, instead, put your faith in far later anti-supernaturalist stories, is on you. I side with Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers. The latter of which were extremely clear. Again, Justin Martyr for starters…And yes the plain reading of the text and contemporaneous commentaries.
There's nothing in Scripture to give this idea. You'd only get this idea if you started by seeing it in the book of Enoch and then bringing it to Scripture and seeing if it fits. There was absolutely no defense of this idea in the guest's comments, either. He just asserted that he thinks it. Very disappointed in this episode!
@@rebekahchalkley3252 He did mention at the end the reference to them being "sons of God" that had relations with the "daughters of men". I can see a distinction being made there that "could" argue for an angel human interaction but still seems like a stretch
it was my understanding when reading it that they weren't demons yet they were angels who deviated from gods plan and they weren’t sent to hell until later.
I don’t see the Giants mentioned in Genesis 6 as being different in any major way from the Giants mentioned when the children of Israel approached Canaan, or the nations of Giants talked about in Deuteronomy 2. I do not see them as supernatural or superhuman, but rather mighty big powerful people. The sons of Anak made people panic because they were large and in charge, they were famous and infamous warriors. And they were beaten by people who were given victory over them by the LORD. AMBA
No offense, but this guy is a bit behind the curve of this. I'm not sure he fully comprehended Heiser's Unseen Realm because Heiser made it clear that demons/unclean spirits are the spirits of the deceased Nephilim. Demons are NOT fallen angels. The fallen angels who mated with human women were bound in the outer darkness. Because Nephilim were never supposed to exist, I do not believ that they have souls (just theory here, but i believe that only God can bestow a soul) but the half breed offspring of angels(sons of God) and human women only had spirits. They belong nowhere, so their spirits are doomed to wander the terrestrial plain because they lack a soul and only souls can decend into Hades or ascend into Heaven. It would have been better to get a fellow Brother who studies and understands these matters on this podcast rather than this conventionally trained seminarian. He already admited that his training led him to believe the falsehood of the Sethite theory so this guy clearly is no authority here and still has much to learn and unlearn. I appreciated this guy's previous episodes covering the canon but he was not the right guest to have on to talk about this. I respect the Apologia guys but they need to get with the times; they seem to not understand that we are likely living during the short season when satan has been released after the millennium.
Enoch did NOT claim to be the Messiah! This dude needs to add Heiser's commentaries on Enoch to his wall of commentaries. This was basically a hit piece. So disappointing. 😖
Agreed there were many things glossed over, minimized and not considered. I was left feeling more frustrated than informed. And you are correct Enoch did not claim to be Messiah in 1 Enoch. Later pseudo-works were gnostic so they had a point to make Enoch a person who achieved enlightenment. Enoch 2+ is off the table entirely. I got the impression this gentlemen was conflating the texts in this regard. Instead, we find the angel calls Enoch the “son of man” similar to how the angel addresses Daniel in Daniel 7-9. It seems to be a title angels bestow on mankind. Not a statement that he is THE consummate son of man (ie Jesus). Throughout the text the writer addresses a consummate son of man, with the attributes of Jesus who is/will be doing things while Enoch is there witnessing, similar to John in revelation. It is actually a text that miraculously supports Jesus written hundreds of years before his coming potentially in the inter-testamental period, perhaps having its origins in earlier writings, lost to history. I do not see how reformed people in particular can read the text and what it says of this son of man and not come away with a question of potential inspiration due to its high christiology on par with the apostle John’s gospels. My observation, that I believe is clear, is this statement by the angel, specifying Enoch is the son of man, does not fit the chain of thought where the angel differentiates between objects of the title “son of man.” So It was likely a scribal error attributing the consulate title of The Son of man to Enoch. Rather Enoch is simply a son of man as he had been throughout the text. Since the surviving manuscript evidence is so sparse we cannot cross reference and that presents a problem. This issue alone unfortunately renders the book worthy of exclusion from the cannon though the narrative in context should not be minimized nor forgotten.
You have to look at religious texts that were common within the periods of the Bible, like the second temple period you have to read the Bible in the context of the audience. It was written to not the sermon you want to prepare today that is the problem with everything.
Interpretation everywhere about storm gods, yhvh and desert tribal gods. But to solve this breaking of the laws of god by his very heavenly servants... drown everything by water.
Would have been good to review the Proverb of the 70 shepherds! Maybe a Pt 3? Also, the part of Jude that speaks about Enoch says “ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying…” then provides quote from Enoch much like when in the NT Paul quotes Isaiah when he says “Isaias was very bold and says…” in Roman’s. This is a consistent way of quoting the prophets, it does not appear that Jude is quoting Enoch any differently than any of the Apostles or even Christ quoting the prophets. It was intriguing listening to the explanation of Jude using Enoch purely as an example and comparing to Paul preaching and using Pagan literature but I would argue that apart from Paul preaching to a Pagan audience using that literature or his observations of their pagan gods, you do not find this type of preaching consistent through the NT and also that Jude was preaching to believers so why would he not pull from the prophets who are considered scripture (like all the other apostles do when preaching) as opposed to one not considered scripture? That would be a new pattern for someone preaching to a believing audience. Especially since Isaiah speaks a similar message of Christ coming to execute Judgment. What are your thoughts?
Everything that we see about why God judge the Earth with a flood was the wickedness of man himself. Why doesn’t God tell us that He did this because of the wickedness of angels or spiritual beings? We only find that it was because “the heart of man” was evil. Going outside the text and reading this into it seems to actually strip men away from his accountability for his actions. I see no basis in Scripture for saying the flood was sent because of angels, or hybrid demon/humans. AMBA
Good show. It's kind of like putting together a billion piece puzzle. I got a piece here that has this edge and this edge but I don't see yet where this fits exactly. It's interesting and challenging to try to find out. Rev 13: 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 In this case, the Word doesn't say speculation leads to what we want to know but wisdom, understanding, calculating does. Work on those skills and you will probably understand when the time comes. Those that cast wisdom, undestanding, and calculating aside will suffer for it when the time comes imo.
Are you aware of theory that the beast was Nero (or at least the number of the beast)? The numerology 666/616 would calculate out to Caesar Nero. They've found some parchments that indicate the number is 616 while others say 666. Apparently there were slightly different methods for calculation depending on Greek VS Hebrew culture, but both methods, when calculating their respective numbers of 616 and 666 could calculate for "Caesar Nero" Little argument can be made that Nero's persecution was anything less than the most vile and wicked persecution the Church has ever been through, even if the scale was not so large as other persecutions. Furthermore, John writes of this section "do not bind up the words of this scroll," in other words, it would be immediately relevant to his readers, whereas other sections that are instructed to be bound up, were not.
How do you guys interpret Genesis 3, the Seed of Satan? Nephilum or Cain? Purely spiritual in nature? Like the Jewish leadership, your father is the devil?
What it means to be the seed of Satan was explained by Jesus. He spoke of Israel's leaders as children of the devil because they have what you would call a "family resemblance". Lying, murder, that's what Satan has been doing since the beginning, and like father like son. Those who are children of God make a practice of righteous and holiness because God is righteous and holy. The seed of the woman refers to the line that leads to Jesus, the Messiah promised in Genesis 3 that would crush the serpent, who is Jesus, God incarnate. This notion of a "family resemblance" is also repeated once again for emphasis in 1 John. 1 John was written to the church of Ephesus, modern day Turkey, when there was a lot of confusion and doubt in the church after a big falling out, where many teachers embraced a sort of gnosticism and left the church. They taught many false things, like that Jesus was never a man, but a pseudo-physical phantom, because in this gnostic worldview, which drew a lot from Eastern mysticism, the material world is pure evil and the spiritual world is all good. Through this lens, and given the fact that Jesus is God, they said that God would never silly Himself by putting on a physical body. John corrected that on 1 John. He touched Jesus. He knew for a fact that Jesus came in flesh and had a physical body, and even went on to say that those who deny the person of Christ are false believers. Today, we have the opposite problem, where people accept the person of Christ, but deny the deity of Christ, but I digress. Another false teaching of this gnosticism was that the material world was irrelevant as opposed to the spiritual world, and that it's okay for the believer to practice sin, because sinning with your physical body is irrelevant. John corrects this by saying that whoever practices sin practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. John cleverly used this word lawlessness, the same word that Jesus used when he talked about people that would be judged as false believers on the day of judgment. This utterly scandalized the gnostics, damaging their credibility by associating them with people whom Jesus said He would send to hell. John said that while we won't achieve sinless perfection before heaven, and anyone who claims they have is self-deceived, there are consistent patterns of either practicing obedience or rebellion towards God, and by this, it is evident of who are the children of God, and the children of the devil. That's what this line from Genesis 3 means. Hope that helps. I'm glad my pastor has been preaching from 1 John recently for 28 weeks straight, so that I'm able to answer these types of things.
Wow, I'd never heard that bit about Enoch being identified as Son of Man / Messiah! Then, OF COURSE this is not Scripture! Why would any supposed Christian even entertain such a thing? Why, therefore, are they spending so much time in it? That's disturbing!
Kevin Rider - 'Sons of God' could be used differently in Genesis as it is used differently in the New Testament. Being used so few times we shouldn't think it has to be used in the same way when the meaning of the words together could mean sons of God being all men that came into existence from God in contrast to Eve being created from Adam or all women being daughters of men. The Nephilim being some beings in the earth in those day that the readers then would have understood as they are described men of renown or heroes mentioned that were just as corrupt as the rest of mankind so could not save mankind. Which gives a reason to mention before the flood and makes sense of how they could have lived after - hero's just as corrupt, fallen, and could not be the saviors of mankind. Later the Savior comes into the world - God Himself in Jesus. This is the interpretation that I hold to - the only one that makes sense to me.
💙 People today have Nephilim blood since that is the Hebrew word for men that are giants. NBA has around 25 giants. A giant is over 7’. Og largest recorded giant at 12’.
From what I heard from Ken Johnson, it seems like Canaan, son of Ham, went north into Shem's territory to learn from something left behind how to recreate nephilim, so it was like a new line, maybe slightly different than the original. That's speculation of course but it makes sense.
@@unkown312How? "The Lord saw that the wickedness of *man* was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made *man* on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out *man* whom I have created from the face of the land, *man* and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." - Genesis 6:5-8 What part of this says anything about wiping out human-angel hybrids? Man is mentioned 4 times with the animals included at the end. No angels, hybrids, no giants. Wicked man.
The demons that were trying to prevent the perfect seed , the sons of God are expressed within the Bible. Read the Hebrew translation of psalm 82 and 89 When God divorced himself from the missions and gave parts of the nations to the sons of God team Israel as his own in deuteronomy 32:8.
Just because a text is not canonical doesn’t mean it’s not useful in context. Looking at it from an evangelical perspective you’re not gonna see it more so academic perspective because the Bible is also historic. Take the hermetics out of it. Kinda doubles down on the importance of the sewing mini copies, they found of Enoch in the book of the watcher almost as much as the septuigant
I don’t think that the Nephilim or spawns of Demons, in the Bible not even the book of Enoch it was pretty clear that they were the children of the fallen angels that they made with human women so I’m not sure why people debate that it’s in the Bible and it’s clear and the word for marriage isn’t exactly marriage in the sense of a holy union and it means they forced themselves on women probably But the Bible is clear right there that they had children and the book of Enoch is fairly consistent with that and they’re different versions of what people think Demons are and it’s kind of irrelevant but the two primary incredible ideas are that they are the spirits of the fallen angels or the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who died in the flood which kind of makes more sense from the new Testament with the whole thing with the pigs and a disembodied spirit description of Demons plus God bound the fallen angels in Tartarus so I doubt he would buy them and then let their spirits run around as Demons, that seems less likely but I don’t see where there’s much of a question about what the Nephilim were or where they came from. It’s even in the Bible in Genesis.🤔
This guy is uninformed. Demons did not mate with human women. Fallen angels did. Demons are the result of these unions, being the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who, upon death, go neither to heaven nor hell, but roam the earth without physical form, opressing and possessing living creatures.
Amen, Yhwh our God preserves his Scripture. Enoch is not Scripture and I've known quite a few brothers and sisters who believe it is along with jubilees and jasher. But the Lord has made known what is Scripture and preserved it through the years.
It was in the Ethiopian original canon. It also was referenced in the canon we have now. It was also thought to be important enough to preserve and hide with the rest of the dead sea scrolls. I don't think it's canon but it sure seems to be talking a lot about Jesus coming. It was amazing to me
Enoch is in the Bible though... Kinda.. Not the whole book but... Jude 14-15 "It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Here’s the section from the book of Enoch that is said to be quoted by Jude: 1 Enoch 1:9 "Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him."
@@DiscipleofChrist101 That was addressed in the video, just because Jude quotes it, doesn't mean it's scripture. Paul quotes pagan philosophers in the Bible. Something doesn't need to be God-breathed scripture in order to be helpful. Jude can simply quote a piece of literature his audience was familiar with to make a point. If Jude was alive and penning God-inspired scripture today, he could quote Spurgeon, Trapp, or even The Lord of the Rings in a order to make a point, and that doesn't make the writing he is quoting from scripture.
I do agree with this statement. There is an issue with the book and it’s likely concerning the perceived identification of son of man. It looks to be a scribal error. However, it 1 Enoch provides insight into the first century narrative belief-system almost every writer of the NT built into their writings in some respect. They used it to justify their points based on perceived authority of the text. Jesus also references it in Matt 22 and called it scripture. ‘Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.’ So as much as we do not have the manuscript evidence to support its critical review and therefore justify its inclusion, we shouldn’t minimize its narrative importance either. The writers held it in very high regard and Jesus referenced it as scripture. As to whether He just meant a respected text or canonical is up for debate.
Jesus was referring to Enoch as Scripture in Matt when talking about the angel not marrying in heaven. Jude reference Enoch. Enoch was part of the Bible and still is in some parts of the world
@@christoprighteous8199 so Jesus was definitely not referring to Enoch, He was directly responding to the sadducees in reference to the question of marriage in light of the resurrection.
Want more from Cultish? Sign up for Apologia All Access! You won't regret it! Click the link for more info.
apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/
I really appreciated his humble attitude and ease with saying that there's not clear answers to some things. I appreciated he said more than once, "I don't know", instead of running with wild speculations that go way beyond the parameters of the biblical text. That why I tend to stay on the fringes of this stuff and never fell into the Michael Heiser rabbit hole. People get obsessed with this stuff to the point where the clear teachings of the Bible are no longer much interest.
Anything you read in the Bible that sounds weird don’t ever ignore it.
In reference to time stamp @22:00 Greek Gods were mentioned in the bible but they were given their dark angel name by God/Jesus. Example Zues, his presence and altar is mentioned in Rev 2 12-13. Biblically speaking, Zues' name is Balaam. again Rev 2 12-13. Jesus is warning people not to follow the doctrine of Balaam in Rev 2 12-13. People in Pergamum (Turkey) worshiped Zeus, the chief god of the Olympian gods. During the same time that Jesus is warning against the doctrine of Balaam, there was an altar in Pergamum.called The Altar of Zues. In actuality, the Altar of Zues is the throne of Satan (in this case Balaam, which is one of the forms of Satan). Belial, Belzeebul, Balaam, Ba'al, all titles of Satan.
Also the word "god" or om ancient Greek is "Daemon" where we get the word "demon".
You must read Jude 6- 10 to get more clarity on Genesis 6
Yep
Two ways I can interpret Jude 6-10. Angels who left their proper dwelling and now await the day of judgment and like Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in sexual immorality.
Orrrr… Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities who like wise engaged in sexual immorality serve as an example by undergoing punishment of eternal fire along with the Angels who left their proper dwelling.
What does "make them the lens by which we read" even mean?
Why is Augustine or Western medieval European or Post Reformation concerns the correct lens?
I could be wrong but it seemed like he was saying we shouldn't use Enoch as the basis for understanding or approaching the scriptures.
This is correct… another way to put it, why should we care less about original intent and more about what is academically acceptable by men who came hundreds and thousands of years later?
These medievals, though brilliant and well intended, should have cared enough to ask what the people believed who wrote the text before forming dogmatic opinions that affect the major spiritual framework of the text. I think the issue was limited access to manuscript information as James white often rightly points out on other subjects.
Hope you all enjoy part 2!
What do you think the Nephilim & the watchers are?
The Nephelim are one of the original giant tribes created by fallen Watchers (a class of angles) and human women. They're demon-human hybrids.
i find the "Watchers" more mysterious (probably from a lack of Knowledge and study in this area). We are told who the Nephílim are, right!
The offspring of human women and the same "Bene ha Elohim" that are mentioned in Job. Thank you for these two episodes and for your ministry!
I've always thought of them, not just as fallen angels, but also the inspiration for the pantheon of gods.
They dwelt in Mount Olympus, they were constantly copulating with humans, they were known for their prideful, vain, greedy, vengeful natures... And their offspring would be the inspiration for demigods.
Edit: I didn't know CS Lewis wrote about this, I just saw the correlations lol
you must read Jude 6- 10 for more clarity on Genesis 6.
Look at how he contrasts the angels with the men of Sodom... abandoning natural relations
Hey Apologia. Thank you guys for making such a difference. So many good churches are wonderful places that faithfully preach the gospel. However, they can be so desperately lacking in training their congregation to accurately and biblically defend the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. In so many ways, they seem stagnant or unable to move outside their 4 walls and truly engage the world. Praise God for the light that you are and above else, the boldness you have in glorifying God. Soli Deo Gloria!
That entire quote in full in Jude- is it found in the earliest manuscript fragments of Enoch? AMBA
What about the passage in Genesis six says that the children of the daughters of men and sons of God were super human? I don’t see anything there. What is told of them and their deeds could be said to be much the same as of Nimrod in Genesis 10.
AMBA
AMBA
and why is this written:
"The women ought to have sign of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS." 1Cor. 11:10.
??? Is this related to Gen.6 or Jude 6, 7 ??
Why would Paul write that?
A couple theories I have on that verse: angels also wear signs of Gods authority on their heads. Angels rejoice when they see us follow Gods commands. Mike Winger has an in depth video on the topic.
@@xcritic9671look up the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 86. Perfectly explains it
look up the Naked Bible Podcast, episode 86. Perfectly explains it
If “angel” is a role, perhaps “watchers” is also. However, where is the Scripture making any connection that the watchers are the sons of God or had anything to do with Genesis 6? AMBA
Hey, followers of KING JESUS -You are to be discerning and GRACIOUS, even "Gentle".
Not always
@DeaconBean eww piffy 😑
So, that's Your response when You read GOD'S Command/s!
We will all give an account to The HOLY. See y-o-u there -you'll Know who i am, as This comment will come up!
@@DavidZechariah "so" is always a tell. Do better troll
When we studied the book of Genesis and came to Genesis 6, I was the only person in my Sunday school class that brought up the supernatural aspect of “sons of God.” The teacher thought I was crazy. I brought up the Jude passage and book of Enoch- and even pagan pantheon of gods. He still looked at me with utter disbelief. Then I get attacked that Jesus said angels don’t marry nor are given in marriage. My reply was they are not to do such things, but it doesn’t mean they can’t. These are rebellious “sons of God.”
What's crazy to me is we already believe God placed Jesus in Mary's womb. Why is it harder to believe the fallen angels would try to do a poor imitation of God's ability to spiritually impregnate a virgin with the Son he promised in Genesis?
@@LuLu_0815 Exactly! I wondered the exact thing!
So what are trying to say?
Yes because they obviously have free will also and are subject to corruption, as evident by lucifer.. But I imagine the real reason it was left out of the Bible was more to do with his description of the 7 heaven's. But it also gives testimony and credence to the coming messiah, it makes sense to me at least. Also explains why the flood was necessary.
J. Vernon McGee explained this really well that the “sons of God” has a different meaning then what you may be thinking.
Genesis 6 says that “there were giants on the Earth in those days”, speaking of the Nephilim. Then says, “and after that” the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men, they bore children who were men of renown, mighty men. Therefore, since the Nephilim are mentioned before the birth of these children, how can we know that those children of those unions are actually the Nephilim? AMBA
As much as love cultish, these 1 Enoch episodes have been rather weak on content. And it doesn’t seem either person knows the fullness of the situation.
Many major players in the Bible either directly cite 1 Enoch (Jude) or reference it directly through presupposition (Jesus & Paul.)
Jesus calls the source for “no angel marriage” scripture. This is a concept only found in Enoch, nowhere else in scripture in Matt 22. Again, that is the context, it’s found nowhere else. Some might say Jesus is an authority. And this should raise some flags. Brushing it under the rug with academic gobbledygook and timeline conflations of belief is just not helpful.
Likewise, Paul presupposes the narrative of Enoch as he instructs women to wear head coverings, clearly believing angels can still lust and fall for women. Plain reading of the text.
Simply equating Jude’s citation of 1 Enoch to the fact Paul cited Greek works to evangelize is not the context. For Jude Jesus or Paul. The authors, instead assumed the reality of 1 Enoch and used it to justify their following statements. It was a justification of belief assuming truth found in “scripture.”
If it’s the Glory of God to conceal a thing, so His will would be carried forward, perhaps He did.
The fact is, before Augustine, it was held as the prevailing belief, though lack of textual proliferation and verification of authorship kept it from the cannon. Still, Many lobbied for its inclusion due to its perceived accuracy. Many early church fathers cited it in their apologetics and quoted from it alongside scripture.
Read Justin Martyr & Irenaeus for context in how these early church fathers believed.
Among many disagreements as to soteriology and baptism, no respected church father was proven to hold a belief outside of 1 Enoch until Augustine, who leveraged the post resurrection Jewish sentiment. He was likely over-reacting later in life due to his earlier bout with manacheanism. After which it was far safer to err on the side of naturalistic materialism.
Well said!!!
"plain reading of the text" is that Paul told women to wear head coverings so the angels wouldn't lust after them? That's plain?
They reference it because it was well known at the time.
@ yes for all who understand and have read 1 Enoch. This is why understanding cultural context is inportant.
@ and because they believed it…
From Jesus to Paul and Jude. Again… Jesus called his reference “the power of God” and “scripture.” In our cannon. Your unwillingness to believe and, instead, put your faith in far later anti-supernaturalist stories, is on you.
I side with Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers. The latter of which were extremely clear. Again, Justin Martyr for starters…And yes the plain reading of the text and contemporaneous commentaries.
I never caught the reference from Gen 6 to make you think the Nephilim are supernatural?
There's nothing in Scripture to give this idea. You'd only get this idea if you started by seeing it in the book of Enoch and then bringing it to Scripture and seeing if it fits. There was absolutely no defense of this idea in the guest's comments, either. He just asserted that he thinks it. Very disappointed in this episode!
@@rebekahchalkley3252 He did mention at the end the reference to them being "sons of God" that had relations with the "daughters of men".
I can see a distinction being made there that "could" argue for an angel human interaction but still seems like a stretch
it was my understanding when reading it that they weren't demons yet they were angels who deviated from gods plan and they weren’t sent to hell until later.
Matthew went to Ethiopia and the king killed him after he supposedly 'raised his daughter from the dead'. Might be related to the interest in Enoch
I don’t see the Giants mentioned in Genesis 6 as being different in any major way from the Giants mentioned when the children of Israel approached Canaan, or the nations of Giants talked about in Deuteronomy 2. I do not see them as supernatural or superhuman, but rather mighty big powerful people. The sons of Anak made people panic because they were large and in charge, they were famous and infamous warriors. And they were beaten by people who were given victory over them by the LORD.
AMBA
Dead Sea Scrolls also included "The book of Giants" where Gilgamesh appears as a Nephilim
No offense, but this guy is a bit behind the curve of this. I'm not sure he fully comprehended Heiser's Unseen Realm because Heiser made it clear that demons/unclean spirits are the spirits of the deceased Nephilim. Demons are NOT fallen angels. The fallen angels who mated with human women were bound in the outer darkness. Because Nephilim were never supposed to exist, I do not believ that they have souls (just theory here, but i believe that only God can bestow a soul) but the half breed offspring of angels(sons of God) and human women only had spirits. They belong nowhere, so their spirits are doomed to wander the terrestrial plain because they lack a soul and only souls can decend into Hades or ascend into Heaven. It would have been better to get a fellow Brother who studies and understands these matters on this podcast rather than this conventionally trained seminarian. He already admited that his training led him to believe the falsehood of the Sethite theory so this guy clearly is no authority here and still has much to learn and unlearn. I appreciated this guy's previous episodes covering the canon but he was not the right guest to have on to talk about this. I respect the Apologia guys but they need to get with the times; they seem to not understand that we are likely living during the short season when satan has been released after the millennium.
Should have had the Haunted Cosmos guys on to cover Enoch...
Enoch did NOT claim to be the Messiah! This dude needs to add Heiser's commentaries on Enoch to his wall of commentaries. This was basically a hit piece. So disappointing. 😖
Agreed there were many things glossed over, minimized and not considered. I was left feeling more frustrated than informed.
And you are correct Enoch did not claim to be Messiah in 1 Enoch. Later pseudo-works were gnostic so they had a point to make Enoch a person who achieved enlightenment. Enoch 2+ is off the table entirely. I got the impression this gentlemen was conflating the texts in this regard.
Instead, we find the angel calls Enoch the “son of man” similar to how the angel addresses Daniel in Daniel 7-9. It seems to be a title angels bestow on mankind. Not a statement that he is THE consummate son of man (ie Jesus).
Throughout the text the writer addresses a consummate son of man, with the attributes of Jesus who is/will be doing things while Enoch is there witnessing, similar to John in revelation. It is actually a text that miraculously supports Jesus written hundreds of years before his coming potentially in the inter-testamental period, perhaps having its origins in earlier writings, lost to history.
I do not see how reformed people in particular can read the text and what it says of this son of man and not come away with a question of potential inspiration due to its high christiology on par with the apostle John’s gospels.
My observation, that I believe is clear, is this statement by the angel, specifying Enoch is the son of man, does not fit the chain of thought where the angel differentiates between objects of the title “son of man.” So It was likely a scribal error attributing the consulate title of The Son of man to Enoch. Rather Enoch is simply a son of man as he had been throughout the text.
Since the surviving manuscript evidence is so sparse we cannot cross reference and that presents a problem. This issue alone unfortunately renders the book worthy of exclusion from the cannon though the narrative in context should not be minimized nor forgotten.
Hello, fellow Cosmonaut!
@@lookslikeiwin hello, yourself! :)
You have to look at religious texts that were common within the periods of the Bible, like the second temple period you have to read the Bible in the context of the audience. It was written to not the sermon you want to prepare today that is the problem with everything.
Interpretation everywhere about storm gods, yhvh and desert tribal gods. But to solve this breaking of the laws of god by his very heavenly servants... drown everything by water.
Summary: Book of Enoch is the Left Behind series for pre-Christ Jews
😂
Would have been good to review the Proverb of the 70 shepherds! Maybe a Pt 3? Also, the part of Jude that speaks about Enoch says “ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying…” then provides quote from Enoch much like when in the NT Paul quotes Isaiah when he says “Isaias was very bold and says…” in Roman’s. This is a consistent way of quoting the prophets, it does not appear that Jude is quoting Enoch any differently than any of the Apostles or even Christ quoting the prophets. It was intriguing listening to the explanation of Jude using Enoch purely as an example and comparing to Paul preaching and using Pagan literature but I would argue that apart from Paul preaching to a Pagan audience using that literature or his observations of their pagan gods, you do not find this type of preaching consistent through the NT and also that Jude was preaching to believers so why would he not pull from the prophets who are considered scripture (like all the other apostles do when preaching) as opposed to one not considered scripture? That would be a new pattern for someone preaching to a believing audience. Especially since Isaiah speaks a similar message of Christ coming to execute Judgment. What are your thoughts?
💙 Enoch is a Jewish fable.
That Enoch 71 thing. I could see it being him as one of the two witnesses. Not the messiah. That never crossed my mind.
Everything that we see about why God judge the Earth with a flood was the wickedness of man himself. Why doesn’t God tell us that He did this because of the wickedness of angels or spiritual beings? We only find that it was because “the heart of man” was evil. Going outside the text and reading this into it seems to actually strip men away from his accountability for his actions. I see no basis in Scripture for saying the flood was sent because of angels, or hybrid demon/humans. AMBA
Good show. It's kind of like putting together a billion piece puzzle. I got a piece here that has this edge and this edge but I don't see yet where this fits exactly. It's interesting and challenging to try to find out.
Rev 13: 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666
In this case, the Word doesn't say speculation leads to what we want to know but wisdom, understanding, calculating does. Work on those skills and you will probably understand when the time comes. Those that cast wisdom, undestanding, and calculating aside will suffer for it when the time comes imo.
Are you aware of theory that the beast was Nero (or at least the number of the beast)? The numerology 666/616 would calculate out to Caesar Nero. They've found some parchments that indicate the number is 616 while others say 666. Apparently there were slightly different methods for calculation depending on Greek VS Hebrew culture, but both methods, when calculating their respective numbers of 616 and 666 could calculate for "Caesar Nero" Little argument can be made that Nero's persecution was anything less than the most vile and wicked persecution the Church has ever been through, even if the scale was not so large as other persecutions. Furthermore, John writes of this section "do not bind up the words of this scroll," in other words, it would be immediately relevant to his readers, whereas other sections that are instructed to be bound up, were not.
How do you guys interpret Genesis 3, the Seed of Satan? Nephilum or Cain? Purely spiritual in nature? Like the Jewish leadership, your father is the devil?
What it means to be the seed of Satan was explained by Jesus. He spoke of Israel's leaders as children of the devil because they have what you would call a "family resemblance". Lying, murder, that's what Satan has been doing since the beginning, and like father like son. Those who are children of God make a practice of righteous and holiness because God is righteous and holy. The seed of the woman refers to the line that leads to Jesus, the Messiah promised in Genesis 3 that would crush the serpent, who is Jesus, God incarnate. This notion of a "family resemblance" is also repeated once again for emphasis in 1 John. 1 John was written to the church of Ephesus, modern day Turkey, when there was a lot of confusion and doubt in the church after a big falling out, where many teachers embraced a sort of gnosticism and left the church. They taught many false things, like that Jesus was never a man, but a pseudo-physical phantom, because in this gnostic worldview, which drew a lot from Eastern mysticism, the material world is pure evil and the spiritual world is all good. Through this lens, and given the fact that Jesus is God, they said that God would never silly Himself by putting on a physical body. John corrected that on 1 John. He touched Jesus. He knew for a fact that Jesus came in flesh and had a physical body, and even went on to say that those who deny the person of Christ are false believers. Today, we have the opposite problem, where people accept the person of Christ, but deny the deity of Christ, but I digress. Another false teaching of this gnosticism was that the material world was irrelevant as opposed to the spiritual world, and that it's okay for the believer to practice sin, because sinning with your physical body is irrelevant. John corrects this by saying that whoever practices sin practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. John cleverly used this word lawlessness, the same word that Jesus used when he talked about people that would be judged as false believers on the day of judgment. This utterly scandalized the gnostics, damaging their credibility by associating them with people whom Jesus said He would send to hell. John said that while we won't achieve sinless perfection before heaven, and anyone who claims they have is self-deceived, there are consistent patterns of either practicing obedience or rebellion towards God, and by this, it is evident of who are the children of God, and the children of the devil. That's what this line from Genesis 3 means. Hope that helps. I'm glad my pastor has been preaching from 1 John recently for 28 weeks straight, so that I'm able to answer these types of things.
Wow, I'd never heard that bit about Enoch being identified as Son of Man / Messiah! Then, OF COURSE this is not Scripture! Why would any supposed Christian even entertain such a thing? Why, therefore, are they spending so much time in it? That's disturbing!
Kevin Rider - 'Sons of God' could be used differently in Genesis as it is used differently in the New Testament. Being used so few times we shouldn't think it has to be used in the same way when the meaning of the words together could mean sons of God being all men that came into existence from God in contrast to Eve being created from Adam or all women being daughters of men. The Nephilim being some beings in the earth in those day that the readers then would have understood as they are described men of renown or heroes mentioned that were just as corrupt as the rest of mankind so could not save mankind. Which gives a reason to mention before the flood and makes sense of how they could have lived after - hero's just as corrupt, fallen, and could not be the saviors of mankind. Later the Savior comes into the world - God Himself in Jesus. This is the interpretation that I hold to - the only one that makes sense to me.
💙 2 different bloodlines. Cain & Seth.
💙 False teaching flood was cause of man’s sin not so-called hybrids.
💙 People today have Nephilim blood since that is the Hebrew word for men that are giants. NBA has around 25 giants. A giant is over 7’. Og largest recorded giant at 12’.
💙 Not of the same kind.
💙 Daniel 4:17 has nothing to do with Genesis 6:4.
💙 Obviously in human form not bloodline or semen. Jesus is right.
💙 The sons of God were not supernatural just men. No where does the Bible say they were more than men.
💙 Let’s not add to the Bible & teach false theology.
From what I heard from Ken Johnson, it seems like Canaan, son of Ham, went north into Shem's territory to learn from something left behind how to recreate nephilim, so it was like a new line, maybe slightly different than the original. That's speculation of course but it makes sense.
💙 The Bible states clearly the flood was to destroy men.
How?
@@unkown312How?
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of *man* was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made *man* on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “I will blot out *man* whom I have created from the face of the land, *man* and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." - Genesis 6:5-8
What part of this says anything about wiping out human-angel hybrids? Man is mentioned 4 times with the animals included at the end. No angels, hybrids, no giants. Wicked man.
So many people in the comments for this and the last video want the book of Enoch to be inspired so bad 😅
Hebrews1:5 for two which of the angels did He ever say, you are my son…
The demons that were trying to prevent the perfect seed , the sons of God are expressed within the Bible. Read the Hebrew translation of psalm 82 and 89 When God divorced himself from the missions and gave parts of the nations to the sons of God team Israel as his own in deuteronomy 32:8.
💙 Next time you do a video, use wisdom not “I dunno”. I thought you knew why I wasted an 1 1/2 hours.
Just because a text is not canonical doesn’t mean it’s not useful in context. Looking at it from an evangelical perspective you’re not gonna see it more so academic perspective because the Bible is also historic. Take the hermetics out of it. Kinda doubles down on the importance of the sewing mini copies, they found of Enoch in the book of the watcher almost as much as the septuigant
I don’t think that the Nephilim or spawns of Demons, in the Bible not even the book of Enoch it was pretty clear that they were the children of the fallen angels that they made with human women so I’m not sure why people debate that it’s in the Bible and it’s clear and the word for marriage isn’t exactly marriage in the sense of a holy union and it means they forced themselves on women probably But the Bible is clear right there that they had children and the book of Enoch is fairly consistent with that and they’re different versions of what people think Demons are and it’s kind of irrelevant but the two primary incredible ideas are that they are the spirits of the fallen angels or the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who died in the flood which kind of makes more sense from the new Testament with the whole thing with the pigs and a disembodied spirit description of Demons plus God bound the fallen angels in Tartarus so I doubt he would buy them and then let their spirits run around as Demons, that seems less likely but I don’t see where there’s much of a question about what the Nephilim were or where they came from. It’s even in the Bible in Genesis.🤔
💙 The men of Sodom didn’t have sex with angels.
They tried to
This guy is uninformed. Demons did not mate with human women. Fallen angels did. Demons are the result of these unions, being the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who, upon death, go neither to heaven nor hell, but roam the earth without physical form, opressing and possessing living creatures.
💙 Nope when reading just the Bible the false teaching of angels are the sons of God cannot be perceived.
💙 Shouldn’t read Enoch. It wasn’t written by Enoch & it contradicts the word of God.
Let’s gooo
Poisoning the well😥
What well is that?
How are they poisoning the well by refuting the idea that Enoch is Scripture?
💙 Giants before & after the flood & still today.
If Enoch was inspired scripture it would be in the Bible. The fact it is not should leave no doubt in anyone's mind… anyone who has eyes n ears….
Amen, Yhwh our God preserves his Scripture. Enoch is not Scripture and I've known quite a few brothers and sisters who believe it is along with jubilees and jasher. But the Lord has made known what is Scripture and preserved it through the years.
It was in the Ethiopian original canon. It also was referenced in the canon we have now. It was also thought to be important enough to preserve and hide with the rest of the dead sea scrolls. I don't think it's canon but it sure seems to be talking a lot about Jesus coming. It was amazing to me
Enoch is in the Bible though... Kinda.. Not the whole book but...
Jude 14-15 "It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Here’s the section from the book of Enoch that is said to be quoted by Jude:
1 Enoch 1:9 "Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him."
@@DiscipleofChrist101 That was addressed in the video, just because Jude quotes it, doesn't mean it's scripture. Paul quotes pagan philosophers in the Bible. Something doesn't need to be God-breathed scripture in order to be helpful. Jude can simply quote a piece of literature his audience was familiar with to make a point. If Jude was alive and penning God-inspired scripture today, he could quote Spurgeon, Trapp, or even The Lord of the Rings in a order to make a point, and that doesn't make the writing he is quoting from scripture.
I do agree with this statement. There is an issue with the book and it’s likely concerning the perceived identification of son of man. It looks to be a scribal error.
However, it 1 Enoch provides insight into the first century narrative belief-system almost every writer of the NT built into their writings in some respect. They used it to justify their points based on perceived authority of the text. Jesus also references it in Matt 22 and called it scripture. ‘Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage.’
So as much as we do not have the manuscript evidence to support its critical review and therefore justify its inclusion, we shouldn’t minimize its narrative importance either. The writers held it in very high regard and Jesus referenced it as scripture. As to whether He just meant a respected text or canonical is up for debate.
"this is pure speculation" is another way to say "I'm wasting your time and mine"
💙 Genesis 6:4 not confusing unless you read Enoch.
Why are you talking about false tales? Why haven't yall disgust why the book of Enoch has been rejected by the Church?
Jesus was referring to Enoch as Scripture in Matt when talking about the angel not marrying in heaven. Jude reference Enoch. Enoch was part of the Bible and still is in some parts of the world
Did you watch the video? They DO say that Enoch is not Scripture.
Someone didn't watch the video
@@christoprighteous8199 so Jesus was definitely not referring to Enoch, He was directly responding to the sadducees in reference to the question of marriage in light of the resurrection.
that was in part one.