The existence Satan

[brotherjerry]

I thought this thread was about the existence of Satan??--It's about the Apocrypha??

Yeah I am partly to blame for that. Someone brought up the book of Enoch and how it teaches things like there is no Satan, there is satans, and a bunch of other stuff and we got sidetracked.

 

[mmksparbud]

Understandable---it's easy for some people to do that as they have outside the bible sources for their believes and without that book, they can not support their believes so the book has to be magnified.

 

[Papias]

You can see that most Christians accept these books as part of the Bible, and see that there are all kinds of different canons out there, by looking at the table here - just go down to, say "Tobit" or "Judith".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

That's just today. Over history there are even more changes and convolutions.

You skipped this. Do you agree that most Christians reject the 66 book Bible?
Did you look at the chart at the link? You can see from that chart that even Enoch is accepted in some Bibles, such as the Towedo Orthodox Bible.

As to allusion theory...not a theory at all. I asked for quotes. None were provided. As to OT references that people claim...... Now some of the other references that are not as clear...absolutely...no argument there.

You can see that I pointed out there were references - I didn't say quotes. So your suggestion that these aren't quotes is a strawman. Your own copies of them show that they are references, which is what I said.

If you are going to move the goalposts to "quotes", then......

typically when Christ or an Apostle is referring to the Old Testament, it is prefaced with "It is written", "The prophet said","The Lord says", or something similar which is a clear indication that what is about to come was written somewhere else as well.

OK, if something needs to be quoted with "it is written" or such to be in the Old Testament for you, then can you back up you claim by showing where each of the OT books you accept is quoted in the New Testament by first saying "it is written"? Otherwise, if you are going to be consistent, you'll have to start tossing books out of your old testament.

Everything that came after the Jews understand that "God went silent", is typically referenced for historical purposes or similar uses, but not core teachings...no new revelations...otherwise if there were new revelations, new prophecies, then God did not go silent as the Bible indicates would happen, and the Jews believe has happened.

The Jews acknowledge no further prophets for several centuries BC. So if there were no further Prophets there were no further utterances from God for the people.

There are some big problems with that. First, it sounds made up (what basis do you have for that?), secondly, as has been pointed out, it's simply false - different Jews in different areas had different canons, including adding books after any arbitrary line you are making - including the deuterocanon, and third, it means that the whole new testament has to be removed from the Bibles, and that Christianity itself is a false religion, having no valid scriptures.

As to your statement against the false teachings....really? So if a book comes out that teaches contrary to the words of Christ, or different from what John, Paul, Peter, James, etc teach you simply say "So what...this is an old book, it must be true too"
And when Isaiah says "Come here to be judged, you sinners! you are no better than sorcerers, adulterers, and prostitutes" (Isaiah 57:3) We should ignore that because Tobit gives us the Ok to drive out devils using fish entrails and hot coals?
And when Maccabees says it is OK to pray for the dead and to try and make atonement for the dead, we should ignore the many warnings from Isaiah, in Leviticus, and others?

I mean Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says it pretty clear
There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

None of those contradict what is in the deuterocanon. For instance, what's wrong with the fish entrails? Do you have a verse that says it's a sin to use fish entrails? If so, could you point it out?

Deut 18 says "inquires of the dead", which is not the same as praying for the dead. Changing what the text says doesn't show respect for the scriptures.

As pointed out several times - there never has been an established canon, and there isn't one now. The list of what some Christians accept and reject has gyrated significantly over the years and regions, and even discussing all the changes would take a book. The 66 book canon you espouse was invented by humans only around 500 years ago, and has always been a minority view among Christians. It seems to be getting less accepted, in fact, as Christians in Europe and America (where most Protestants are) leave Christianity.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[brotherjerry]

You can see that I pointed out there were references - I didn't say quotes. So your suggestion that these aren't quotes is a strawman. Your own copies of them show that they are references, which is what I said.

If you are going to move the goalposts to "quotes", then......

I have not move the goal posts at all. I was the one who started off asking for quotes. I was the one who pointed out that neither Jesus nor the Apostles are ever seen quoting the APocryphal works, but you can see them repeatedly quoting from what we have of the OT.

OK, if something needs to be quoted with "it is written" or such to be in the Old Testament for you, then can you back up you claim by showing where each of the OT books you accept is quoted in the New Testament by first saying "it is written"? Otherwise, if you are going to be consistent, you'll have to start tossing books out of your old testament.

Apparently the word "typically" does not mean anything. I never implied that every quote did, but they typically do have some reference to the Old Testament or something to point you in that direction.

Matthew 1:22 "Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the Prophet"
Matthew 2:5 "...for this is what has been written by the prophet"
Matthew 2:15 "fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the Prophet..."
Matthew 2:17 "what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled"
Matthew 3:3 "this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said"
Matthew 4:4 "It is writen"
Matthew 4:6 "It is written"
Matthew 4:7 "It is written"
Matthew 4:10 "It is written"
Matthew 4:14 "to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet"
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that the ancients were told..."
Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said..."
Matthew 5:31 "It was said..."
Matthew 5:33 "you have heard that the ancients were told..."
Matthew 5:35 - Nothing referred
Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said..."
Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said..."
Matthew 7:23 - Nothing referred
Matthew 8:17 "fulfill what was spoken thorugh Isaiah the prophet"
Matthew 9:13 - Nothing referred
Matthew 10:35-36 - Nothing referred
Matthew 11:5 - Nothing referred
Matthew 11:10 "This isthe one whom it is written"
Matthew 11:29 - Nothing referred
Matthew 12:7 - Nothing referred
Matthew 12:17 "fulfill what was spoken thorugh Isaiah the prophet"
Matthew 13:14 "the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled..."
Matthew 13:32 - Nothing Referred
Matthew 13:34 "fulfill what was spoken through the prophet"
Matthew 13:43 - Nothing referred

OK so half way through Matthew I count 30 things that my Bible emphasizes as direct quotes (it puts them in all caps). out of those 30 there is only 8 that are nothing referred for them.

Should we go on to Paul or James or anyone else to see what they say?

There are some big problems with that. First, it sounds made up (what basis do you have for that?), secondly, as has been pointed out, it's simply false - different Jews in different areas had different canons, including adding books after any arbitrary line you are making - including the deuterocanon, and third, it means that the whole new testament has to be removed from the Bibles, and that Christianity itself is a false religion, having no valid scriptures.

Jewish tradition puts Malachi as the last prophet until renewal during the messianic age. Remember Amos predicted the cessation of prophecy, and throughout the Old Testament God spoke to the people through prophets. What this means is NOT that we cannot have Judith or other works in our Bible...remember Bible is just a collection of books. But these other works are not utterances from prophets, or what would be considered Scripture (inspired and authoratative). The time after Malachi was a time for God's Word to be spread to the world in a written form. No longer was a Prophet to provide new revelations and new commandments untli the start of the Messianic age (which has yet to happen according to the Jews).

None of those contradict what is in the deuterocanon. For instance, what's wrong with the fish entrails? Do you have a verse that says it's a sin to use fish entrails? If so, could you point it out?

Do you believe that putting fish entrails on hot coals will keep evil spirits away? Is that not akin to magic? Seems the rest of the Bible says that God will protect you from the evil one...not buring fish guts.

Deut 18 says "inquires of the dead", which is not the same as praying for the dead. Changing what the text says doesn't show respect for the scriptures.

Are you deliberately ignore what is said in these verses?
Deuteronomy says "shall not be found among you anyone who practices ...a medium or a necromancer, or one who inquires of the dead"
you do know what a medium is right? That is someone who says they can talk with the dead.
A Necromancer is someone who claims to be able to raise the dead and make the dead do what they want.
God is pretty clear there...their dead...quit worrying about them and take care of yourself.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yeah I am partly to blame for that. Someone brought up the book of Enoch and how it teaches things like there is no Satan, there is satans, and a bunch of other stuff and we got sidetracked.

I also showed many Scriptures that show the Bible mentions of the satans as evil spirits in the heavenlies, with one chief.
Enoch laid the foundation which Moses went right on, from, and so did all the writings and the prophets and the NT writers.
First, Enoch told us about all the things that are not laid as foundational truths in any other writing deemed sacred, because Enoch already laid the one foundation for all these things. You will not find them in Torah or the writings or the histories, because once laid, they do not need re-laying.

And yes, Jesus was speaking all those ten things right out from the foundation book of Enoch. You will not find one of them laid out in the Torah or any of the prophets, anywhere. I think someone made a list of 128 things said in NT as truth out of Enoch and not out of Torah. Some of them are not understood without reading the foundation book, and so, many good intentioned men, in their ignorance of the foundation book, fill in the so called "blanks" with lots of untrue speculations about what is meant in the Word.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not to rewrite the foundation, but to be the Foundation Stone Whom Even Enoch wrote of, first.

 

[BobRyan]

Deut 18 says "inquires of the dead", which is not the same as praying for the dead. Changing what the text says doesn't show respect for the scriptures.

Catechesm 958 "Communion WITH the DEAD" has everything to do with praying to the dead and holding communion with them in a two-way-street interaction - you bow down to and serve them - they provide some help to you.

Ex 20 "do not bow down to them -- and do not serve them"

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The dead pray, in Sheol. Enoch showed it is so when he saw the place in Sheol/Hell, below set apart for those who were crying out to God for the avenging of their innocent blood, like Abel. He also saw the valleys there for the righteous who died in faith, or in innocence, awaiting the promised Atonement.
In Luke 16, Jesus gives us a glimpse into two of the places in Sheol that are separate chasms that cannot be crossed over, and he showed it exactly like Enoch saw and reported it.
The soul of the unrepentant rich man, whom tradition names as "dives" was in torments in the fire, and cried out for just a drop of water for his tongue to be given from the finger of Lazarus, who was in the care of Abraham, whom the "former" rich man saw, in comfort, That shows that disembodied souls are fully themselves and functional, with eyes, ears, mouths, voices, tongues fingers, arms, and so on.
Enoch saw bright springs of water for refreshment in Sheol in the compartment for the righteous and forgiven and innocent souls waiting there, and streams if fire tormenting the wicked and unbelieving souls who died in unrepentance.

The dead souls in heaven do care about their loved ones on earth, also, and they also cry out for the avenging of their blood upon the wicked, below, as we see in Revelation, when the martyred souls are seen under the altar, but not in with the raptured saints, enjoying the seven day celebration of their consecration as priests of the Firstborn Son, as the Law oracles. It will be going on for seven years after the rapture, and martyred souls in heaven, have to wait til the end of the seven to recieve their New Man garment bodies, and enter into the celebrations of the consecration of priests [called the wedding supper].

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Catechesm 958 "Communion WITH the DEAD" has everything to do with praying to the dead and holding communion with them in a two-way-street interaction - you bow down to and serve them - they provide some help to you.

Ex 20 "do not bow down to them -- and do not serve them"

The Bible is specific:
Heb 12:22, 23
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

[brotherjerry]

also showed many Scriptures that show the Bible mentions of the satans as evil spirits in the heavenlies, with one chief.

You did? What post number was that because I must have missed it....you posted some from Enoch...but that is not Scripture..at least not in the context that most here would undestand it to be.

Here is something I find hilarious:
First you say this :

You will not find them in Torah or the writings or the histories, because once laid, they do not need re-laying.

Then you say:

And yes, Jesus was speaking all those ten things right out from the foundation book of Enoch. You will not find one of them laid out in the Torah or any of the prophets, anywhere. I think someone made a list of 128 things said in NT as truth out of Enoch and not out of Torah.

So what you are saying is that Enoch did not have to be repeated until Christ had to repeat it. You can't find it in the Torah...but by golly you can find it in Enoch?

Really?! I have repeatedly shown you that Christ never...let me repeat NEVER quoted...let me say this again because some people have confused it...QUOTED...Enoch. But Christ and the Apostles repeatedly quoted the rest of the Old Testament.
But you somehow want us to believe that Enoch, who was never said to have come back to earth, brought a book to man that predates all the Prophets, that is filled with prophecies about the coming of the Messiah....and not one of the Prophets mentions it, and not once does Christ mention it, nor the Apostles ever mention it....Christ repeats many prophecies about Himself from Isaiah....you would think if Enoch was really all that...the Christ would have quoted Enoch at least once in His ministry.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not to rewrite the foundation, but to be the Foundation Stone Whom Even Enoch wrote of, first.

Apparently that is not true...you said yourself that Enoch was not rewritten in the Old Testament but Christ specifically did it over 100 times as mentioned by somone else. So Christ had to rewrite the foundation of Enoch as mentioned 128 times....funny that is more than Isaiah was quoted directly by Christ....but out of the 128 supposed references not one of them is a direct quote of Enoch...why is that?

 

[BobRyan]

The dead pray, in Sheol. Enoch showed it is so when he saw the place in Sheol/Hell, below set apart for those who were crying out to God for the avenging of their innocent blood, like Abel. He also saw the valleys there for the righteous who died in faith, or in innocence, awaiting the promised Atonement.
In Luke 16, Jesus gives us a glimpse into two of the places in Sheol that are separate chasms that cannot be crossed over, and he showed it exactly like Enoch saw and reported it.
The soul of the unrepentant rich man, whom tradition names as "dives" was in torments in the fire, and cried out for just a drop of water for his tongue to be given from the finger of Lazarus, who was in the care of Abraham, whom the "former" rich man saw, in comfort, That shows that disembodied souls are fully themselves and functional, with eyes, ears, mouths, voices, tongues fingers, arms, and so on.
Enoch saw bright springs of water for refreshment in Sheol in the compartment for the righteous and forgiven and innocent souls waiting there, and streams if fire tormenting the wicked and unbelieving souls who died in unrepentance.

The dead souls in heaven do care about their loved ones on earth, also, and they also cry out for the avenging of their blood upon the wicked, below, as we see in Revelation, when the martyred souls are seen under the altar, but not in with the raptured saints, enjoying the seven day celebration of their consecration as priests of the Firstborn Son, as the Law oracles. It will be going on for seven years after the rapture, and martyred souls in heaven, have to wait til the end of the seven to recieve their New Man garment bodies, and enter into the celebrations of the consecration of priests [called the wedding supper].

Total nonsense.

In Matt 22 Jesus PROVES the resurrection of the dead - based on the fact that "God is not the God of the dead".

It is precisely because of that - that Isiah 8:19 says NOT to seek out the dead - to get help for the living.

In Gen 2 God told Adam and Eve not to go to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. And in Isaiah 8 the saints are warned NOT to go to the dead for help.

This is irrefutable.

So then what happens when this is totally ignored?

Answer: It did not work out so well for Eve.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Hello. I am here because there is big question in my mind that's been bugging me to get answers and it's on the topic of Satan. Does he really exists, is he a metaphor, or just an invention of the Catholic Church?

Now, here is where i draw my questioning.

Satan is believed to be a former high angel, who fell from heaven because he either hated Man, rebelled against God or both. Now, this world is a suffering world.. we die, there is pain, there is evil, the world is just damaged because sin entered it through Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve fell into the temptation of the Serpent, so the serpent is accepted to be Satan which means his fall pre dates the Garden of Eden.

So here is the problem, if this world became what it is because of Adam and Eve sinning, then why didn't heaven get the same results if the actual first sin was done in heaven - through Satan?

The whole existence of Satan just contradicts ALLOT about what we know about God -the just God, how Heaven is the perfect place. I will get into the contradictions later on after this question has been tackled.

If you look at the earlier written scriptures such as Job, you will see that Satan, or in the Hebrew "Ha-Satan" which would literally mean "the accuser", as the word "satan" actually was a verb, so the original translation "The Accuser" was more of a title than a name. The Accuser was seen as more of "God's district attorney" and the adversary of man, instead of the adversary of God, which you can see when you read Job. Even today in Judaism, there is no concept of "the devil" or the demonic, and Satan is simply one who tempts, accuses, and then condemns people of their sin. He works with God, instead of opposing God, and never fell or rebelled against God.

There was some change, but influenced more during the Second Temple Period, during which Christ lived, from the Babylonian Exile. During the exile, Judaism was influenced by, specifically Persian early Zoroastrianism Dualism. Satan as a deceiver and one in charge of evil, darkness, etc. came from the Zoroastrian spirit, Angr Mainyu. In the Septuagint, The Accuser's name is translated in some places to diabolos (which means slanderer or accuser), and from that word we get diablo and devil.

"Lucifer" comes from Isaiah 14:12 "Morning Star" (Lucifer is the Latin name for "Morning Star", which actually is the planet Venus), which mentions the Morning Star falling from Heaven. This story has been linked to Revelation 12, and later Luke 10:18, and the entire passage became an allegory for Satan falling from Heaven. However, the original understanding of the passage was about the fall of the Babylonian King and Empire, which both Calvin and Luther stated was the correct interpretation of the passage.

 

[JackRT]

Adam and Eve would not have died if they didn't eat the "apple". There was no human death prior to the fall.

On the other hand:

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Yeah I am partly to blame for that. Someone brought up the book of Enoch and how it teaches things like there is no Satan, there is satans, and a bunch of other stuff and we got sidetracked.

No, there is one chief Satan and he has a host of evil angels in the heavens who are under himself.
If you say God did this or that, God uses His holy angels to do this or that, and He sets his angels up in heaven in order of chiefs over certain numbers. They are His armies of heaven, and Michael, for instance, is over them, but Michael is not the Creator, and is holy.

There is a chief evil angel, a prince of darkness, who has an army of evil angels under himself. They all answer to the Creator and can do nothing unless they have got the legal authority to do it, over mankind, from God the Creator.

The NT says even satan can transform himself into an angel of light, in other words; he can shapeshift.
He can do nothing unless he has the authority to do it, and he does serve God.

The angel of destruction in Egypt was an evil angel, not a holy angel, and served God.
The evil spirit in heaven who got permission to be a lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets to the king of Israel in the book of Kings and Chronicles was one of the hosts of the chief Satan.
The evil angel called Abaddon/Apolllyon/Death, in Scripture, who is in charge of Sheol below earth is there because he has legal authority in this present fallen creation to do what he does there.
the corruption of the flesh is the evil angel's legal authotity over the flesh of the Adam creation and all the creatures since the fall, of the first prince and ruler of this earth, the former son of God, Adam, who was given dominion over all that lives on earth and flys in the air or is in the sea; but over the flesh of them all, since Genesis 3:15, the Evil spirit has legal dominion to "corrupt" which is, the "eating of flesh".
All the sickness in the world that comes from corruption of the flesh has it's root in Genesis 3:15.
Not only did the Adam die in spirit as a son of of God made in the very image of God [Romans 5:14 also says so], but his flesh was given over to corruption, and that corruption is what the Adam flesh is born into in it's death of spirit.
Dead flesh Adam bodies and dead Adam spirits is the condition of our race since the fall. which was the casting down, that our first father became subject to, and all the creatures under his dominion also suffered the corruption of their flesh.

Jesus came to ransom the entire race of Adam back by His once for all Atonement, and to redeem the entire creation and unite it back to the Father of Glory, so that every creature in heaven and in earth and under the earth will unite in voice to praise the King of Kings and Lord of Lords for their redemption. -Now that is in Revelation.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

If you look at the earlier written scriptures such as Job, you will see that Satan, or in the Hebrew "Ha-Satan" which would literally mean "the accuser", as the word "satan" actually was a verb, so the original translation "The Accuser" was more of a title than a name. The Accuser was seen as more of "God's district attorney" and the adversary of man, instead of the adversary of God, which you can see when you read Job...



"Lucifer" comes from Isaiah 14:12 "Morning Star" (Lucifer is the Latin name for "Morning Star", which actually is the planet Venus), which mentions the Morning Star falling from Heaven. This story has been linked to Revelation 12, and later Luke 10:18, and the entire passage became an allegory for Satan falling from Heaven. However, the original understanding of the passage was about the fall of the Babylonian King and Empire, which both Calvin and Luther stated was the correct interpretation of the passage.

Yes, word translated in Latin that we get "lucifer" from is not a proper noun, not a name. That came about from KJV.

And yes, the host of the accuser is cast down and no more comes before the thorne, in Revelation, but woe to those on earth, for he has a short time on earth ...the tribulation years, before he is shut in Sheol below for the thousand years....then he gets out again for a "short time" to do what he has always done, to tempt, test, and try the sons of the "Blesse of YHWH" who entered the Millennial Kingdom to marry and bear children for the Sabbath reign of earth....

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Total nonsense.

In Matt 22 Jesus PROVES the resurrection of the dead - based on the fact that "God is not the God of the dead".

It is precisely because of that - that Isiah 8:19 says NOT to seek out the dead - to get help for the living.

In Gen 2 God told Adam and Eve not to go to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. And in Isaiah 8 the saints are warned NOT to go to the dead for help.

This is irrefutable.

So then what happens when this is totally ignored?

Answer: It did not work out so well for Eve.

You are not using Scripture to prove Scripture, but using your own private reasonings to "prove" your own private understandings.
The souls in Sheol are not having anything to do with the world above. They wait for the times appointed for their resurrection from the dead, to be judged in their bodies and cast into the Lake of Fire in the same bodies they lived in before they departed them, and went to wait in Sheol.

The righteous had a separate place there than the wicked unrepentant. There was no crossing over, as Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam wrote, and as JESUS corroborated in Luke 16.

Lazarus, the former beggar, in Luke 16, is in comfort with available water and in a separated place from the rich man.
Lazarus is comforted by father Abraham, and told him all about his life The departed souls talk to one another in Sheol below, and now, in heaven above. When the rich man showed up in the compartment separated from the one of comfort, Lazarus and the rich man knew each other, as they also knew Abraham.
The rich man prayed for his 5 brothers to be warned and it is my own personl opinion that as Jesus told his audience that day about the rich man in Hell, as a warning to those who heard, that Jesus was answering the rich mans prayer, Himself, and that the rich man's five brothers were in audience that day -at least some were, who could go tell the others....My opinion and I am stuck with it, cause my Jesus is kind and not willing that any perish.


After Jeus emptied that prison for the righteous dead in Sheol below, when He led Captivity Captive and ascended on high, not one righteous ransomed soul is held there at the death of the body of them, but goes immediately to Paradise above, which is in the third heaven, as Paul said, to await the resurrection of their own regenerated transformed body.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You did? What post number was that because I must have missed it....you posted some from Enoch...but that is not Scripture..at least not in the context that most here would undestand it to be.

Here is something I find hilarious:
First you say this :

Then you say:

So what you are saying is that Enoch did not have to be repeated until Christ had to repeat it. You can't find it in the Torah...but by golly you can find it in Enoch?

Really?! I have repeatedly shown you that Christ never...let me repeat NEVER quoted...let me say this again because some people have confused it...QUOTED...Enoch. But Christ and the Apostles repeatedly quoted the rest of the Old Testament.
But you somehow want us to believe that Enoch, who was never said to have come back to earth, brought a book to man that predates all the Prophets, that is filled with prophecies about the coming of the Messiah....and not one of the Prophets mentions it, and not once does Christ mention it, nor the Apostles ever mention it....Christ repeats many prophecies about Himself from Isaiah....you would think if Enoch was really all that...the Christ would have quoted Enoch at least once in His ministry.


Apparently that is not true...you said yourself that Enoch was not rewritten in the Old Testament but Christ specifically did it over 100 times as mentioned by somone else. So Christ had to rewrite the foundation of Enoch as mentioned 128 times....funny that is more than Isaiah was quoted directly by Christ....but out of the 128 supposed references not one of them is a direct quote of Enoch...why is that?

You set up strawmen to knock down.
Jesus never did use the exact same letter order when He quoted from Moses or the prophets or the histories, as the original, because the language structure changes tongue to tongue [look at the concordance and see. Greek is not even translated to English "leter to letter, or word order to word order, and yes, Jesus quoted from Enoch when He went about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God....I gave you only ten, you denied, but anyone can search and see.

Your strawman of a need for rewritting falls by your own account of Jesus using Torah, because He was not rewriting Torah or the prophets when He came to fulfil them, and quoted from them, just as He is come fulfilling what Enoch wrote and what Enoch wrote that He will fulfill in His Revelation to all men, at His second coming to judge the world, which Jude, Jesus' womb brother wrote, when he quoted "Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam": He is coming to judge the world...

 

[SnowyMacie]

Yes, word translated in Latin that we get "lucifer" from is not a proper noun, not a name. That came about from KJV.

And yes, the host of the accuser is cast down and no more comes before the thorne, in Revelation, but woe to those on earth, for he has a short time on earth ...the tribulation years, before he is shut in Sheol below for the thousand years....then he gets out again for a "short time" to do what he has always done, to tempt, test, and try the sons of the "Blesse of YHWH" who entered the Millennial Kingdom to marry and bear children for the Sabbath reign of earth....

Personally, I tend to hold more of a Judaic understanding of Satan.

 

[brotherjerry]

You set up strawmen to knock down.
Jesus never did use the exact same letter order when He quoted from Moses or the prophets or the histories, as the original, because the language structure changes tongue to tongue [look at the concordance and see. Greek is not even translated to English "leter to letter, or word order to word order, and yes, Jesus quoted from Enoch when He went about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God....I gave you only ten, you denied, but anyone can search and see.

Your strawman of a need for rewritting falls by your own account of Jesus using Torah, because He was not rewriting Torah or the prophets when He came to fulfil them, and quoted from them, just as He is come fulfilling what Enoch wrote and what Enoch wrote that He will fulfill in His Revelation to all men, at His second coming to judge the world, which Jude, Jesus' womb brother wrote, when he quoted "Enoch the prophet, the seventh from Adam": He is coming to judge the world...

You set up strawmen to knock down.

You are soooooo funny.
The common language of the time where Jesus was born and that was spoken throughout the land was Greek. The Septuagint being the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible at the time had been around for about 300 years. The Greek speaking Jews had an Old Testament in Greek that was spoke and taught from. So when Christ, Paul, Peter, or anyone else quotes the Old Testament in Greek, it could be verified against the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. As a matter of fact we can do similar today by comparing extants of books found in Hebrew and compare what they say in Hebrew to translate to what we know of Greek and see if they match up to what we expect...I have already gone down the road with you of showing how meticulus the transmission of the Bible has been. This has proven true for translation from Hebrew to the other early languages as well.
So it is no strawman. Christ quoted the ancients and it was clearly so, Christ did not quote Enoch and it too is clearly so.

I gave you only ten, you denied, but anyone can search and see.

I did not deny, I proved you were wrong. There is a difference. When someone asks for a quote, you provide them a quote. You did not. I posted the verses you said were quotations for everyone to read and see that they were not quotes, they were not even paraphrases. And most were not even allusions.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah I am partly to blame for that. Someone brought up the book of Enoch and how it teaches things like there is no Satan, there is satans, and a bunch of other stuff and we got sidetracked.

Better to stick with the actual Bible -

 

[BobRyan]

The dead pray, in Sheol. Enoch showed it is so when he saw the place in Sheol/Hell, below set apart for those who were crying out to God for the avenging of their innocent blood, like Abel. He also saw the valleys there for the righteous who died in faith, or in innocence, awaiting the promised Atonement.
In Luke 16, Jesus gives us a glimpse into two of the places in Sheol that are separate chasms that cannot be crossed over, and he showed it exactly like Enoch saw and reported it.
The soul of the unrepentant rich man, whom tradition names as "dives" was in torments in the fire, and cried out for just a drop of water for his tongue to be given from the finger of Lazarus, who was in the care of Abraham, whom the "former" rich man saw, in comfort, That shows that disembodied souls are fully themselves and functional, with eyes, ears, mouths, voices, tongues fingers, arms, and so on.
Enoch saw bright springs of water for refreshment in Sheol in the compartment for the righteous and forgiven and innocent souls waiting there, and streams if fire tormenting the wicked and unbelieving souls who died in unrepentance.

The dead souls in heaven do care about their loved ones on earth, also, and they also cry out for the avenging of their blood upon the wicked, below, as we see in Revelation, when the martyred souls are seen under the altar, but not in with the raptured saints, enjoying the seven day celebration of their consecration as priests of the Firstborn Son, as the Law oracles. It will be going on for seven years after the rapture, and martyred souls in heaven, have to wait til the end of the seven to recieve their New Man garment bodies, and enter into the celebrations of the consecration of priests [called the wedding supper].

Total nonsense.

In Matt 22 Jesus PROVES the resurrection of the dead - based on the fact that "God is not the God of the dead".

It is precisely because of that - that Isiah 8:19 says NOT to seek out the dead - to get help for the living.

In Gen 2 God told Adam and Eve not to go to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. And in Isaiah 8 the saints are warned NOT to go to the dead for help.

This is irrefutable.

So then what happens when this is totally ignored?

Answer: It did not work out so well for Eve.

You are not using Scripture to prove Scripture

In fact I am using scripture to prove doctrine. And Christ affirms this point on what the dead are doing - and notice the argument he uses for proving "the future resurrection to Sadducees" sooooo convincingly that even the Pharisees admit that Christ "put them to silence".

He shows that because "God is not the God of the dead" -- and of course they cannot stop themselves from fully agreeing with this statement by Christ - that there has to be a future resurrection if the Bible is true.

Irrefutable.

The souls in Sheol are not having anything to do with the world above. They wait for the times appointed for their resurrection from the dead,

Christ said "God is not the God of the dead" in Matt 22.

Do you deny that this is what He said?
Do you reject the teaching of Christ?

After Jeus emptied that prison for the righteous dead in Sheol below

As always your "quote of you" is impressive.

Sheol and Hades "give up the dead that are in them" in Rev 20 -- after the 1000 years - at the Great White Throne Judgment