Was Jesus considering the book of Enoch scripture?

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
In Matthew 22 when Jesus was addressing the Sadducees' question about a woman married down the line of 7 brothers and who's wife would she be after the resurrection (which they didn't believe in, it was an attempted trick question), he answers:
Matthew 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Now, I can't remember anywhere in the canon old testament where this situation came up where the Sadducees would know of it, and the Sadducees only considered the Torah scripture, so that's one interpretation that they refused to acknowledge the scriptures of the prophets and Tanakh. So they didn't know the scriptures, but the way Jesus answered it, it seemed like marriage not existing in the afterlife or resurrection was something addressed in scripture before. But I couldn't find it... until I started reading Enoch.
In Enoch chapter 15 Enoch has gone to God's throne to make intercession for the angels who had gone down to earth and taken human wives and had children with them. They wanted to repent when God was going to bind them up in the pit and then destroy the world with the flood (interestingly enough they're bound for 70 generations, and so that'd kind of tie into Revelation chapter 9 when they're set free in the 5th trumpet judgement). God answers and says that they weren't supposed to take wives, that the reason why God gave humans wives was because they die, and since Angels don't die, they don't get wives.
Which seems to be the answer that Jesus was giving the Sadducees.
If Jesus was considering Enoch to be scripture, why doesn't the church? The things in it about the Angels having half breeds giant offspring with human wives is in Genesis 6.

Is there other scripture that is in canon where Jesus would have gotten this answer from that He expected the Sadducees and Pharisees to know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danbuter

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In Matthew 22 when Jesus was addressing the Sadducees' question about a woman married down the line of 7 brothers and who's wife would she be after the resurrection (which they didn't believe in, it was an attempted trick question), he answers:
Matthew 22:29-30


Now, I can't remember anywhere in the canon old testament where this situation came up where the Sadducees would know of it, and the Sadducees only considered the Torah scripture, so that's one interpretation that they refused to acknowledge the scriptures of the prophets and Tanakh. So they didn't know the scriptures, but the way Jesus answered it, it seemed like marriage not existing in the afterlife or resurrection was something addressed in scripture before. But I couldn't find it... until I started reading Enoch.
In Enoch chapter 15 Enoch has gone to God's throne to make intercession for the angels who had gone down to earth and taken human wives and had children with them. They wanted to repent when God was going to bind them up in the pit and then destroy the world with the flood (interestingly enough they're bound for 70 generations, and so that'd kind of tie into Revelation chapter 9 when they're set free in the 5th trumpet judgement). God answers and says that they weren't supposed to take wives, that the reason why God gave humans wives was because they die, and since Angels don't die, they don't get wives.
Which seems to be the answer that Jesus was giving the Sadducees.
If Jesus was considering Enoch to be scripture, why doesn't the church? The things in it about the Angels having half breeds giant offspring with human wives is in Genesis 6.

Is there other scripture that is in canon where Jesus would have gotten this answer from that He expected the Sadducees and Pharisees to know?
The saducees did not properly interpret the scripture, that's how they didn't "know" it.

The book of Enoch was written after 300BC, so it wasn't written by Enoch "the seventh from Adam." In fact, Jude might have used that phrase in order to distinguish a difference between the oral tradition he was quoting and that fictional written collection. The fact that both external and internal evidence points to it written post exilic, it's called psuedoepigrapha (false writing), since the writer claims to be someone he's not.

Finally, Jesus said that angels "do not marry." Period. Now, if they don't marry, then it is against their nature to do so. And if marrying is against their nature, then God did not create them with the ability to reproduce. So then, angels did not marry women, as they do not currently. As there are many other problematic issues with the idea of angels marrying women, that story should be limited to the realm of Hollywood.

IMO when Jesus is properly interpreted, what He said is contrary to the Book of Enoch story.
TD:)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
They did know a scripture > Deuteronomy 25:5 > I think Jesus meant they did not know the scriptures the right way.

Nothing in that scripture suggests marriage doesn't exist in the resurrection or eternal state. In fact, Eve was given to Adam before the fall, before Adam could die, so before Jesus brought that up, by our own canon scripture, we'd have no way of even suggesting that.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The saducees did not properly interpret the scripture, that's how they didn't "know" it.

The book of Enoch was written after 300BC, so it wasn't written by Enoch "the seventh from Adam." In fact, Jude might have used that phrase in order to distinguish a difference between the oral tradition he was quoting and that fictional written collection. The fact that both external and internal evidence points to it written post exilic, it's called psuedoepigrapha (false writing), since the writer claims to be someone he's not.

Finally, Jesus said that angels "do not marry." Period. Now, if they don't marry, then it is against their nature to do so. And if marrying is against their nature, then God did not create them with the ability to reproduce. So then, angels did not marry women, as they do not currently. As there are many other problematic issues with the idea of angels marrying women, that story should be limited to the realm of Hollywood.

IMO when Jesus is properly interpreted, what He said is contrary to the Book of Enoch story.
TD:)

It depends on what you consider "sons of God"
Genesis 6:1-4
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The book of Job refers to angels as "the Sons of God" in a few places Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and in chapter 38 when God was talking about the creation of the world and how all the "Sons of God" were shouting with joy when the cornerstone was laid (which I interpret to be Jesus)

But again, what scripture was Jesus referring to if there's a canon scripture that they'd know that there is no marriage in the resurrection Nothing even hints at that. The resurrection itself is only hinted at in the old testament in a few places, as it was, Jesus being able to find evidence of it in the Torah was quite a feat and most people wouldn't have even thought that that was a reference that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive. If anyone brings up a question about marriage in heaven, nobody brings up anything from the old testament as an answer, everyone brings up this part of the synoptic gospels. In canon it's the first we hear about such a thing, but Jesus treated it as if they knew the scripture they'd already know they were in error suggesting that the woman would be someone's wife. A ton of stuff that we get our doctrine from even though it is most clearly seen in the new testament, we can find in the old testament. We can see from reading the old testament that the Jewish expectations for the Messiah are wrong, because Daniel says He will be cut off, and Isaiah says He'll be pierced for our transgressions. The people who wrote some of the "commentary" scrolls in the dead sea scrolls anticipated that the Messiah would have 2 comings because of this, and they had only the old testament to work with. Even the rapture can be found in Isaiah 26:19-21.
Yet this topic is new testament only, and Jesus treated it as someone knew scripture, they'd have known about this before He admonished them for not knowing.
so I say where? The book of Enoch contains the first possible mention that I've seen, and that's not considered scripture.
So what was Jesus referring to then, that the Sadducees should know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danbuter
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It depends on what you consider "sons of God"
Genesis 6:1-4


The book of Job refers to angels as "the Sons of God" in a few places Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and in chapter 38 when God was talking about the creation of the world and how all the "Sons of God" were shouting with joy when the cornerstone was laid (which I interpret to be Jesus)

But again, what scripture was Jesus referring to if there's a canon scripture that they'd know that there is no marriage in the resurrection Nothing even hints at that. The resurrection itself is only hinted at in the old testament in a few places, as it was, Jesus being able to find evidence of it in the Torah was quite a feat and most people wouldn't have even thought that that was a reference that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive. If anyone brings up a question about marriage in heaven, nobody brings up anything from the old testament as an answer, everyone brings up this part of the synoptic gospels. In canon it's the first we hear about such a thing, but Jesus treated it as if they knew the scripture they'd already know they were in error suggesting that the woman would be someone's wife. A ton of stuff that we get our doctrine from even though it is most clearly seen in the new testament, we can find in the old testament. We can see from reading the old testament that the Jewish expectations for the Messiah are wrong, because Daniel says He will be cut off, and Isaiah says He'll be pierced for our transgressions. The people who wrote some of the "commentary" scrolls in the dead sea scrolls anticipated that the Messiah would have 2 comings because of this, and they had only the old testament to work with. Even the rapture can be found in Isaiah 26:19-21.
Yet this topic is new testament only, and Jesus treated it as someone knew scripture, they'd have known about this before He admonished them for not knowing.
so I say where? The book of Enoch contains the first possible mention that I've seen, and that's not considered scripture.
So what was Jesus referring to then, that the Sadducees should know?

Job 1:6 & 2:1 requires a bias to interpret "sons of God" as angels, since this is simply not in the text. The sons of God in the OT were people who believed in the only true God and His messiah, since they are also called saints. So when the sons of God present themselves to God, it is a church assembly of public worship. "Satan" also comes in to accuse the brethren. No mystery here for anyone familiar with the scriptures.

The statement "all the sons of God shouted with joy" in Job 38 is also a vague passage, since it doesn't say they are angels, and it doesn't say "at the time of creation" - so these would be assumptions imposed on the text. Since that passage is poetry, it can't be assumed to be historical narrative, especially since that chapter is heavy with symbolic language. The point is that one single obscure statement cannot be used to formulate doctrine.

Jesus brought new revelation, since He was from heaven. The NT also explains the OT (and vice versa) in many ways. When there is a controversial statement that is vague in the OT, but is clear in the NT as to what it means, then it would be problematic to speculate about what the OT statement means.

So Jesus was not expecting the saducees to know. He simply said "you do not know..." Apparently others like the pharisees had worked out some of the logic concerning the resurrection. But Jesus knew that angels don't marry because He was from heaven, not because there was some verse of OT scripture saying so. Some writings may have been lost, but that's just speculation.
TD:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sawdust

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2004
3,576
599
67
Darwin
✟198,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I could be wrong here but my interpretation is when Jesus said "you do not know the scriptures or the power of God", He was making a general statement in regards to the Sadducees theology and not necessarily specifically referring to angels, marriage and resurrection. He then may well have gone on to explain in more detail the state of heaven by His own authority as given to Him by the Father.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Job 1:6 & 2:1 requires a bias to interpret "sons of God" as angels, since this is simply not in the text. The sons of God in the OT were people who believed in the only true God and His messiah, since they are also called saints. So when the sons of God present themselves to God, it is a church assembly of public worship. "Satan" also comes in to accuse the brethren. No mystery here for anyone familiar with the scriptures.

The statement "all the sons of God shouted with joy" in Job 38 is also a vague passage, since it doesn't say they are angels, and it doesn't say "at the time of creation" - so these would be assumptions imposed on the text. Since that passage is poetry, it can't be assumed to be historical narrative, especially since that chapter is heavy with symbolic language. The point is that one single obscure statement cannot be used to formulate doctrine.

Jesus brought new revelation, since He was from heaven. The NT also explains the OT (and vice versa) in many ways. When there is a controversial statement that is vague in the OT, but is clear in the NT as to what it means, then it would be problematic to speculate about what the OT statement means.

So Jesus was not expecting the saducees to know. He simply said "you do not know..." Apparently others like the pharisees had worked out some of the logic concerning the resurrection. But Jesus knew that angels don't marry because He was from heaven, not because there was some verse of OT scripture saying so. Some writings may have been lost, but that's just speculation.
TD:)

Jude may also reference this though, that fallen angels committed sins like those of sodom and gomorrha, sexual immorality.

How would you consider humans to be the "sons of God" in Job presenting themselves to the throne alongside Satan, in an account that some people think refers to pre flood times? How would humans be shouting for joy at the creation of the world?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Jude may also reference this though, that fallen angels committed sins like those of sodom and gomorrha, sexual immorality.

How would you consider humans to be the "sons of God" in Job presenting themselves to the throne alongside Satan, in an account that some people think refers to pre flood times? How would humans be shouting for joy at the creation of the world?

Every believer worshipping God in church is presenting himself before the throne of God. Satan also (by means of evil spirits) goes into the church and accuses believers. Have you never experienced this yourself? The account in Job 1 and 2 fits well in the NT paradigm. It was not any different since the beginning. To imagine otherwise is pure speculation, and unfortunately that fictional Book of Enoch has caused much controversy on the subject.

Like I said earlier, Job is poetry, which cannot be assumed to be historical narrative, and therefore strict chronology is not to be demanded of that text. So if we assume that they are humans here (as opposed to assuming they are angels), then the sons of God shouted for joy after the creation. To claim that it happened before man was created is presumptuous and an imposition on the text.

Since the NT which is the last revelation cites sons of God as humans, then it explains that sons of God were humans in the OT. In Hebrews it says "to which of the angels did God ever say 'you are My son...'" Although it is speaking of Christ here, it implies that angels were never called sons of God, especially since it also says that they are spirits for serving humans.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Every believer worshipping God in church is presenting himself before the throne of God. Satan also (by means of evil spirits) goes into the church and accuses believers. Have you never experienced this yourself? The account in Job 1 and 2 fits well in the NT paradigm. It was not any different since the beginning. To imagine otherwise is pure speculation, and unfortunately that fictional Book of Enoch has caused much controversy on the subject.

Like I said earlier, Job is poetry, which cannot be assumed to be historical narrative, and therefore strict chronology is not to be demanded of that text. So if we assume that they are humans here (as opposed to assuming they are angels), then the sons of God shouted for joy after the creation. To claim that it happened before man was created is presumptuous and an imposition on the text.

Since the NT which is the last revelation cites sons of God as humans, then it explains that sons of God were humans in the OT. In Hebrews it says "to which of the angels did God ever say 'you are My son...'" Although it is speaking of Christ here, it implies that angels were never called sons of God, especially since it also says that they are spirits for serving humans.
TD:)

By that interpretation, why is it evil for the "sons of God" to take wives of the "daughters of men". An Angel-Human union is very obviously unnatural and wicked, and would be punished by God very severely, as Angels are not created in the image of God, and the offspring of an Angel and Human would also not be in the image of God, it would be a blasphemy. In fact one way of looking at it would be that it was Satan's attempt to prevent the birth of the Son of God by warping people's DNA so that the "seed of the woman" would no longer be in the image of God.
Genesis 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
One way of looking at it anyway.
But I can't see why men wouldn't be allowed to take wives of women and how that'd be an evil thing that spawned giants. Genesis 6 already had that men were multiplying, that is men and women were getting married and having children.. why distinguish this "sons of God" as taking wives of the "daughters of men" if it's all human?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
By that interpretation, why is it evil for the "sons of God" to take wives of the "daughters of men". An Angel-Human union is very obviously unnatural and wicked, and would be punished by God very severely, as Angels are not created in the image of God, and the offspring of an Angel and Human would also not be in the image of God, it would be a blasphemy. In fact one way of looking at it would be that it was Satan's attempt to prevent the birth of the Son of God by warping people's DNA so that the "seed of the woman" would no longer be in the image of God.
Genesis 6:9

One way of looking at it anyway.
But I can't see why men wouldn't be allowed to take wives of women and how that'd be an evil thing that spawned giants. Genesis 6 already had that men were multiplying, that is men and women were getting married and having children.. why distinguish this "sons of God" as taking wives of the "daughters of men" if it's all human?
If read carefully, the giants already existed at that happening, since it says they "were there, and also afterward..." so the giants were not the offspring of that union.

It wasn't a sin for the sons of God to marry the daughters of men, and that's not what the punishment was about. It was about the subsequent generations when the bad influences of unbelievers got the children to think "only of evil continually." Keep in mind that it was hundreds of years later when God sent the flood.

Therefore it's not about DNA or human/angel hybrids at all, but rather about influences of the wicked on the children of righteous men, which is the same kind of thing that happened numerous times with the children of Israel. The Bible explains itself if we read it carefully enough, and no need for wild speculations.

Incidentally, God loved His sons (the righteous generations from Seth to Noah) so much that He held back the deluge until the last two besides Noah died. Lamech died 1 year before the flood and Methuslah the year of the flood.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
If read carefully, the giants already existed at that happening, since it says they "were there, and also afterward..." so the giants were not the offspring of that union.

It wasn't a sin for the sons of God to marry the daughters of men, and that's not what the punishment was about. It was about the subsequent generations when the bad influences of unbelievers got the children to think "only of evil continually." Keep in mind that it was hundreds of years later when God sent the flood.

Therefore it's not about DNA or human/angel hybrids at all, but rather about influences of the wicked on the children of righteous men, which is the same kind of thing that happened numerous times with the children of Israel. The Bible explains itself if we read it carefully enough, and no need for wild speculations.

Incidentally, God loved His sons (the righteous generations from Seth to Noah) so much that He held back the deluge until the last two besides Noah died. Lamech died 1 year before the flood and Methuslah the year of the flood.
TD:)
It makes no sense to mention the sons of God/daughters of men unions though when it had already said humans were multiplying on the earth. It's useless redundancy. "When humans multiplied on the earth, then the humans saw the humans and took for them wives among them and they bear children"
That's a "duh" statement of the bible if there ever was one. It makes the "perfect in his generations" also make no sense.
It makes Jude's verse about the angels committing the sins of sodom and gomorrha make no sense.
and it's also VERY conspicuous that the answer Jesus gave the Sadducees is VERY much like the explanation of why Angels don't marry from the book of Enoch. The actual book of Enoch may have been plagiarized from oral tradition, and it may not be 100% accurate which would mean it's not Inspired, I could see that, but the gist of the account lines up with Genesis 6, Jude cites that narrative maybe not directly from the plagiarized book but perhaps the oral tradition that the book was written from, and Jesus refers also to the narrative. Whether the book, or oral tradition I can't say. It IS considered scripture in some churches, like the Eithopian Orthodox Church, so I don't think it lacks value entirely. It should be compared with canon scripture, and where it agrees or parallels, I think that it may be truth. Jesus gave that answer to the Sadducees, and Enoch becomes a second witness to that answer,
It also has LOADS of references to pre incarnate Christ, and unlike many old testament scriptures, it is not vague about how the messiah forgives sins.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,329.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He then may well have gone on to explain in more detail the state of heaven by His own authority as given to Him by the Father.
And even if Enoch had some semblance of what Jesus says, you do not know if the writer got something from another writing, or guessing, or hearsay, or by God having the person realize that thing. Enoch could have certain items which are correct, but what matters is if the whole book is correct.

Counterfeits can have parts which exactly resemble what is real.

The word "compassion" is used by ones who Christians plainly consider to be false.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
And even if Enoch had some semblance of what Jesus says, you do not know if the writer got something from another writing, or guessing, or hearsay, or by God having the person realize that thing. Enoch could have certain items which are correct, but what matters is if the whole book is correct.

Counterfeits can have parts which exactly resemble what is real.

The word "compassion" is used by ones who Christians plainly consider to be false.

Yeah, that's what I think may be at the heart. The book itself is not written by Enoch himself, but it is likely that Enoch did have an Inspired testimony that is true. If the book of Enoch contains partial truth of that testimony, but with error, it cannot be scripture, but it may still tell us something of that testimony, and the parts that agree with scripture of what would be later figures of the bible that talk about the Messiah... would indicate that Enoch was a prophet.. a prophet of messianic, and day of the Lord events.
Maybe we'll hear his real testimony not too far from now in the future, because I believe he is a very strong candidate of being one of the 2 witnesses, along with Elijah. If his testimony was indeed prophetic in nature, it'd make him an even stronger possibility than Moses, because Moses died, but Enoch did not.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
It makes no sense to mention the sons of God/daughters of men unions though when it had already said humans were multiplying on the earth. It's useless redundancy. "When humans multiplied on the earth, then the humans saw the humans and took for them wives among them and they bear children"
That's a "duh" statement of the bible if there ever was one. It makes the "perfect in his generations" also make no sense.
No, it's not about "humans and humans" because it's not about DNA. It's about righteous believers taking unbelieving wives and the resulting generations having evil thoughts and acting violently. I thought I explained this adequately already.

It makes Jude's verse about the angels committing the sins of sodom and gomorrha make no sense.
No, he doesn't say that. He is simply giving examples of God's judgments on angels and people. He says they also "despised authority" which was the sin of the angels. To claim that he says angels committed sexual immorality is an imposition on the text.

and it's also VERY conspicuous that the answer Jesus gave the Sadducees is VERY much like the explanation of why Angels don't marry from the book of Enoch. The actual book of Enoch may have been plagiarized from oral tradition, and it may not be 100% accurate which would mean it's not Inspired, I could see that, but the gist of the account lines up with Genesis 6, Jude cites that narrative maybe not directly from the plagiarized book but perhaps the oral tradition that the book was written from, and Jesus refers also to the narrative. Whether the book, or oral tradition I can't say. It IS considered scripture in some churches, like the Eithopian Orthodox Church, so I don't think it lacks value entirely. It should be compared with canon scripture, and where it agrees or parallels, I think that it may be truth. Jesus gave that answer to the Sadducees, and Enoch becomes a second witness to that answer,
It also has LOADS of references to pre incarnate Christ, and unlike many old testament scriptures, it is not vague about how the messiah forgives sins.

I disagree with the suggestion that Jesus was using the Book of Enoch as a reference. Yet, can you please give me the reference from the Book of Enoch that you are referring to?

I don't care about the Coptics or anyone else for that matter. Majority opinion doesn't make truth. And just because Enoch doesn't lack value entirely, doesn't make it truth. The fact that Enoch is pseudoepigrapha makes it fictional in my mind, and there are certainly indicators. I put it in the same category as Moby Dick or some other novel that may have facts in it. It might be accurate on a few things, but the major part of it is fiction. Therefore I refuse to use it as a basis for Biblical interpretation, and I certainly hope that whoever reads what I write here will do the same, since God said not to add or take away from the scriptures He provided.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
No, it's not about "humans and humans" because it's not about DNA. It's about righteous believers taking unbelieving wives and the resulting generations having evil thoughts and acting violently. I thought I explained this adequately already.


No, he doesn't say that. He is simply giving examples of God's judgments on angels and people. He says they also "despised authority" which was the sin of the angels. To claim that he says angels committed sexual immorality is an imposition on the text.
So, this may seem tangental, but what scripture states that Angels are incapable of sex? We know that they are capable of assuming human forms, with physical bodies, that can make physical contact with people, as Lot was grabbed by the angels who were in his home, and the men of Sodom wanted to "know" them.

I disagree with the suggestion that Jesus was using the Book of Enoch as a reference. Yet, can you please give me the reference from the Book of Enoch that you are referring to?
It's chapter XV of Enoch
1. Then addressing me, He spoke and said, Hear, neither be afraid, O righteous Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness: approach hither, and hear my voice. Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to pray for them, You ought to pray for men, and not men for you.
2. Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures for ever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and have begotten an impious offspring?
3. You being spiritual, holy, and possessing a life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do.
4. These however die and perish.
5. Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.
6. But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.
7. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.

8. Now the giants, who lave been born of spirit and of flesh, shall be called upon earth evil spirits, and on earth shall be their habitation. Evil spirits shall proceed from their flesh, because they were created from above; from the holy Watchers was their beginning and primary foundation. Evil spirits shall they be upon earth, and the spirits of the wicked shall they be called. The habitation of the spirits of heaven shall be in heaven; but upon earth shall be the habitation of terrestrial spirits, who are born on earth.
9. The spirits of the giants shall be like clouds, which shall oppress, corrupt, fall, contend, and bruise upon earth.
10. They shall cause lamentation. No food shall they eat; and they shall be thirsty; they shall be concealed, and shall not 1 rise up against the sons of men, and against women; for they come forth during the days of slaughter and destruction.
That's the reference, the part in bold is the reference that fits with the answer of Jesus in Matthew 22

I don't care about the Coptics or anyone else for that matter. Majority opinion doesn't make truth. And just because Enoch doesn't lack value entirely, doesn't make it truth. The fact that Enoch is pseudoepigrapha makes it fictional in my mind, and there are certainly indicators. I put it in the same category as Moby Dick or some other novel that may have facts in it. It might be accurate on a few things, but the major part of it is fiction. Therefore I refuse to use it as a basis for Biblical interpretation, and I certainly hope that whoever reads what I write here will do the same, since God said not to add or take away from the scriptures He provided.
TD:)
I'm not saying majority opinion makes truth, why I would even pose the question of "is this truth" is because Jesus seems to refer to it where such a concept is nowhere else to be found in canon scripture. If there was canon old testament scripture that would be a reference the Sadducees and Pharisees would know that would lead them to Jesus' answer, to where the book of Enoch would not be needed to come up with that answer, I'd have completely written it off as you do. But I see an answer of Jesus that canon scripture does not address at all, that Jesus prefaces His answer with the Sadducees not knowing the scriptures, and the answer that Jesus gave staring me in the face, in a book that is not considered scripture but was widely read in Jesus' time that the Sadducees and Pharisees would know about.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So, this may seem tangental, but what scripture states that Angels are incapable of sex? We know that they are capable of assuming human forms, with physical bodies, that can make physical contact with people, as Lot was grabbed by the angels who were in his home, and the men of Sodom wanted to "know" them.
Jesus said that they "do not marry." Why would God create them with ability to procreate, and then demand they not do it? It makes no sense at all that they are able to procreate, given what Jesus said.

It's chapter XV of Enoch

That's the reference, the part in bold is the reference that fits with the answer of Jesus in Matthew 22

I read ch. 15, and don't see any likeness to Jesus' statement. If the basis of your idea is that "they were holy..." then it presumes that sex is sinful in and of itself, which is not a Biblical idea.

I'm not saying majority opinion makes truth, why I would even pose the question of "is this truth" is because Jesus seems to refer to it where such a concept is nowhere else to be found in canon scripture. If there was canon old testament scripture that would be a reference the Sadducees and Pharisees would know that would lead them to Jesus' answer, to where the book of Enoch would not be needed to come up with that answer, I'd have completely written it off as you do. But I see an answer of Jesus that canon scripture does not address at all, that Jesus prefaces His answer with the Sadducees not knowing the scriptures, and the answer that Jesus gave staring me in the face, in a book that is not considered scripture but was widely read in Jesus' time that the Sadducees and Pharisees would know about.

That answer doesn't stare me in the face when I read Enoch. Since Jesus was from heaven, it stands to reason He would give new revelation not known before and not written in any previous document, just as He did with the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
7,370
2,301
43
Helena
✟203,883.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Jesus said that they "do not marry." Why would God create them with ability to procreate, and then demand they not do it? It makes no sense at all that they are able to procreate, given what Jesus said.
They're not normally in human forms. They normally have another form, not in the image of God as we see in Ezekiel and Revelation, multiple faces and referred to as beasts. But we know they can appear as humans, in many books of the bible. We know they can assume physical form, we know they can interact with humans physically. If they're going to assume the form of imagebearers, I'd think it'd be blasphemy for them to not be anatomically correct. Remember Deuteronomy 23:1.
So they'd be physically capable of doing it, but yes, it'd be sin and abomination for them to do it. Humans can physically do it without marriage too, it's sin to, but they can choose to do it.

I read ch. 15, and don't see any likeness to Jesus' statement. If the basis of your idea is that "they were holy..." then it presumes that sex is sinful in and of itself, which is not a Biblical idea.
I quoted it and bolded the part that corresponded to Jesus' answer, did you not see it?
I think Luke's version of the answer is closer than Matthew's when it comes down to it
Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
In other words, the reason there is no marriage in the resurrection is because we can't die anymore. If we only have canon scripture to go off of, then death isn't the sole reason marriage, sex, and procreation were created for man, because Eve was created for Adam before the fall, and they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, before death.
Enoch chapter 15 gives us
4. These (he's referring to men) however die and perish.
5. Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them; and that this might be transacted upon earth.
6. But you from the beginning were made spiritual, possessing a life which is eternal, and not subject to death for ever.
7. Therefore I made not wives for you, because, being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven.
This would be the first instance of God saying that the reason for marriage, sex, and procreation are because we die, and have a need to have children to continue. Further explaining that Angels don't die, so they do not have that need. So in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is telling us that upon resurrection and we can't die anymore, like the Angels, we're not given wives anymore, because we were given wives because we die. No death, no marriage. Enoch is the only place that concept is found that was written before Jesus was born that I can find.

That answer doesn't stare me in the face when I read Enoch. Since Jesus was from heaven, it stands to reason He would give new revelation not known before and not written in any previous document, just as He did with the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16.
TD:)
It's not staring you in the face because it appears you did not read it. If Jesus had not been giving an answer that would be revealed in scripture, He would not preface His answer with "You do err, not knowing the scriptures". If the answer to their question wasn't contained within scripture, how could they be in error? It would simply be brand new information that Jesus was telling them.
 
Upvote 0

sawdust

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2004
3,576
599
67
Darwin
✟198,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And even if Enoch had some semblance of what Jesus says, you do not know if the writer got something from another writing, or guessing, or hearsay, or by God having the person realize that thing. Enoch could have certain items which are correct, but what matters is if the whole book is correct.

Counterfeits can have parts which exactly resemble what is real.

The word "compassion" is used by ones who Christians plainly consider to be false.

You lost me mate. Have no idea what any of that has to do with Jesus speaking on His own authority.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,298
978
Houston, TX
✟153,957.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They're not normally in human forms. They normally have another form, not in the image of God as we see in Ezekiel and Revelation, multiple faces and referred to as beasts. But we know they can appear as humans, in many books of the bible. We know they can assume physical form, we know they can interact with humans physically. If they're going to assume the form of imagebearers, I'd think it'd be blasphemy for them to not be anatomically correct. Remember Deuteronomy 23:1.
So they'd be physically capable of doing it, but yes, it'd be sin and abomination for them to do it. Humans can physically do it without marriage too, it's sin to, but they can choose to do it.
No, there's a big difference between a physical form and being human. What you're suggesting here sounds like Docetism. Just because they sometimes had physical interaction with humans doesn't make them able to procreate. Jesus came in the flesh, not angels.


I quoted it and bolded the part that corresponded to Jesus' answer, did you not see it?
I think Luke's version of the answer is closer than Matthew's when it comes down to it
Luke 20:34-36

In other words, the reason there is no marriage in the resurrection is because we can't die anymore. If we only have canon scripture to go off of, then death isn't the sole reason marriage, sex, and procreation were created for man, because Eve was created for Adam before the fall, and they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, before death.
Enoch chapter 15 gives us

This would be the first instance of God saying that the reason for marriage, sex, and procreation are because we die, and have a need to have children to continue. Further explaining that Angels don't die, so they do not have that need. So in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is telling us that upon resurrection and we can't die anymore, like the Angels, we're not given wives anymore, because we were given wives because we die. No death, no marriage. Enoch is the only place that concept is found that was written before Jesus was born that I can find.

It's not staring you in the face because it appears you did not read it. If Jesus had not been giving an answer that would be revealed in scripture, He would not preface His answer with "You do err, not knowing the scriptures". If the answer to their question wasn't contained within scripture, how could they be in error? It would simply be brand new information that Jesus was telling them.

I disagree with your interpretation. He did not say the reason for marriage was death. He is simply talking about the condition of man after he is resurrected. God commanded Adam and Eve to procreate because they were created for it, not because it's some other reason than death. Therefore your conclusion that the reason angels don't procreate is that they don't die is based on faulty reasoning.

Again, you are basing your interpretation of scripture on the fictional story of Enoch, therefore this is where our paths diverge.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0