Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Disaster And World Famine?

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm glad that you asked about Enoch the prophet [the seventh from Adam]...

I knew you would be since you seem to place an inappropriate amount of focus on Enoch based upon the fact that you have appropriated pseudepigrapha into your own personal canon of Scripture. This allows you to construct all of these theories without having to rely on what the canon of Scripture actually says.

Nevertheless, you still did not answer my question other than to say that Enoch was "regenerated." Was Christ's flesh and in fact human nature not regenerated when he assumed it? Was his mother Mary regenerated?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Tzaousios]

yeshuasavedme, why can't you give me a simple answer as to why Enoch-Metatron was able to see the Glory of God but Jesus born of the flesh of Mary was not permitted?

You should be able to do this without resorting to a patchwork exegesis which throws together theories about DNA and genetics from online sources, musings on pseudepigrapha literature, and splashes of canonical Scripture.

No man has ascended to heaven to sit on the throne of the Son of Man there, which throne was made for the God of Glory in the Person of the Son of Man. This is what Enoch saw Him as, in heaven, hidden in God, in mystery, who was to come, and for whom the throne of Glory there, was prepared.

3 Enoch would seem to contradict what you say here. God specifically took Enoch up into the seventh heaven and placed him upon the throne. He did not just "see" this in ecstatic vision; he claims that he ascended and God did this.

Enoch is Scripture, as Jesus said when He rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing it, and is in the "lists" of collected manuscripts/writings =Bible, of the Ethiopian Christian Church.

Yes, and what was relevant from Enoch was taken into the canon. That Christ said this does not provide blanket inclusion into the canon for any and all pseudepigrapha literature. It is just that you require all of this extra-canonical information to try to lend credence to your theories.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Tzaousios]

I think you have used this ploy before, in that you replace the Book of Enoch -Ethiopian Enoch, also called 1 Enoch, with a pseudo Enoch and try to make me as if to be following that false book.
That is like me trying to make out that you follow the pseudo gospels which contradict Scripture.

Ethiopian Enoch does not say what you are saying, and I am not going to get into discussion with you on the contents of something I do not promote, follow, or believe.

Do you think or you know that the Ethiopic one does not say it? How do you account for redactions in either edition and the motives of the scribes behind it? In the end, it does not really matter since there is no book of Enoch in the official canon of Scripture. You are still relying on pseudepigrapha among other things to corroborate your theory.

Despite this, my question to you still stands. You have not answered it except to repeat your theory. You are in a conundrum from which you have yet to extricate yourself.

 

[Tzaousios]

You err. not knowing the Scriptures, then, for in no place other than in Enoch is it revealed as fact that the angels in heaven do not marry nor give in marriage, and that the resurrected and or translated saints will be one with/companions of/like the angels in heaven.
Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures in their error of not knowing that in heaven the saints do not marry, as the angels do not; for they shall be equal with/like/companions of the angels in heaven who do not marry nor give in marriage.

<edit>You have not answered my original question. It had nothing to do with the passages on marriage.

1. How was Enoch permitted to see the Glory of God but Jesus was not?

2. How was Enoch "regenerated" but Mary and the flesh of Christ not?

3. How do you account for the fact that Enoch mentions that he ascended bodily into heaven and was placed on the throne by Yahweh himself? (there is an ascension motif in both versions of Enoch)

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[PaladinValer]

Enoch was transformed in the same way we shall be, for the glory, which is what Adam lost and cannot attain to.

And yet historic iconography of the Resurrection of Christ shows Jesus helping Adam and Eve out of the grave...

There was no old man flesh part of the New Man nature.

The Bible and the Creed teach otherwise. The Greek is proof positive.

The nature/spirit of Adam builds the body for the Adam soul come to fruit in the womb. That soul is an Adam seed, with a remnant of the Adam spirit [only got from the Adam seed], and the body built is built for an Adam according to the DNA blueprint]

And psuedoscience and Manicheanism merge...

The New Man is not an Adam soul, is not an Adam seed, is not an Adam spirit.

Again, both Holy Scripture and the Nicene Creed teach otherwise. They are right; you are wrong.

The Holy Spirit created a brand new thing in the earth, in that a woman compassed a Geber/mighty man -as Jeremiah says.

Jesus isn't a Third Thing. That's condemned implicitly by the Nicene Creed.

The womb of a virgin compassed that New Thing, but the DNA was not of Adam, and not half Adam; and Christ, the Living Spirit, is that Spirit, who, as YHWH [second person in YHWH], built that body for that New Man creation nature to indwell, in a womb - just as He built that body for the Adam nature to indwell out of the uncorrupted earth of the creation on day 6.

More psuedoscience-meets-historic unorthodoxy...so is the rest...

<snips the rest of the repeat until...>

Enoch is Scripture, as Jesus said when He rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing it, and is in the "lists" of collected manuscripts/writings =Bible, of the Ethiopian Christian Church.

Oh this is rich...

1. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church are the only groups that considers it canonical and the only reason why is because it exists fully in their native ge'ez language, a language which is not at all of the "Biblical" languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Not even the entire Oriental Orthodox Church agrees with it.
2. Enoch was never seriously considered to be Holy Writ ever.
3. Jesus never mentioned it ever

Basing theology on a non-canonical book (to both Jews and Christians) of Jewish apocalypticism is just beyond reasonable.

 

[Tzaousios]

I read it as regularly as any other of the Scriptures and you err, for in no place is such nonsense taught as you are claiming.

That there is no ascension motif? That Enoch was not "angelified" into Metatron and treated to be almost divine by Yahweh?

Which is the "nonsense" you are talking about, for you would call just about anything I say nonsense because I put up opposition and have disagreed poignantly with your pet theories in the past.

Your statement about how much you read Enoch is quite telling of how integral it is to your theories and theological outlook in general.

Still, you have not answered my questions that I clearly outlined at least four times now.

1. How was Enoch permitted to see the Glory of God but Jesus was not?

2. How was Enoch "regenerated" but Mary and the flesh of Christ not?

3. How do you account for the fact that Enoch mentions that he ascended bodily into heaven and was placed on the throne by Yahweh himself? (there is an ascension motif in both versions of Enoch)

Use your same accusations about the four Gospels being redactions of the pseudo gospels and see how far you get.

Huh? I am not sure what you are insinuating that I would get, but this statement demonstrates how deeply you hate the traditional Scriptural canon and them men/church whom God used to organize it.

 

[Tzaousios]

I read it as regularly as any other of the Scriptures and you err, for in no place is such nonsense taught as you are claiming.

In the link to the very translation you hold in such high esteem, Enoch specifically states that he came before the door and entered.

The members of the angelic court before the throne took him on the tour and he saw the Glory of God. The archangels revealed to him in person the esoteric gnosis concerning the workings of the cosmos and creation. This is part and parcel of almost every pseudepigraphic account: a tour of heavenly realms, a vision of the Shekhinah or Kabod of Yahweh, and a personal revelation of gnosis by angels to fleshly humans.

You cannot account for the condundrum that Enoch was permitted entrance in the flesh into the angelic court and permitted to see the Glory of Yahweh, never mind if he was placed on the throne or not.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

,,,

 

[Tzaousios]

Enoch saw Him in mystery hidden, as the Son of Man, with the Great Glory, on the throne in heaven.

So now you admit that Enoch did see the Glory of the Lord in the flesh. I do not see how this does not create further problems for your theories.

Jesus is not a regenerated, born again in spirit and flesh human being, but is in the same body of flesh that He is come again in, and His soul came up from Sheol to take up that body which could not ever corrupt, from incarnation to forever, and His Spirit came down from the Father to enter that body again.
Jesus was seen in His glory on the mount of transfiguration, by James, John, Peter, Moses and Elijah.

It does not matter when in this particular instance, but that Christ's flesh was in some kind of regenerate or uncorrupted state. It was by this fact that he recapitulated human nature and the flesh for humankind. Does this mean that you do in fact confess the creedal declarations on Christ's human nature, yet do not wish to admit it under the name of Nicaea or Chalcedon because that would be too "Greco-Roman Christian" or "Catholic"?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Tzaousios]

25And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me, and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face downwards.

It does not matter if it is called "a vision." Somnulent visions and visionary experiences are determined by the actual context. Enoch's entrance through the door and interaction with the angelic beings indicates that it was experiential. That is why later rabbinic redactors tried to suppress it because it opened up seemingly contradictory experiences of the Glory of the Lord to others besides Temple priests or midrashic scholars.

You have not answered my questions or resolved the conundrum into which you have placed yourself.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[yeshuasavedme]

```

 

[Tzaousios]

What men organized what canon, when, and whose versions do you follow, then, which were complete in what date, without being changes added or subtracted, and truly "canonized" at that certain date, just as you follow them now?

Most ecclesiastical histories will give you an idea who, when, and how this was done. You can read up on it if you are interested. Other than that, the only purpose for you to talk about it would be to try to find a way to use it as a bat with which to beat me (and other creedal Christians) over the head.

And why would I hate any men? That seems to be such a childish accusation.

No, it is not considering the ways in which you have denigrated and maintained a pietistic aversion to anything which you perceive as "Greco-Roman" or "Catholic" Christianity.

<edit>

I acknowledged the differences in the versions once you owned up to using the Ethiopic. However, as it turns out, whether Enoch was placed on the throne and turned unto an angel does not matter for my criticism.

In the context of what is called a "vision" in the Ethiopic version, Enoch is taken up, let in the gate, given a tour by angels, provided with esoteric gnosis in person by angels, and finally is permitted to behold the Shekhinah or Kabod of the Lord.

You have not faced the conundrum nor answered my questions in a substantive manner.