veiling and the book of enoch

[smaneck]

delete

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[smaneck]

delet

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[smaneck]

delete

 

[smaneck]

it glorifies all that is the antithesis to Who God is.

Where?

 

[smaneck]

If Paul with the Spirit of G*d said women should use their hair as a covering during prayer, than that must be right. It means he had inside information on angels that we don't.

And you know this how?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Interesting post, but the Bible does not refer to the "book of Enoch"

It quotes it:


1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

(King James Bible, Jude)

The verse refers to the prophet Enoch, not to a "book of Enoch".

 

[merryheart]

The verse refers to the prophet Enoch, not to a "book of Enoch".

Since the Book of Enoch, in the form we have it today, is positively proven to have existed in the time that Jude was written, and not only existed, but was accepted canon until the council of Laodicea, it stretches the imagination to think that Jude would use a line straight out of that book, attribute it to Enoch, and have it *not* be a quote - but whatever.

The veracity or canonicity of the Book of Enoch is not the point of the thread. The point is that this is the culture in which the veiling of women arose.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
The verse refers to the prophet Enoch, not to a "book of Enoch".

Since the Book of Enoch, in the form we have it today, is positively proven to have existed in the time that Jude was written, and not only existed, but was accepted canon until the council of Laodicea, it stretches the imagination to think that Jude would use a line straight out of that book, attribute it to Enoch, and have it *not* be a quote - but whatever.

The veracity or canonicity of the Book of Enoch is not the point of the thread. The point is that this is the culture in which the veiling of women arose.

Stating that the "book of Enoch" is quoted in the Bible is an issue. The "book of Enoch" is not quoted in the Bible. The verse you spoke of mentioned the prophet Enoch, not a "book of Enoch". The prophet Enoch was righteous, and walked with God. He would never have authored or authorized such a book. No such book was God-breathed, neither did God authorize or inspire anyone else to write it. it is similar to the Qur'an, However, the "book of Enoch" goes further into heresy, saying for example of an angel named "Phanuel", in chapter 40, verse 9:

and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

It's blatantly heretical.

 

[razeontherock]

Since the Book of Enoch, in the form we have it today, is positively proven to have existed in the time that Jude was written, and not only existed, but was accepted canon until the council of Laodicea, it stretches the imagination to think that Jude would use a line straight out of that book, attribute it to Enoch, and have it *not* be a quote

The book of Enoch is also quoted repeatedly in the Gospels, as the words of Jesus Himself.

 

[merryheart]

Stating that the "book of Enoch" is quoted in the Bible is an issue. The "book of Enoch" is not quoted in the Bible. The verse you spoke of mentioned the prophet Enoch, not a "book of Enoch". The prophet Enoch was righteous, and walked with God. He would never have authored or authorized such a book. No such book was God-breathed, neither did God authorize or inspire anyone else to write it. it is similar to the Qur'an, However, the "book of Enoch" goes further into heresy, saying for example of an angel named "Phanuel", in chapter 40, verse 9:



It's blatantly heretical.

and yet it was part of the Christian Canon until 364 AD
and it still is part of the Ethiopian canon.

Many early church fathers referred to it.

It was almost certainly removed by the amalgamation of the Church with politics because it proclaims repeatedly that the evil kings and rulers have a future in hell

still not the point of this thread, although it seems to be the only point anyone wants to discuss

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Stating that the "book of Enoch" is quoted in the Bible is an issue. The "book of Enoch" is not quoted in the Bible. The verse you spoke of mentioned the prophet Enoch, not a "book of Enoch". The prophet Enoch was righteous, and walked with God. He would never have authored or authorized such a book. No such book was God-breathed, neither did God authorize or inspire anyone else to write it. it is similar to the Qur'an, However, the "book of Enoch" goes further into heresy, saying for example of an angel named "Phanuel", in chapter 40, verse 9:



It's blatantly heretical.

and yet it was part of the Christian Canon until 364 AD
and it still is part of the Ethiopian canon.

Many early church fathers referred to it.

It was almost certainly removed by the amalgamation of the Church with politics because it proclaims repeatedly that the evil kings and rulers have a future in hell

still not the point of this thread, although it seems to be the only point anyone wants to discuss

There's nothing new under the sun. There have always been fallacies and heresy, and wolves in sheep's clothing in the Church.

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." ~II Corinthians 11:14

 

[merryheart]

There's nothing new under the sun. There have always been fallacies and heresy, and wolves in sheep's clothing in the Church.

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." ~II Corinthians 11:14

Still Off Topic.

If you would like to discuss whether the belief that fallen angels were after the women likely contributed to the origination of the practises of seclusion and veiling, please be my guest. To discuss the heretical nature (or not) of TBoE maybe it deserves its own thread.

 

[razeontherock]

To discuss the heretical nature (or not) of TBoE maybe it deserves its own thread.

And there are many threads on it I've never seen it suggested that it was somehow a wolf in sheep's clothing though

 

[Wally Cleaver]

How are veils interesting?

 

[brinny]

Still Off Topic.

If you would like to discuss whether the belief that fallen angels were after the women likely contributed to the origination of the practises of seclusion and veiling, please be my guest. To discuss the heretical nature (or not) of TBoE maybe it deserves its own thread.

i was responding to what you brought up. the book of Enoch is the antithesis of anything of God. Clarification is of the utmost importance.

 

[TamaraLynne]

Wow...I guess I never really thought of it.From reading this thread and going back in time to all the things I have heard and also things I hear today...I have come to a conclusion. Mind you tho I am teachable and my mind can change as far as conclusions go in other words...I could be wrong.


Many times I have heard men talk about Eve being the first to be tempted and to eat the apple. Somehow in some mens minds this makes women somehow more evil and should be ashamed. Men in other countries whos women cover themselves and wear veils say that women are the cause of tempting men so should be covered.
I never thought it might go as far as to say women should be ashamed for being beautiful. So beautiful that they had to cover themselves from the angels...to be ashamed. But it kinda makes sense that it is a shame covering.

Maybe the long hair is God telling us he has us covered and we are not to be ashamed for being women? Never thought of it that way before...but these are just the thoughts running through my head right now.

I could be so very wrong though

 

[TamaraLynne]

what about the angels who fell? did they also wear veils when they wanted forgiveness? I can not remember.

 

[razeontherock]

I never thought it might go as far as to say women should be ashamed for being beautiful. So beautiful that they had to cover themselves from the angels...to be ashamed.

I share your wow moment and never considered it that way either. While every fiber of my being rejects the notion, I've never been in a society that "veils," let alone part of it. It might be interesting to hear opinion on this detail from those who were born and raised in such a culture ...

But it kinda makes sense that it is a shame covering.

Can we examine this? If the culture really thought the tale (recorded in Genesis 6, even w/o any input from Enoch) to be literal, would that equate to women having something to be ashamed of? Or could it be something else like mere protection? And could this in any way equate to modesty?

Maybe the long hair is God telling us he has us covered and we are not to be ashamed for being women? Never thought of it that way before...

Honestly I do think that is contained in Scripture, but I readily admit that might just be my own bias towards women having long hair