Are All Angels the Same?

What gives you the idea that man wrote scripture? Did anyone tell you that? If they did, it is in opposition to what scripture says about it and even if scripture didn't tell you that common sense from reading it would.

Man took it upon himself to decide what was written by the Holy Spirit and what was not. We need to carefully review what men made those decisions, why they made them, and when. Man is given free will, God does not control what man does as if he was a robot. We are told to be the servants of God and working with the Lord to protect His word is part of that.

Yah because I'm sure that's what Paul had in mind.

The Bible is a dual authorship. Written by men but we equally say written by God.

I am sorry but I saw you was using a not included in the canon source to explain Angel's more in depth.

Let us just stick to the Bible. Good?

I think Paul thought things of scripture, Paul lists the pieces we need to use and although he’s chained to a Roman guard, these idioms go back to the Old Testament. Being chained to the guard may have inspired Paul to write this passage and reminded him of what he would have read in the Law and the Prophets.

blik has said in the past that she bases some of her beliefs on non-Biblical sources.

keep this in mind.

God speaks to man to give him scripture to write, but that scripture is given from a different kind of world that God exists in, we call it dimensions. One of the big differences in God's dimension is time. In our understanding time happens in sequence, but God is in eternal time. Things simply are. It is impossible for our minds to fully grasp the information God gives. Also, men write from the understanding they have at their point in the world, so we need to understand the culture of that time to see what the writer sees. But scripture isn't from what the writer knows, the writer is putting down what he is learning from God.

Men who refuse to learn the history of the time the writer lived can get scripture pretty mixed up. For instance, in history the meaning of salt was important, and if you refuse to learn what salt meant to the writer then you don't understand what scripture says about salt. It is the same with water. If you refuse to learn what water meant then you don't understand.

Well, I would just state the obvious regarding Jude's quoting of Enoch as supporting its validity as scripture. Your last line doesn't make any sense. So your saying that just because Jude quoted Enoch in one instance, that doesn't mean that anything else that Enoch writes is the truth of God's word, nor should be considered as valid?

You don't have to believe Ethiopic Enoch as being belonging to the word of God, but I do. It sheds much light on Genesis 6:1 and the reason for the flood that isn't mentioned in Genesis. And I believe the Spirit confirms with my spirit that the prophesies of Ethiopic Enoch are of God.

I used what books say about angels, but only books that men have once said were inspired by the Lord, and that not as something to be swallowed as definitely scripture, but something to check with approved scripture to see if it has any credibility. What has been made of that is absolutely unbelievable, and to think about as an absolute sin.

Are you actually accusing Blik of learning about God from "other sources" rather than study of the words of the Lord? If you base that on that Blik looks at the culture and thoughts of the men who translated what God told them into words as they meant to them, that is true. If you won't learn the language of the writer of what God told them you most certainly won't learn what the Lord told them. People who do that have no idea what the Lord tells them, Blik wants the truth of the Lord.

What is the conclusion of your statement. Did this explain away the dual authorship belief or support it? Because I didn't see a argument or agreement.

The Greek philosophers were never considered as scripture, we are speaking of only books that at some time have been considered scripture.

Most of my opposing argument is based on the 66 books, the canon. The Bible we have doesn't tell us to go searching for outside spiritual information. Regardless if some outside source is quoted in scripture.

I believe the Spirit has sustained and guided the creation of the Bible. I believe it be accurate and 100% infallible. THE Word of God. How do you know the words of Enoch today are the same then? We have all this evidence to support the 66 books but all the Apocrypha, lost gospels, and gnostic sources are unverifiable and many contradictions.

There are many books and articles talk about why they cannot be trusted. Not just Enoch but all of the Apocrypha. May have to start a different thread. The OP wants to talk about Angels.

Question is we can verify the 66 books as inspired but can you verify Enoch as verifiable, uncorrupted and truthful as the Version we have today?

And if you believe the Spirit helped guide in the creation of the Bible then why has God allow our current Version of Enoch to fall outside of the Canon?

Duel ownership what’s that, I’m reading trying to figure what that is never heard of it.

There are people who write to other people about the Word of God like Luke to Theophilus or Nehemiah 5
these scripture verses that mentions all kinds of wine and ruling over people. didn’t people write on their own experience in the Bible

Neh 5

14Moreover, from the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year until the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes, twelve years, neither I nor my brothers ate the governor’s provisions. 15But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people, and took from them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants bore rule over the people, but I did not do so, because of the fear of God. 16Indeed, I also continued the work on this wall, and we did not buy any land. All my servants were gathered there for the work.

17And at my table were one hundred and fifty Jews and rulers, besides those who came to us from the nations around us. 18Now that which was prepared daily was one ox and six choice sheep. Also fowl were prepared for me, and once every ten days an abundance of all kinds of wine. Yet in spite of this I did not demand the governor’s provisions, because the bondage was heavy on this people.

19Remember me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people.

Hmm interesting Matthew 28:13 seems there’s some fuss about if the story really was told in that day.



This verse links back to Matthew 27:64. In that verse the priests raised the idea of the disciples stealing the body as a reason for putting the guards in place. Thus, according to Matthew, the priests are making use of the deception that they themselves had warned of. It is notable that the priests make no attempt to deny that the body has been removed, it is accepted by all involved that the tomb is empty.

Keener has a number of problems with the priests' story. Stealing a body was considered deeply impious and a capital offence, and the disciples had taken no action to prevent the crucifixion itself. Why then would anyone believe they would take such risks to steal the body, especially when it was guarded by a Roman force? Also unbelievable was that anyone would sleep through the disciples rolling away the massive stone that covered the entrance to the tomb. And if the guards were asleep, how then did they know who it was who'd robbed the tomb? While tombs were robbed in this era to get at the valuables inside, any guards present were usually killed or wounded. A guard claiming to have simply slept through the event was unlikely to be believed. Moreover, sleeping on duty was itself a serious offence in the Roman military. The standard punishment was a severe beating, and if the soldier survived they were expelled from the army and permanently exiled from country and family. Losing a dead body in your care was also an offence that could bring court martial and execution. Even if the bribe to Pilate was successful, questions would be asked as to how the guards avoided punishment from these events.

The poorness of the cover story is one that has long been noted. Fourth century commentator John Chrysostom saw this as further evidence of the incompetence of the priests, and their discombobulation at the news of the resurrection. Jones notes that the excuse given is simply a suggestion by the priests to the soldiers, and that the soldiers with their better understanding of their duties would likely have made up a more credible excuse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_28:13

God givers man free will, God gives us truth and lets us accept it or reject it. I think you are rejecting it. You say Jude is scripture, it has been approved. Jude quotes Enoch as scripture. So if you believe scripture, do you say this is one scripture you choose to disagree with?

There are many books referenced in scripture. Atleast 10 that I posted earlier but none are in the canon.

No I believe THE scriptures within the canon. Let us examine the only place Enoch is quoted.

Jude 14-15 (NIV)
14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

This is your only Biblical source.
Where is the Book of Enoch mentioned? Any other time in scripture a book is referenced.

When studying the evidence. This is all we have a quote from Enoch which was a prophecy. Which is key also because the Spirit speaks through prophetic thoughts and revelations. Could it be that Jude was speaking what was revealed to him through the Spirit?

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it verifiable? No

Because the facts doesn't say he received it or read it from a book. Everything else beyond scripture is assumptions or speculations which are unknown.

So I believe the scriptures. If Jude said remember to pick up our latest Version of the Book of Enoch then I would be compelled to accept it. But scripture only quotes him not a book.

If God wanted the book of Enoch we possess then we would have 67 books and not 66.

I think Adam was a auctioneer, man that had to be some fast thinking and naming of all the animals in one day.