Littlelambseativy Posted June 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 My intellectual take on this: Premise 1: I have heard arguments that what we have as "The Book of Enoch" was not the original book of Enoch - as in the book the Enoch of the Bible wrote. Besides, why would Enoch write about the body of Moses when Enoch predates Moses? Premise 2: I have heard so many claims about the Nephilim, why should I regard this man's interpretation as the correct one? Likewise, God did not mention the Nephilim nor any spirit-human descendants with His regret over His creation. Jesus did not mention anything about ruling spirits (or whatever term you associate with such) in speaking of the End of Days. Paul nor James nor the other writers mentioned these either in speaking of the End Times and the Return of the Lord and the end of this Earth. Analysis: As far as ruling spirits go, I am more interested in the ones I am living under in my county seat, state capitol, and Washington, D.C., and in how to overcome them, than identifying such with the 4 Horsemen. Tagging the rider/White horse as Apollo (the same Apollyon mentioned to be released from the pit in a later chapter of Revelation), the rider/Red horse as Mars, etc. does what for my life and walk now? I don't mean to belabour the point but I fail to understand why you would call those who sit in local government over you as ruling spirits, yet find it so repugnant to discuss the gods and goddesses of old as fallen angels. I can see how and why those of old would be fallen angels simply by the worship that was due them at the time and will be extracted again. If our Lord has fought Satan and will once again have to wrestle with him who is a fallen angel. Do you not think that they who lived in heaven did not have the knowledge that we lack even today. Sophisticated knowledge that we do not have? Though I am perplexed as to why this bothers you so if you wish ask the mods to remove the post. I will not be offended though I find all events of prophecy fascinating if it is so troublesome to you. Though I do not promise not to post such items again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldust59 Posted June 22, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 108 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 989 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 6 Joined: 01/08/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/13/1959 Share Posted June 22, 2011 My intellectual take on this: Premise 1: I have heard arguments that what we have as "The Book of Enoch" was not the original book of Enoch - as in the book the Enoch of the Bible wrote. Besides, why would Enoch write about the body of Moses when Enoch predates Moses? Premise 2: I have heard so many claims about the Nephilim, why should I regard this man's interpretation as the correct one? Likewise, God did not mention the Nephilim nor any spirit-human descendants with His regret over His creation. Jesus did not mention anything about ruling spirits (or whatever term you associate with such) in speaking of the End of Days. Paul nor James nor the other writers mentioned these either in speaking of the End Times and the Return of the Lord and the end of this Earth. Analysis: As far as ruling spirits go, I am more interested in the ones I am living under in my county seat, state capitol, and Washington, D.C., and in how to overcome them, than identifying such with the 4 Horsemen. Tagging the rider/White horse as Apollo (the same Apollyon mentioned to be released from the pit in a later chapter of Revelation), the rider/Red horse as Mars, etc. does what for my life and walk now? Just want to be clear here: None of my posts imply that I regard this interpretation as the correct one, only that I am willing to study it out. I have found only one place in Enoch that refers to Moses, but not by name. In chapters 84-89 ,Enoch records a dream that begins with Adam & ends at the end times.(it doesn't mention names) What you are speaking of may have come from the book called 'The Secrets of Enoch' which is believed to have been written in early AD. (don't know, haven't read it) I was thinking maybe some of the 'princes' spoken of by the prophets might be referring to some of these beings.That is one of the areas I wanted to check it against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.74 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.84 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Lambs, why are you taking this personal? (Your response comes across that way.) Seriously, I am simply presenting my feelings and thoughts. I am not asking you to agree with me, I am not pushing you aside. Because of the responses I was given previously, I decided to try to explain my position a little better. I am sorry it offends you that I'm not as thrilled and taken into this presentation as you are. But why should I? But to answer your points: I don't mean to belabour the point but I fail to understand why you would call those who sit in local government over you as ruling spirits, yet find it so repugnant to discuss the gods and goddesses of old as fallen angels. OK, I am seriously getting mixed up by the terminologies being presented in all of this. I always thought of "ruling spirits" as demons, and we can see these reflected in the ancient gods and goddesses - the same deities are given name changes between cultures, but they are the same entity. So I am not understanding why you are saying I called "those who sit in local government over me as ruling spirits." ?? I interpret "those who sit in local government" to be people. But my problem is not the understanding and explanation of these spirits. There was just something overall about the program that left me covered in muck, spiritually. That bothered me. That was my initial statement. I've been taught about these ruling spirits - if you want to call them "gods" fine - but I hate calling anything "god" when they are fallen angels or demons. They are God-users. But anyway, this teaching did not leave me slumped back into my depression. By depression I don't mean feeling sad, I mean the bondage of clinical depression. It was the same darkness/chains/heavy fog. I hate that! So why did listening to this program leave me in that darkness? I can see how and why those of old would be fallen angels simply by the worship that was due them at the time and will be extracted again. I did not disagree with that. If our Lord has fought Satan and will once again have to wrestle with him who is a fallen angel. When I read Revelation, I don't see our Lord fighting Satan again. I see "an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." (Rev. 20:1,2). Not much of a wrestle, and the Lord isn't even the one to do it! Do you not think that they who lived in heaven did not have the knowledge that we lack even today. Sophisticated knowledge that we do not have? If you are referring to the case the man made about his interpretation of what is meant by the increase in knowledge - it came across to me as his interpretation of the passage, and with what he said there was nothing to give me a reason to believe his answer was more correct than any other interpretation of the passage. Do spiritual beings know things that we don't? Sure. But why should the "knowledge increase" be about them and not about human knowledge? Though I am perplexed as to why this bothers you so if you wish ask the mods to remove the post. Why would I do that? This is a message board - as long as your posts don't violate the Terms of Service, you can post whatever you want, you can have whatever opinion you want, you can disagree as much as you like, the whole works. And it's not like there's anything there to warrant a removal. You encouraged us to listen, stating how awesome it was. I stated that I listened and disagreed with it being awesome, with an explanation. So I disagreed with you in both thought and feeling. Why should you be upset about that? I will not be offended though I find all events of prophecy fascinating if it is so troublesome to you. I do not believe you are understanding what is troubling me. Though I do not promise not to post such items again. Post away, sister! Really, this isn't worth being in strife over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.74 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.84 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Just want to be clear here: None of my posts imply that I regard this interpretation as the correct one, only that I am willing to study it out. That's fine. I have found only one place in Enoch that refers to Moses, but not by name. In chapters 84-89 ,Enoch records a dream that begins with Adam & ends at the end times.(it doesn't mention names) What you are speaking of may have come from the book called 'The Secrets of Enoch' which is believed to have been written in early AD. (don't know, haven't read it) In my understanding, James is claimed to have been referring to something written in "the Book of Enoch" when talking about Michael fighting over Moses' body. So that is where my comment comes from. I was thinking maybe some of the 'princes' spoken of by the prophets might be referring to some of these beings.That is one of the areas I wanted to check it against. That is my understanding of "The Prince of Persia" et al mentioned in Daniel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiloh62 Posted June 22, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,683 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 1 Joined: 11/14/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/14/1962 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I'm hoping this isn't too far off the thread's track. The nephilim, fallen angels, isn't it true that angels do not have gender and/or are non sexual beings? I'm not doubting the Word, but how is it that they then were able to come unto the daughters of men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlelambseativy Posted June 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Neb I am not taking it personally. I got the impression that you were greatly bothered by this subject and thought that if it did bother you it was OK to remove it. Nothing else was meant. No offence taken. Demons are spirits that roam the earth looking for a body to inhabit. Nephilim are fallen angels - I have read about this topic in many places where different meanings are given to these beings (for lack of a better word) This was the best explanation of who they are that I have heard. It was always the children of the fallen ones or the fallen angels or the watchers. Heron's explanation and connection to the mythological gods and goddesses makes sense. It also makes sense when one even looks at the Statue of Liberty and her being the goddess Diana. There was a great deal of talk when Princess Diana was killed and the location to the same flame sculpture that S o L is holding in her hand. Perhaps you did not pay as much attention to this being from the States as I a Canadian did. I have as a teacher been required to teach mythology and the gods and goddesses of the Greek and Roman cultures. You may not be comfortable with the terms but that is what is used. Anyway Heron logically named them one and the same fallen angels in Greece and Rome were the fallen angels. This is not a consuming interest for me but I did think it interesting from the point of who the gods of ancient times were. Even Paul speaks of the temple built to the different gods.These were the ones that left the glory of heaven for earth.These were the rulers of earth and will be again. As far as Satan or as Revelation calls him Apollyon or Apollo , he now has access to heaven it is the archangel Michael that will defeat him when he goes against Israel. But it is Jesus who comes with the bride and fights Satan and his host and casts him into the pit for 1000 years. It was he Apollyon who was also the King of Persia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.74 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.84 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Neb I am not taking it personally. I got the impression that you were greatly bothered by this subject and thought that if it did bother you it was OK to remove it. Nothing else was meant. No offence taken. OK, that's good. Demons are . . . . I do not understand the speaking of these things with confidence as if there is hard core evidence such is the nature of things. For example, if demons are not fallen angels, where did they come from? As far as I.D. these false gods, when speaking of them as deity I.D.'s I can call them gods, but when referring to them as the spirit beings that they are, I can't call them gods. Does that make sense? But I cannot understand Apollo being Satan - since Apollo is an illegitimate son of Zeus in Greek mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldust59 Posted June 23, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 108 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 989 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 6 Joined: 01/08/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/13/1959 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just want to be clear here: None of my posts imply that I regard this interpretation as the correct one, only that I am willing to study it out. That's fine. I have found only one place in Enoch that refers to Moses, but not by name. In chapters 84-89 ,Enoch records a dream that begins with Adam & ends at the end times.(it doesn't mention names) What you are speaking of may have come from the book called 'The Secrets of Enoch' which is believed to have been written in early AD. (don't know, haven't read it) In my understanding, James is claimed to have been referring to something written in "the Book of Enoch" when talking about Michael fighting over Moses' body. So that is where my comment comes from. I was thinking maybe some of the 'princes' spoken of by the prophets might be referring to some of these beings.That is one of the areas I wanted to check it against. That is my understanding of "The Prince of Persia" et al mentioned in Daniel. That is my understanding of the prince of Persia too. I am not trying to be contentious & hope that isn't how I'm coming across. Maybe some of us are meant to be interested in these things & some not. Here is the scripture about Enoch-- And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgement 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.~Jude 14,15 Book of Enoch 2:1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlelambseativy Posted June 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 <br><br>Neb I am not taking it personally. I got the impression that you were greatly bothered by this subject and thought that if it did bother you it was OK to remove it. Nothing else was meant. No offence taken.<br>OK, that's good.<br><br><br><br>Demons are . . . .<br>I do not understand the speaking of these things with confidence as if there is hard core evidence such is the nature of things.<br><br><br>For example, if demons are not fallen angels, where did they come from?<br><br><br>As far as I.D. these false gods, when speaking of them as deity I.D.'s I can call them gods, but when referring to them as the spirit beings that they are, I can't call them gods. Does that make sense?<br><br>But I cannot understand Apollo being Satan - since Apollo is an illegitimate son of Zeus in Greek mythology.<br> <div><br></div><div>Demons - when reading about demons in Matthew, Mark or Acts in each case they are spirits that are earth bound and need a body to possess as a home. That term being used by Jesus that if when the demon is cast out and the body made clean if there is nothing good to fill that body spiritually then the demon finds many more and takes it over again. They then are earth bound beings.</div><div>We are not told where they come from other than they roam the earth looking for a 'body' to possess - they willingly went into the swine from the demon possessed man.</div><div><br></div><div>Apollo or Apollyon - Revelation 9:11 speaks of Apollo or Apollyon or Abaddon as the angel from the bottomless pit coming back and taking control over the army of insects (?) which look like scorpions.</div><div>Since Apollyon is from the bottomless pit he is one of the fallen angels to whom Christ went to show Himself after He rose from the dead.</div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 23, 2011 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 32 Topic Count: 622 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 57,286 Content Per Day: 7.57 Reputation: 29,003 Days Won: 280 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm hoping this isn't too far off the thread's track. The nephilim, fallen angels, isn't it true that angels do not have gender and/or are non sexual beings? I'm not doubting the Word, but how is it that they then were able to come unto the daughters of men? That thought mostly comes from a statement made by Jesus about angels not marrying or having children (in heaven). It doesn't preclude the possibility of them doing so if they left their first estate and came to our dimension in physical form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts