re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation

quote:

---

You should probably re-read my post on 5:8 at 1:09am to METAL

---

I did. You're just as wrong in that post as you are in what I responded to. You continue to assume similarities in apocalyptic language or angelic information are copied or drawn from Enoch, which is a false conclusion.

quote:

---

Let me repeat. The only manuscripts that outnumbered 1 Enoch at Qumran was Deuteronomy. 1 Enoch outnumbered every other scripture in the library they preserved.

---

Yes, and it was a very important book to the Essenes.

What you are doing is using the small group at Qumran as being representative of all Judaism, or at least all biblical authors. Because of this, all references or similarities to 1 Enoch are then being interpreted as being authoritative to the biblical writers. You further support that by referencing one early Christian writer who strongly believed the authority of 1 Enoch as being representative of the early church's view. All of that combined is leading you to a false conclusion.

The Essenes were big on apocalyptic literature. In addition to 1 Enoch, the War Scroll, the Community Rule, the Book of Jubilees and the Pesharim were all non-biblical writings that were prominent with the Essenes, as they were focused on prophesy fulfillment. While Jubilees was known by early Christians (in addition to 1 Enoch), the other writings were not, and were exclusive to the Essenes. I mention that because if you are trying to tie the early Christians in with the Essenes, then it would make more sense if all of their writings were seen in the same light as 1 Enoch.

So, no, the early Christians--including the authors of the New Testament--were not Essenes, and did not value those writings as the Essenes did, though some of those writings were likely familiar to them.

quote:

---

The most influential Jewish scriptures to New Testament authors was 1 Enoch. That’s a fact that I know you will deny only because you secretly value Roman Catholic tradition of the 4th century rather than the traditions of the earliest Christians.

---

You think 1 Enoch was the most influential Jewish "scripture" (it wasn't considered scripture to the Jews outside of possibly the Essenes) to the New Testament?

Isaiah and the Psalms are quoted the most in the New Testament writings. While there is 1 quote that appears in 1 Enoch, and possibly at most 10-15 allusions (I disagree that are all references), there is over 400 references to Isaiah, another 400+ references to the Psalms, over 250 references to Genesis, and 200+ references for Deuteronomy, Exodus, and Daniel. Even minor books like Hosea, Joel, and Zechariah are alluded to or referenced more times than 1 Enoch.

quote:

---

It’s because Christians in the second through fourth centuries didn’t understand the earlier more original forms of Christianity. They didn’t understand the conflict between the pre-Christians groups like the Essenes of Qumran and Philo and the authorities that ran the temple In Jerusalem. The earliest Christians rejected second temple Judaism, and then the Christian dummies in later centuries went back and adopted the “Jewish” scriptures of the rabbinic Jews in a response to Markion’s theology, but their main mistake was they didn’t understand the different Israelite religions nor the sect from which Christianity emerged. Rather than adopting the Old Testament scriptures of the Qumran community, they adopted the scriptures from the wrong sect of Judaism.

---

Boy there's almost too much to talk about here. I'll keep it brief.

1) There was no early Christian vs. later Christians difference here that you are implying. The early Christians did not quote the Essene writings (apart from some references to 1 Enoch). I went over this in the prior paragraph.

2) The early Christians followed Jesus, who preached in the Temple and sided with the Pharisees regarding the canon. The Essenes were a small desert community that was about 25 miles away from Jerusalem--the central hub of early Christianity--by normal roads. The Essenes purposefully separated themselves from temple-Jews, if you will. Paul was a Pharisee before coming to Christ.

3) The early Christians and New Testament referenced the Jewish Old Testament before Marcian came along. Christians didn't adopt the Jewish canon because of Marcian, but rejected Marcion because they already accepted the Jewish canon.

More could be said, but I'll leave it there.

quote:

---

Look Foo, it is an established fact that the earliest Christians and the pre-Christians before them like the Qumran community believed 1 Enoch to be divinely inspired prophecy. The New Testament is filled with ideas and theology not found in any other source in what you’d consider to be the New Testament.

---

The Qumran Essenes were not "pre-Christian" in any sense other than that they were around before Christians. They didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah (they actually believed in multiple messiah's that were going to restore Jewish prominence in worship and in politics).

You also didn't address your logical (illogical) leap between a New Testament reference to Enochian material and the belief that 1 Enoch was scripture or written by the Enoch who was before the flood by the authors of the New Testament. You leapt all the way from "reference" to "canon", or from "reference" to "original author" (of 1 Enoch).

This is why I call you a conspiracy theorist so much. You try to draw connections between unrelated things and you draw conclusions that don't logically follow. You have a pre-commitment to rejecting the Bible as authentic and authoritative, and you latch on to any and every fringe theory imaginable to discredit the Bible so you don't have to accept that it is true and you are going to suffer for eternity if you don't turn from your sins against your creator and trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of those sins.

quote:

---

Why Foo foolishly continues to engage you and give you a platform for your lies I will never know.

---

I know it's frustrating to you, and possibly others, that I engage with him, but he is so dangerous because he--like many conspiracy theorists and great liars--mixes truth with his lies, and can sound credible on the surface.

There are many professing Christians on this board who have no idea what they believe or why they believe it, and SM's MO is to destroy the faith of Christians. He could very well do so, or at least plant the seeds of doubt, if his lies go unaddressed.

If it were a 1-on-1 conversation between he and I, I would have stopped responding to him a long, long time ago. Because his lies are "public" and can lead to many questioning the truth, I want to defend the truth and attack his lies to show that Christians have a reasonable faith, and atheists like him really are fools, as God says in His word.

Again, I'm sorry if that is frustrating to you. He's going to spread his lies around here whether you, me, or anyone else challenges him, so I might as well challenge him

quote:

---

If you only realized how dumb your arguments are in relation to historical facts.

---

Considering you don't know how a logical argument actually works, I'll take your condemnation as a good sign.

While you quoted the question I asked, I notice you didn't address the facts I provided to support my rhetorical criticism of your assertion.

You said, "The most influential Jewish scriptures to New Testament authors was 1 Enoch", and I blew that statement out of the water with facts. To recap: a generous count of references to 1 Enoch in the New Testament absolutely pales in comparison to the references to other accepted scriptures of the Old Testament. We're talking about a dozen to two-dozen references to 1 Enoch or themes of 1 Enoch at best (again, I don't agree with that, but I'm simply trying to give you the benefit of the doubt), while there are literally hundreds of references to other books like the Psalms and Isaiah. I gave the examples, so I won't do it again, but the fact of the matter is that your statement was absolutely false and indefensible. All you're left with is denial and name-calling.

quote:

---

You claim as divinely inspired the body of scriptures preserved by rabbinic Judaism - the same body of scripture “Jesus” rejected when he told the temple authorities they didn’t know the true scripture.

---

Not at all. Jesus accepted the same Scriptures the Pharisees did. He rejected the Sadducees, who only accepted the Pentateuch (five books from Moses). Jesus appealed to the law and the prophets as a way of describing the totality of the Old Testament, comprised of the Pentateuch all the way through the major and minor prophets. In Luke 24:44, Jesus calls them "Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms", which seems to appeal to the three-fold distinction the Pharisees held to in the Torah, the Nev'im, and the Ketuvim.

quote:

---

I ain’t reading nor responding to the rest of your nonsense.

---

Smart move. The less you write, the fewer lies you'll get called out for publicly

This thread has turned into a Sunday School class. Until anything is proven this topic is nothing but hyperbole scattered with invectives. In other words useless

quote:

---

You’re making a great point, and historians know this, that they only “knew” Jesus through the scriptures he. It’s how Paul says he knows what he knows about Jesus, because of the scriptures.

---

That’s not any point I am making. We have been over this many times. Paul had several visions of Jesus (not just the one that resulted in his initial conversion).

The point you didn’t address or refute is that there are many hundreds more references to other Old Testament books than 1 Enoch, so your claim is false.

quote:

---

The gospels are fictional tales of a fictional Jesus that are rehashed versions of stories from the body of Jewish scripture, including 1 Enoch.

---

False. They are recounting eye-witness accounts.

quote:

---

There are more references to 1 Enoch in New Testament literature than any other Old Testament scripture. It’s a fact. It’s defensible. I didn’t list every reference in my post a few days ago because it would take a book to explain it all.

---

That is factually untrue. Isaiah is the most referenced book in the New Testament, followed by the Psalms.

quote:

---

Maybe so, but to Christian community, Enoch was a prophet, and he prophecized, and he wrote the book of 1 Enoch.

---

There is no indication that any early Christian community universally thought that Enoch wrote the first book of Enoch, or that he was a prophet except in a general sense (there are several examples of people prophesying who were not called and commissioned as prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah).

You keep conflating facts to draw a false conclusion.

quote:

---

The Pharisees didn’t accept that as scripture because it conflicted with their theology and their world view

---

Not true. First, we aren’t told why they rejected it or other intertestimental writings. Jesus doesn’t quote from or allude to such writings in any way that seemed to give authority to them (by saying “it is written”, or other statements made about canonical scripture). While 1 Maccabees isn’t Scripture, it can be helpful historically, and it says there were no prophets during that time (about the 5th century—after Ezra/Nehemiah—through the 2nd).

Regarding conflicts with worldview: that’s an overstatement. The Pharisees believed in angels from the Torah but didn’t have the same developed views that 1 Enoch asserted. There was also conflict with the rule of calendar promoted (solar vs lunar), but that was pretty minor.

The Pharisees accepted the oral traditions of Moses passed down from antiquity, and presumably they would have accepted 1 Enoch had it also been passed down from antiquity, but it wasn’t. It was only a few hundred years old by the time of Jesus.

quote:

---

It was of paramount importance to the Essenes and the Christian community.

---

To the Essenes, yes. To the early Christian community, no, or at least not entirely. You are overstating its influence, especially at the expense of the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Check out Mark:

And Matthew:

---

Jesus is speaking to the mode of existence of angels not entering into the estate of marriage that was given to human beings on earth. He was not speaking to Genesis 6 (which is debated whether or not it is talking about angels anyway), but to Genesis 2-3.

quote:

---

There is no canonical Old Testament explanation.

---

Again, Jesus was not referring to Genesis 6, but to chapters 2 and 3. No further explanation is needed.

quote:

---

The only explanation is contained within 1 Enoch and other scriptures preserved by the Essenes and the early Christians and Ethiopic church - including Jubilees and the Book of Noah and the Book of Giants.

---

No, because Jesus wasn’t referring to Genesis 6.

quote:

---

The Old Testament doesn’t explain that the angels shouldn’t have taken human wives. Enochic literature explains why that was wrong of the angels and how they were punished in chains and darkness until the final judgement. The angels that didn’t come to earth didn’t take human wives. That’s the explanation that “Jesus” uses. He doesn’t just say the angels, but the angels in heaven.

---

Jesus doesn’t talk about this at all in the passages you mentioned. You are making a false inference to Genesis 6.

Jesus mentions the angels in heaven because they are eternal and do not die. Humans on earth die, and therefore marriage was given for procreation to keep life going on earth. In the resurrection, there will be no more need for procreation, and all who are raised will be eternally alive in their new bodies. Therefore, like the angels who do not procreate but live on perpetually, in the resurrected state, there will be no marriage.

quote:

---

I realized he’s a troll. Had me going for a while, I’ll admit.

---

Sadly, I don't think he's trolling. I think he actually believes the nonsense that he posts. A few others are right along beside him in sharing those "beliefs". He'll find out one day that he's as wrong as wrong can be. I just hope, for his sake, that he finds out on the right side of his death, and not the wrong side.

quote:

---

People have been saying it for a long, long time now. That the truth about UFOs would have a dramatic affect on the religions of the world, first and foremost.

Seems like the intelligence community shares that assessment.

---

I guess they must be talking about faiths other than Christianity, because I don't see how this would possibly conflict with the Bible.

quote:

---

There is a whole lot of shite that happened between the forming of the world and the biblical flood that is not talked about in the Bible.

---

Not in what we know as the Bible since the 4th century. Other books not allowed into our present day bible discussed it, namely the Book of Enoch.

quote:

---

Your Bible will remain accurate

---

quote:

---

for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation

---

While I wouldn't be surprised if such materials exist, I'm still skeptical anything significant will be shown.

quote:

---

There is a path where there may not be conflict, even if the aliens are corporeal beings and not "Demons" or "angels". It would be really messed up and basically commit the aliens to Hell, and I'm not sure how they would react to that, but it's theoretically possible.

---

If there truly are "aliens", then they would be creatures like elephants and dolphins, not made in the image of God like humans are. Hell is for humans and fallen angels, so there is no reason to expect dolphins to go to hell when they die (or heaven, for that matter), and likewise, there would not be an expectation that "aliens" would go to either place, either.