Enoch: Fact or Fiction?

[Guest]

The Book of Enoch: is it fact or fiction? I've got two participants who will take part in this formal, 1 vs 1 debate.

Ashley Star-Child will debate that enoch is fact;

aquatus1 will debate that it is fiction.

Each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion. Each post will need to be made within 7 days of your opponent.

Any questions, please PM me.

Edited September 19, 2005 by Guest

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I'm here, Aquatus will begin the debate.

To clarify the topic it's 'Pseudepigrapha (or true/real pseudepigrapha) or rejected cannon'. I'm on the side of the latter which is in line with Enoch being fact.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Ashley-Star*Child

[aquatus1]

To clarify the topic it's 'Pseudepigrapha (or true/real pseudepigrapha) or rejected cannon'. I'm on the side of the latter which is in line with Enoch being fact.

It is difficult, of course, to attempt to judge the credibility of a book of faith. Even here, my best attempt to clarify what the debate was ended up being woefully redundant (after all, if something is a pseudoepigrapha, then it will be a 'rejected canon'). Perhaps Fact or Fiction is indeed a better way to describe the coming debate.

So, what would the Fact be? Presumably, it would be the acceptance of the book of Enoch as a judeo-christian text of equal credibility as what we think of as cannon, that being what is commonly known as the Bible. Of course, at this point some would point out that not the entire bible is considered cannon by all, further making a cloudy issue even murkier. For the purposes of my arguments, however, cannon will be considered that which was decided by the ancient Jewish, and later, Christian organizations as to what was the 'official' word of God, and what was not. This is an important point here, so please remember it; it will be much clearer once we bring up the actual authorship of the Book of Enoch.

But credibility is not merely title, of course. Credibility stems from other factors besides origins. It also needs accuracy. Not perfect, of course, but reasonable accuracy, and a certain logic as well. Reasonable in that the events might well be described from alternate viewpoints in different accounts (indeed, one would expect this), but still remain within the bounds of subjective observation by the different authors. Things that would merit raised eyebrows would be events of significant proportions that are somehow excluded in one account, yet included in another account. Skipping dinner is something fairly forgettable, however we should be cautious when one person claims to have seen angels and another doesn't really mention anything of note. Similarly, logic must apply. If the author is meant to be at a certain point in time or another, then the events of that time should not indicate a knowledge of events that have not yet occurred. Certainly, such a thing as prophecy exists in ancient stories, however such things are quite clearly announced and made much of, so if we see a sudden anachronism pop-up in the midst of a story with little attention called to it, then again, we should wonder if this signifies that perhaps this is not the original version of the story.

So, when we come to debate, the question before us is this: Is the book of Enoch spiritually correct, albeit officially rejected? Is the book of Enoch a valid examination of judeo-christian thought, or is it merely another ancient 'urban legend' of sorts. Should the answers to these question be positive, then we would certainly have a great deal to think about; much of judeo-christian thought would be shown to be at a significant deviation from what God expects of us.

Alternatively, Is the Book of Enoch simply another set of tall tales, stemming from even older cultures, renamed, repackaged into a judeo-christian format, like so many other stories that we know about? In other words, is the Book of Enoch simply fiction?

In the course of this debate, the credibility of the Book of Enoch as a valid text, both spiritually and factually, will be put to the test. Its origins, its contents, and the many somewhat ludicrous claims towards its accuracy, including both historical and pseudo-scientific, will all be examined in detail, and shown to be nothing more than the same elements that can be found in any book in the Fiction section of your local bookstore, and no more worthy of being considered fact as the latest edition of Harry Potter.

I acknowledge my opponent Ashley Star-Child, and look forward to this debate.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

This is my introduction for the debate of whether or not Enoch is ‘fact or fiction’, and his book, rejected cannon, or real pseudepigrapha. I will be debating on the former, to show that Enoch is both fact, and rejected cannon, and not true pseudepigrapha.

When people think of pseudepigrapha, they think of books written by people other than the alleged person many hundreds or thousands of years after the fact. Grounds enough to throw an entire book out of the Bible. Yes, the word does mean that, but many books have been termed pseudepigrapha for a number of different reasons, even when it is not entirely clear whether the book in question is in fact pseudepigrapha.

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, etc, are all part of what was originally termed the Pentateuch. These books were handed down from generation, to generation until finally, in about 6th century B.C. they were put together as one book. That book was the Torah. They were not however the only books, but they made the cut into the Torah. Part of the Pentateuch was Jubilees, from where Genesis came from. Jubilees recounts Enoch, his book, works, the fall of the angels, their teachings, marriage to woman, several types of Nephillim (the hybrid offspring of mortal woman and angels), even the finding of the artifacts left by the teachings of the angels when Noah’s descendants reached Egypt. In other words, the book of Enoch predated Jubilees, which contained Genesis, the first book of both the modern Bible and the Torah. What most people aren’t aware of however, is that even these books of the Pentateuch - Genesis, Exodus, et all included, are ALL considered to be Pseudepigrapha. But are they? Why would they consider parts of Jubilees to make up Genesis, and not Enoch which predates it?

Evidence that The Torah or Pentateuch is not true pseudepigrapha can be found at this site.

When the Torah was being collected from the Pentateuch and other books, the Rabbi doing so considered the Books of Enoch. The Hebrews at the time were adverse to any angel being fallen (i.e. they did not accept the notion of fallen angels), and Enoch was filled with them. At least 200 to be exact. He was so disgusted and fearful of such a claim that he felt he needed to put a curse on anyone one of his followers who even uttered the words that an angel was ever married to a mortal woman and thenceforth forbade the naming of angels in scripture (Enoch also names angels). All that remained of the account were the mysterious passages now found in Genesis

‘and the Sons of God (b’nai Elohim, meaning angels) came unto the daughters of men, and they took wives for themselves, all of whom they chose’

and

‘there were giants in those days’

…..yet traces still remained. Enoch was so intricately entwined in so many books of scripture, despite a quite conspired attempt to remove all books and traces of it, that it affected the entire work. This was the first time, since the law had been laid out not to change, misspell, take parts out or add parts in, that Biblical text had in fact been changed, and the rules ignored.

The term, ‘The Word of God’ is by no means a new one. The rule was that a text be all one singular word, devoid of spaces, punctuation, verses, paragraphs or any of what you see today in the Bible. It was forbidden to misspell one letter, which would deem it ‘corrupt’ as one letter would affect the whole word which was in fact the entire text. Writing it that way made it impossible to change, remove, or add anything to that one very long word. The minute that rule was abandoned, was the minute all scriptural texts changed forever, and how this case brought before you today, came to be up for debate.

So, was Enoch a man, or a myth? The angels he wrote of? Historical evidence shows that Enoch, and the angels he wrote of were in existence long before any pseudo writer could have taken up the pen. I will show that he was a man, recounting a history time has forgotten, as it was occurring around him.

I will now respond to my opponent, Aquatus' side of the debate.

Reasonable in that the events might well be described from alternate viewpoints in different accounts (indeed, one would expect this), but still remain within the bounds of subjective observation by the different authors.

Technically this methodology is not essential for Biblical texts, however, as I will show throughout this debate external evidence of this account is shown in many cultures, and includes texts thanking a named angel fo Enoch for teaching him several things.

Things that would merit raised eyebrows would be events of significant proportions that are somehow excluded in one account, yet included in another account.

In a Bblical sense, that did not occur at all. Every single book which touches on the subject of Enoch and the angels of the fall recounts it complentary to the Enoch book. Even Genesis which was created from parts of a larger 'full version' text recounts it.

I will go into this further in my next post.

[Guest]

Aquatus has been granted more time to enter his first body post.

[aquatus1]

I would like to apologize to all, and particularly my opponent, for the delay in posting; I’m afraid I only had dial-up at my location, and I confess to being incredibly impatient with it.

The credibility of a historical artifact depends on the data that supports its authenticity. Among the data that we need is the age of the artifact, the context in which it was created in, and the authority by which it is being authenticated. When we are dealing with historical texts, and by historical we are speaking of ancient texts, not necessarily of records of historical events per say, then we run into a situation in which we have not just one artifact, but numerous separate events, each of which must be authenticated. One cannot assume, even in texts specifically named as historical records, that all included events are equal in authenticity.

An example of this would be found in the records of Herodotus, often claimed to be the first historian. Here we have a text clearly written as a record of historical events by a person of high credibility and yet we find certain errors within this text, errors that would not have been known had independent verification turned up the discrepancy. In this case, it was a claim concerning the ancient pyramids and their construction, in which Herodotus mistakenly referred to the flooding of a work area as being for the purpose of floating supplies, rather than to determine the straight-line level of the ground, as we know it know. Another example would be the records of Alexander the Great. While we have many records that support the battles and conquests he undertook during his reign, and all from sources independent from the original, we also have certain tales which seem to stretch the imagination, such as the one of the Amazon queen riding forth to defeat this conqueror of worlds and, instead falling into a deep love expressed by a three day love-fest in his tent. The story is mentioned in a few other accounts, however we have to be naturally hesitant to grant it immediate acceptance, if for no other reason than the sheer physical stamina that would have been involved would be enough to shame us all. Further research uncovers the response of one of Alexander’s close generals to the story during the time this was supposed to have occurred, that being “And where was I, during this time?” One gathers that, even back then, the story had limited credibility.

Why point this out? The reason is this: No text can stand as proof in and of itself. We cannot assume that all the events in a given text occurred simply because some of the events have been authenticated as having occurred. In the case of Alexander, we have certain accounts of him that can be verified by sources other than the original, and certain stories that, despite being mentioned, are not verified by external accounts, and even are countered by other reports. This is extremely important. How so? It is very important because these two properties, the ability to verify and the use of existing situations, are two of the distinguishing properties of, respectively, historical text, and Fiction.

All historical texts must be verifiable in order to have any credibility. In this modern age, it is a fairly easy thing to do, what with the requirement for annotation and references. Historical texts are not simply there to be read and believed, but rather to be studied, to guide the scholar back to the original source, to give a point of view and welcome the reader to either agree or disagree. Without this, what we have are a collection of stories, inevitably biased towards one side or another, and with no way to confirm or deny any conclusion. Might they be correct and accurate? Possibly. Until such time, however, that these stories are supported independently by facts, we have no way to tell.

Why, then, can we not accept alternate accounts as being factual support? The reason lies in the account. If the account is expressing a point of view similar to, but slightly deviated from, the original, there is a high (or rather, higher) possibility of the story being true. The reason for this is quite simply that different people have different points of view. Slight deviations are to be expected. Slight ones. If the deviations become too extreme, or if there are no deviations at all, then at that point we have to consider the possibility that this is not an independent confirmation of the story, but rather a re-telling of the original story itself. We cannot simply assume that the mere mention of included story articles is sufficient. We cannot, because this very quality is the most significant property of Fiction.

All Fiction is based on existing events. Now, from our definition we are excluding all the various ‘specialties’ of fiction, meaning science-fiction, westerns, etc. The reason for this is because these specialties have a tendency to create their own environments as a background, with the expected assumption that they are real. While that can be rather easily applied to ancient stories, I would like to focus on the ‘historical’ texts, and try to avoid the more fantastical scenarios (I realize this will be impossible later on in this debate, but till then, I’ll keep it real). In any fiction book that you care to pick up, you will find reference to existing cities, cultures, landmarks, and social/political events. The purpose of this is to relate the story to the reader, and make them feel, even for a brief moment, that the story they are about to hear is true. Today, this technique is mostly used for entertainment. Back in the ancient world, it was the most effective way of spreading your message there was.

If a given text tells of events that are not independently supported, it is difficult to argue that the events actually occurred. Claiming they are referenced in another source is not enough. As we have seen, all events have a way of being worked into fiction. The supporting source must make it clear beyond a doubt that the event actually occurred. If all it does is make mention of the story or the characters in it, that means little to us; we already knew these stories and characters were known. We need a clear corroboration, or we are forced to admit that this is nothing more than the same property shared by all books of fiction.

Alternatively, if supporting documentation is unavailable, then we can turn to physical evidence of an event occurring, always keeping in mind that one event is not necessarily proof that a different event occurred. I will address this in a future post.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I’d like to apologize myself for having taken so long. Since my opponent had an extension I hadn’t checked back, s the fault is on my part.

As I stated in my introduction post, Jubilees which quotes Enoch was part of the Pentateuch. Not only that, but further proof that it was accepted as both a Holy Text and factual historical account is found in the fact that it was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls, it is said were the texts considered the most sacred that were saved from the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, and that was why it was buried in the cave. On top of that an extra account not found in Enoch called ‘The Book of Watchers’ is included which solely deals with the Nephillim and fallen Watcher angels. It must be remembered there was a very strict code of conduct in regards to Holy Texts and that, if it were to have been considered ‘fiction’ and therefore ‘corrupt’ no other book would ever have recounted it nor mentioned it or the events therein in any way shape or form.

The Enochian writings, in addition to many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras, etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings.  The term "apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret".  Originally, the import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public.

In Dan. 12:9-10 we hear of words that are shut up until the end of time and, words that the wise shall understand and the wicked shall not. In addition, 4 Ezra 14:44ff. mentions 94 books, of which 24 (the OT) were to be published and 70 were to be delivered only to the wise

among the people (= apocrypha). Gradually, the term "apocrypha" took on a pejorative connotation, for the orthodoxy of these hidden books was often questionable. Origen (Comm. in Matt. 10.18; p. 13.881) distinguished between books that were to be read in public worship and apocryphal books. Because these secret books were often preserved for use within the esoteric circles of the divinely - knit believers, many of the critically - spirited or "unenlightened" Church Fathers found themselves outside the realm of understanding, and therefore came to apply the term "apocryphal" to, what they claimed to be, heretical works which were forbidden to be read.

Source

It should also be remembered that Enoch was part of the Canon (i.e. the Bible) until the 4th century A.D. when Augustine, a raised pagan turned Christian, decided to remove parts he considered ‘pagan’. Enoch, with talks of angels marrying women, magic, and astrology (which he also entirely, from that point on forbade, despite the very fact that the Zodiacal belt itself has been considered the 8th level of the Heavens + which I ill add, originated in Enoch - since the beginning of, well, I will say, time, and was included on many Cathedrals because of that) became one of his many targets. In it’s place he created the notion of ‘Original Sin’ which was not found in text anywhere but rather sprang from his own mindset. Augustine, it appears felt he had a divine right to censor what people should and should not read. That right and decision was not his to make.

Now to address my opponents arguments.

No text can stand as proof in and of itself.

Quite clearly the text isn’t standing in proof of itself, there are many texts which quote it, reference it, and describe the events therein.

So just how many books recount Enoch and the events/angels/Nephilim

Old testament/Hebrew Scripture

Jubilees - speaks of Enoch, his book, his work, the fall of the angels with women, teachings of the angels, Nephillim, flood, etc

Genesis (taken from Jubilees) – in summary talks of the angels descent to Earth, marrying women, Nephilim, the Flood etc.

The Testament of Solomon (the full text) - speaks very specifically about the Nephillim demons and the fact that they are the result of mortal woman and angelic fathers

Yalquet Genesis - mentions the angels Azael (aka Azazel/A’siel) and Shemhazai upon their descent to Earth to marry women)

Bereshit Rabbati - also concerning Azael and Shemhazai

Levititicus - again speaks of Azazel, as the scapegoat, now also of man’s sins, where a goat was to be sent out to him in the wilderness. This is the basis for the practice still conducted today in Judaism as the ‘Day of Atonement’ or ‘Yom Kippur’….now minus the goat.

The Dead Sea Scrolls - contains the Enoch text plus the Book of Watchers/Giants which technically is a separate book

Apocalypse of Abraham - speaks of Azazel, one of the angels given full blame (he specifically was considered the worst of the lot) bound in the wilderness as depicted in Enoch as a scapegoat for the other angels, as an evil angel bound in hell, whose dwelling place was now Earth instead of Heaven by his choosing.

New Testament

Jude – The fall of the angels and actually quotes a portion of the Book of Enoch

Hebrews – Enoch’s ascent into Heaven

Revelation also makes it would seem an aftermath mention of the account of the punishment and release of the angels bound.

These are from Biblical sources alone.

We cannot assume that all the events in a given text occurred simply because some of the events have been authenticated as having occurred.

I do tend to disagree with this. If we can’t trust what has been written in what is considered in the said text to be autobiographical, what can we trust? We should, when evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is provided, which even for the most skeptical mind should be evidence enough, accept what is written, even if it challenges what we believe and what we can accept as possible. There once was a time when the idea that the Earth being a sphere was considered blasphemy because popular belief was that it was flat (Enoch itself talks of the Earth, planets and luminaries as being in so many words, a sphere and defiantly NOT flat). One of the major reasons the books was feared so much was because what it was describing was not in line with what was popularly acceptable, especially the sciences, ones which have only just now been discovered. It was then, ahead of it’s time, or at least ahead of knowledge at the time it was feared to be unacceptable.

The truth is, no one at any time now, or in the future will ever know the answer to everything. The sciences themselves are based a lot of the time on theory, and even when tried and true, years later, another theory comes up and blows out the old beliefs of that long held theory in replacement for the newer, and possibly, but not always, the more accurate one. Once people believe they know all there is to know, especially on theory alone, the chance for new, and possibly more accurate explanations get lost. Being open to possibilities is maybe the only way we will ever come close to knowing to the truth about anything. And when information which is written as first hand account comes up, that should be take into account, whether it is a religious text or not.

If the account is expressing a point of view similar to, but slightly deviated from, the original, there is a high (or rather, higher) possibility of the story being true. The reason for this is quite simply that different people have different points of view. Slight deviations are to be expected. Slight ones.

There have been as shown many accounts. One of the major issues is the angels (B’nai Elohim) themselves. Some, like Abraham considered them to be of extreme malevolence, after their fall rising from hell and intent of destroying humanity, in Jubilees they are (as told by another angel to Moses) victims of their own mistakes, though Noah, in that same book considered them to be of vile evilness which he himself feared, and in that same book it states that a portion of them were handed over to Satanail (satan) when he asked God, which was granted, to work for him as accusing angels hence backing up Abraham’s view. In Enoch itself the view is more neutral, having been bound by oath (and curse) and corrupted, lured by lust, and even upon getting their punishment (and asking Enoch to intercede for them to have it revoked) were weeping in tears for being banished from their place of origin (Heaven/space). Yalquent Genesis and Bereshit Rabbiti views that they believed they were superior to us (humans), yet when in a human’s position were more corruptible than we are. These are just from the Biblical accounts alone.

If a given text tells of events that are not independently supported, it is difficult to argue that the events actually occurred. Claiming they are referenced in another source is not enough.

The events are independently supported. There is a reported 72 accounts of a global flood occurring, some in isolated areas of the world. One of the more important ones, while flavored with it’s own culture and mythology, is the Greek account of an angry Zeus wiping out everything alive through a flood as a result of ‘gods’ consorting with mortal women and creating ‘giants’ and serpentine ‘monster’s called the Titans.

Evidence that Enoch himself was a scribe also in Egypt known as ‘Thoth’ is shown on this page: Enoch/Thoth

Enoch/Thoth 2

And another site connecting the angels of Enoch with Egypt is here (there are in fact many, and a new book has just been printed outlining what I have been discussing for quite some (in relation to Egypt/fallen angels/Pyramids that is) time called ‘The Nephilim and the Pyramid of the Apocalypse’):

Fallen angels and Egypt

It was stated in the text the B’nai Elohim went to ‘every corner of the Earth’, and similarities between anomalies (such as Pyramids in Giza and the Mayan Pyramids) have been found all over the Earth. The teachings of the angel Azazel included (I’ll go through all their teachings later) mascara/eyeliner among other things. The Egyptians trademark was eyeliner, for both male and female. The angels Aza and Shemhazai (or Semyaza, Shemyaza, etc there are variant spellings) are the ‘tutelary’ (or guardian) angels of Egypt. In fact many of the pictures carved in Egypt depict angels. Not just the common form of winged humans (there are many ranks of angels, only a very small portion and human-like, some are, serpentine to begin with, but all apparently can appear human), but the truer forms described on animal headed humans, human headed animals, even the sphinx itself. The fact that wings are regularly depicted should also be noted.

It should be noted that prior to the teachings of the angels, man was in fact primivtive, and it was through them that knowledge was gained – a technological advancement of sorts, even the sciences themselves were taught by angels – and history reflects this. Where once man was primitive, a sudden advancement occurs. The Egyptians themselves seem to appear out of nowhere, and most importantly, started writing with the use of ink and Papyrus paper without any stages, out of nowhere. The use of ink and Papyrus paper, reading and writing is accredited to a specific angel in Enoch. Many people view the Egyptians themselves as being a mystery of sorts, and mysteries can be solved. Sometimes however, it takes an open clear mind without preconceived notion of what is and is not possible, to listen.

If all it does is make mention of the story or the characters in it, that means little to us; we already knew these stories and characters were known.

Not at all in this case. If it were the fact that this book WAS true pseudepigrapha, NO account should ever name ANY angel therein. That is further supported by the fact that there was a time when all names of angels in scripture was absolutely forbidden, and that occurred, no doubt because of this book (and the angelology/magic/invocations which sprang from it, also used by Solomon) and all the named angels therein.

All Fiction is based on existing events.

Religious texts were never considered ‘fiction’ in the past, but revered as historical and Holy texts, autobiographical, and biographical accounts of real peoples lives, in real places, in real history. It is a modern train of thought to consider it all ‘fiction’ despite the evidence found to prove the people in Biblical history did in fact exist, and the events described did take place. I won’t however, go through the evidence for all Biblical books here, as we are dealing with Enoch alone.

you will find reference to existing cities, cultures, landmarks, and social/political events.

When real places are quoted, like I’ve just said, you are talking about added credibility. It’s when places are named which don’t exist that eyebrows should be raised. The very mountain the angels descended on was called Mt Hermon. Mt Hermon is indeed a real physical place, a mountain in fact, the largest mountain in Israel, currently a very popular Ski tourist attraction in Golan Heights. It’s name even reflects the act committed upon it (when the 200 angels descended they bound themselves by a curse to ‘do this deed’ i.e. marry human women) the name of the mountain means ‘a curse’ or, in affect, ‘the accursed mountain’.

Alternatively, if supporting documentation is unavailable, then we can turn to physical evidence of an event occurring, always keeping in mind that one event is not necessarily proof that a different event occurred.

Again I disagree with this. When physical evidence shows up that supports a theory it adds weight, beyond a reasonable doubt that that theory/historical account is in fact correct. While you may argue that no scientist looks for evidence to support a theory, I can tell you that once a theory has been formed, evidence indeed IS sought, and more often than not, when a theory is popularized enough, ALL evidence is sought to go in line with that theory, molded even, to fit it.

On top of all this, Enoch texts weren’t just found in one place, there have been over 10, separate texts found in separate places, the bulk of the Dead Sea Scroll texts was Enoch based (apparently), and the Ethiopian Coptic church still considers (and always has) Enoch to be legitimate and it remains as it always has, as part of their canonical Bible. Enoch, it should be remembered was Ethiopian.

[aquatus1]

I would like to thank both my opponent and the mods for allowing me the extended time. I realize that there is no need for them to grant it and that I am at fault, and hope that no malice is thought of it. While Ashley and I do not see eye to eye on the conclusions that she draws, there is no denying that the wealth of knowledge on the subject that she has gathered merits respect.

Returning to the debate, then, I think this quote sums up a lot of what I wish to say:

These are from Biblical sources alone.

Yes, that should be quite evident. After all, the question isn’t whether the story is well known among the biblical texts, but rather whether it known elsewhere. In other words, it is only from biblical sources that we can find these stories. Returning to my previous examples of Alexander the Great, if all one reads are the Macedonian texts, then we would have to conclude that Alexander was a man who stood a head taller than everyone else, who was capable of having three straight days of sex with an Amazonian warrior princess, and who never suffered a single grievous injury throughout his entire warrior career. These are all from Macedonian sources alone. That does not lend to their credibility. What we must check are the sources independent from the originals; we look at the historical documents from the countries that he was meant to have affected. We do indeed find references to Alexander’s exploits in other texts besides those of Macedonian origin, although they are hardly as flattering. If the things that occurred within Enoch are to be taken as fact, and not fiction, then we should see mention of them in non-biblical texts.

Even having said that, I would like to point out a few things about these sources: The book of Jubilee cannot be considered an independent verification of Enoch because, in the words of James C. VanderKam: "Jubilees is a work that draws upon the early Enoch booklets (which it mentions) and Aramaic Levi. It is a retelling of the biblical stories from creation to the scene at Mt. Sinai, often reproducing parts of Genesis-Exodus but also adding to or subtracting from them.” In other words, the story of Jubilees is based on the stories of Enoch. Of course they are going to be similar. Genesis, which is listed separately, is a story within Jubilee itself; using a source from a source that is derived from the text one is trying establish credibility for seems a bit of a stretch, credibility-wise.

If we can’t trust what has been written in what is considered in the said text to be autobiographical, what can we trust? We should, when evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is provided, which even for the most skeptical mind should be evidence enough, accept what is written, even if it challenges what we believe and what we can accept as possible.

Yes, we should always remain open-minded, however we cannot simply trust that what has been written in a text calling itself autobiographical is always correct. That goes beyond open-mindedness to gullibility; to excusing oneself from doing the necessary research to find the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that was is written is fact. We don’t need evidence that the story existed; we know the story existed. Nor do we need sources for the credibility of the Pentateuch or the Torah, because their credibility is not what is in question here. We have a reasonable doubt that Enoch is fact because the only sources that we have of the story are all of Judeo-Christian heritage, and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the ancient past made it very clear that the stories of Enoch were not to be considered legitimate parts of their tradition. Evidence contradicting that is what must be presented in order to show that Enoch is a valid text.

The events are independently supported. There is a reported 72 accounts of a global flood occurring, some in isolated areas of the world.

This is an excellent example of what I was referring to before. Something that occurs in this fashion must, by sheer necessity, be something observable by civilizations other than the ones writing about Enoch. At face value, this seems to be quite damning evidence that at least one of the phenomena associated with Enoch actually occurred. But then we have that pesky Reasonable Doubt again…

If a global flood occurred, then 72 separate accounts of it should provide definite proof of it, correct? Not necessarily. Flooding is the single most common natural disaster to occur regularly. Considering its destructive powers, it is no more surprising that flooding is a common element to end-of-world-stories than it is surprising that we use comets and meteors in our stories concerning Armageddon (pun fully intended). Quite simply, comets to us and flooding to the ancients were the only way to conceive of a world being destroyed. So, that is one possible explanation. Could another one be that a global flood actually occurred? Well, for that we must ask another question: How many of these 72 alleged accounts come from civilizations that were never in danger of flooding? All coastal and river-bound civilizations would be flooded sooner or later, but a global flood, surely that would be something that would affect a civilization that had never had to deal with a flood before. Surely that would be something that they would record. So, out of all these flood stories, how many flood stories come to us that would actually indicate that something other than a normal flood occurred? The answer is none. There is not a single flood story that has ever originated from a society that has never had to worry about being flooded. Nor incidentally, do all these flood stories agree with the date of the occurrence. What we have here is a phenomena of destruction, a hero who survives it, and the re-population of the civilization from the hero. In other words, we have all the elements of fiction, and none of the elements of fact.

On top of all this, Enoch texts weren’t just found in one place, there have been over 10, separate texts found in separate places, the bulk of the Dead Sea Scroll texts was Enoch based (apparently), and the Ethiopian Coptic church still considers (and always has) Enoch to be legitimate and it remains as it always has, as part of their canonical Bible. Enoch, it should be remembered was Ethiopian.

Considering that the only full copy that has ever been found was found in Ethiopia, that is no surprise. Only fragments exist of the others, not full texts, and within those fragments are also found different stories, indicating that the book of Enoch was also subject to alternative readings.

Contrary to what my opponent said, Enoch has never been considered as part of the biblical cannon by anyone other than the Ethiopian church, and there only since its discovery. Cannon varies depending on which of the major Judeo-Christian sects you are referring to, but Enoch is simply not among any of them.

Ultimately, there were a lot of stories concerning God back in the days. It was the job of the leaders of the faith to determine which of these stories should be considered valid text, and which should be simply thought of as stories. Enoch contains many things that were not part of the ancient belief system, and thusly earned Enoch a rejection rather than inclusion as accepted Biblical text. Similarly, the stories that have become so popular in the last fifty years about good people becoming angels and helping others find their way to heaven is purely fiction, and the church has made it clear that such things are not part of the churches teachings. Some things are stories, some things are not. If my opponent wishes to declare that Enoch merits inclusion, she will have to show why her opinion overrules that of the leaders of the ancient people, and she has not yet done so. All she has done so far is show that the story did indeed exist, which no one claimed otherwise. Unless she can show that the accepted biblical cannon is compatible with the texts of Enoch, there is no reason to accept that Enoch is a valid text of the Judeo-Christian faith.

So, to show that Enoch is fact and not fiction, there has to be 1) Evidence presented that the stories in it actually took place, keeping in mind that unbiased third-party sources cannot, by definition, be part of the same belief group, 2) Evidence that the events that effected the greater global community took place, such as that of a global flood, and 3) Evidence that the ancient leaders of the faith were mistaken in deciding that the descriptions presented within Enoch were not compatible with the accepted cannon.

Otherwise, Enoch is simply another in the long line of religiously based pseudoepigrapha, apocrypha, fiction…heck, just a story.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I’d like to apologize for the delay in this lapse of time between posts.

While Ashley and I do not see eye to eye on the conclusions that she draws, there is no denying that the wealth of knowledge on the subject that she has gathered merits respect.

Thank you. Whilst our views are undeniably different, I have found Aquatus to be a worthy opponent.

Contrary to what my opponent said, Enoch has never been considered as part of the biblical cannon by anyone other than the Ethiopian church, and there only since its discovery. Cannon varies depending on which of the major Judeo-Christian sects you are referring to, but Enoch is simply not among any of them.

The wording of ‘canon’ may be off, but the ‘Bible’ which you now see today was brought about by Bishops via vote. One the Books prior to that period considered inspired by God, and therefore valid, the Book of Enoch was one of them. It was Augustine’s strong objection to it which had it thrown out. The fact that the Ethiopian Church considers it Canon as I’ve pointed out makes sense as Enoch was of Ethiopian origin. Not only that, but this wasn’t the first brush with Yahweh Ethiopia had had. Solomon, upon impregnating the queen of Sheba, who then, bearing his son went to Ethiopia delivered there the famous ‘Ark of the Covenant’. Solomon, it should be remembered, also had his dealings with the Nephilim – whose habitation was the stars – born of mortal women ad angel fathers, of whom he had control over through a ring and had build his city. This book like all others connection to Enoch was ‘cut down to size’ leaving out all Enochian themes. The point is, prior to this ‘official’ bringing together of Biblical books which had Augustine’s strong opposition, Enoch was among the books revered and read – Enoch was immensely popular wherever it had been found – before this time and after. You must understand that even prior to this, as the Rabbi considered the books – Enoch being one of them – to make up the Torah upon which he laid a curse and removed Enoch that to the Christians, but even MORE SO to the Hebrews angels were revered beings, even accusing angels (that which Christian would label as satan and his ‘demons’ – demons even being the wrong wording as demons refer to Nephilim, fallen angels are simply fallen angels) were considered ‘pure’. Like I’ve said before the Hebrews at the time the books were being brought together for the Torah would not accept – quite stubbornly so – the notion of fallen angels that which Enoch, Solomon, etc all did show and recount, and all of which did so they removed or cut down, taking out the parts they didn’t like. To hear of angels, pure and revered beings whose sole purpose is servitude to God, being defiled by the blood of humanity was not a part of their history they particularly wanted to read in their Torah, let alone remember. So, it was censored, cursed upon and cast in vases into the mountains of the wilderness so that hopefully it would be lost in the sands of time. The truth no matter how censored or shrouded one may try to conceal it, always comes back to bite you in the ass.

There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

What we know as the "canonized" bible was not assembled in anything like it's present form until the 3rd century by a council of bishops (although it was still debated for centuries after). They chose which books should be included in the bible, which books were inspired by God, by vote, just as we might vote on a law. (Can you imagine that some books missed out on being The Word of God by one vote?) Were they any more qualified to judge which books were divine than anyone living today? Is their judgement and knowledge any better than ours?

Source

To further that the books that were considered of divine origin were the Pentateuch, and Jubilees quoting Enoch as one of them, hence why that small passage that remains in Genesis about the Son of God and Nephilim still remain. If Enoch had not pre-dated it nor the events therein occurred, it would not have been included, not even by small passage.

And I’d suggest reading this:

The Damascus Document mentions Christ as the "Messiah" in the following Passage and then continues with a mention of the Watchers as follows: "And through His Messiah He shall make them know His Holy Spirit, and He is true, and in the true interpretation of His name are their names. But them He hated He made to go astray. Now therefore, children, listen to me and I will open your eyes to see and to understand the works of God. And to choose what He approves and reject what He hates. To walk uprightly in all His ways, and not to go about in the thoughts of an evil imagination and with eyes of fornication. For many were led astray by them, and mighty men of valor stumbled by them from ancient times until this day. Because they walked in the stubbornness of their heart the Watchers of heaven fell. By them were they caught because they did not keep the commandment of God.

And their children whose height was like the lofty cedars and whose bodies were like the mountains fell thereby. All flesh that was on dry land perished, and they were as though they had not been. ... By them went astray the sons of Noah and their families: because of them they were out off ... every man doing his own will." This account conforms to Gen 6:2-7 and designates the division of angels called Watchers as the Sons of God in verse four. Genesis suggests there was a mating between angels and human women but details are not included.

Peter also speaks of an angelic rebellion in 2 Pet 2:4. Jude writes of this in verse 6 and quotes the Book of Enoch (verses 14-15) concerning the coming judgment. Early Christian writers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) freely quoted the Book of Enoch as Scripture. R. H. Charles and other scholars of ancient manuscripts were convinced the early Apostolic church regarded the "Book of Enoch" as Scripture. Certain early Bible versions included Enoch. Enoch was used by the Qumran community and it conforms to the Bible filling out certain gray areas.

A few centuries later Christian leaders such as Augustine (354-430) discredited and placed a ban on the Book of Enoch. There may have been a severe penalty imposed for possession because the Book of Enoch virtually disappeared in the Western world until about 1800 when an Ethiopic version was located. Enoch provides many details concerning the spirit world and judgment. Prior to Augustine's time early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 115-200) and Justin Martyr (c.100-165) looked for a literal Kingdom of God to be established on earth. Augustine taught that the book of Revelation was simply spiritual allegory and the one thousand year rule was fulfilled in the Church, and that the Church already existed in a state of grace. Augustine's teachings shaped the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and strongly influenced other church groups for centuries to come. Little wonder Augustine did not like the Book of Enoch because this writing has such explicit descriptions of the final days that it would have undermined Augustine's teachings.

Source

Like I’ve tried to point out, Enoch wasn’t excluded because it was doubted, it was excluded out of fear. People did not like what they were reading, and tried very hard to destroy not only that book but all evidence of it. This is why it was considered ‘Apocrypha’ or ‘secret knowledge’ not ‘pseudepigrapha’. They felt that knowledge was a little too secret for public viewing. The Solomon account you read in the Bible today is yet another account of a ‘cut down version’ the original includes Nephilim, their names, and the fact that they were the result of a union between angelic fathers and mortal mothers as I’ve already stated. Their residence was in the stars, or literally, aliens. It was they that built the city of Solomon, under the power he was granted over them. The same happened with Genesis which like I’ve said came from Jubilees. The fact that it has parallels to Enoch is more proof that Enoch was in fact the first book to be written by the first prophet.

The fact that so many fragmented texts existed, shows it was held in high regard.

There is extra-Biblical proof of the events of Enoch. One is a Sumerian text which I can’t quote as it’s under copyright on a book that’s not yet written, which shows a parallel to the Enoch account and includes the flood. It dates back to 3400bce. There is also apparently a part in the Ante Chamber of the Great Pyramid called ‘Enoch’s Circle’.

These are from Biblical sources alone.

Yes, that should be quite evident. After all, the question isn’t whether the story is well known among the biblical texts, but rather whether it known elsewhere. In other words, it is only from biblical sources that we can find these stories.

Apparently you haven’t read my last debate. Or, perchance, you missed it? I do not believe that Greek Mythology is in any way or form related to or intentionally complimentary to the Enoch texts, or any other Biblical account, and yet, that’s exactly what it is. The same account of events but told with Greek cultural flavor.

And that account is not, by far the only one. There’s the Summerian text I just mentioned, and a related aftermath as told by a giant named Gilgalmesh. The same Gilgamesh Giant/Nephilim talked of in the Dead Sea Scrolls ‘Book of Watchers’. It talks of a flood, meteorites (just as Enoch’s account of Noah’s flood began with a meteorite/asteroid impact) giants who are ‘part gods’ and these ‘gods’ are the sons of a greater God. Ring a bell?

If the things that occurred within Enoch are to be taken as fact, and not fiction, then we should see mention of them in non-biblical texts.

As so they are.

We have a reasonable doubt that Enoch is fact because the only sources that we have of the story are all of Judeo-Christian heritage, and the Judeo-Christian heritage of the ancient past made it very clear that the stories of Enoch were not to be considered legitimate parts of their tradition.

And yet again, shall I say, this has been addressed.

So, out of all these flood stories, how many flood stories come to us that would actually indicate that something other than a normal flood occurred?

You’ve already mentioned comets, etc, but you are missing the point. This wasn’t just a flood. In order of events it goes, asteroid hits – several of them – into the ocean, several tsunami’s as a result, global climatic changes – season’s did change, et al, 40 days of rain as a result of those climatic changes, and as the culmination of all of this, an Ice Age where the ‘water turned to ice’.

As in known from physical evidence, there IS at least one known meteorite hit IN THE OCEAN which would have caused a major tsunami, not to mention other catastrophic events such a global climatic change. The 40 days of flooding are a result of this climatic change, this was never suggested that 40 days of rain was a normal event, and at the end of this we know there was an Ice Age. You are aware of what all this coincides with the second generation animal hybrid Nephilim created from 200 of every originally created animal. But that, as a matter of great controversy at this time, timing and otherwise, I shall not debate in this very debate. What we are debating here is the authenticity of the book itself, and of the man, Enoch, not the events therein, not the Nephilim, or the angel’s teachings as evident in so many places – and further backed up by geographical locations of the angel’s habitation in later texts themselves. The very fact that the physical remains of these form of ‘giants’ given the same description existing is one thing, but they didn’t just exist, their very existence is due in majority because they died in a flood therefore creating a great many articulated fossils, and where killed en masse by the very same catastrophes described.

Speaking of the teachings of the angels, as promised, I will deliver in part from an earlier post I’ve made.

Azazel (or As'iel):

- Eyeliner (Boy did the Egyptians love their eyeliner, they even had men wearing it)

- Mascara

- Eyeshadow (and all beautifcation of the eyelids and shadowing of the eye)

- Make-up (you know, like that mud foundation the Egyptians used to wear?)

- All coloring tinctures (like that 30ft slab of purple glass found next to a pyramid) including clothing, rouge, lipstick, etc

- Hair dye (Mummies have now been found with bleached blonde hair and fire red dyed hair)

- All tools and weaponry including swords, knives, shields, breastplates, etc

- The mining and use and cutting of jewels (precious stones) and metals including gold, silver, etc for jewellery (bracelets, 'decorations', ornamentation, etc) , amulets, weaponry (above), tools, etc

- Alchemy

- Antimony

- The making of mirrors

- This all seemed to lead to adultery and corruption

Eh, no wonder he was in so much trouble. He got the most blame

Barakiel:

- Astrology (Egyptians, Babylonians, Summerians, etc had astrology)

Kokab'el

- The knowledge of the constellations

There's more names but it's late so I'll go through it later, but the other things were magic, Meteorology (the weather), teaching men (and women) to read and write, another taught writing with the use of ink and Papyrus paper (also an Egyptian thing, and they were the first to write) - Enoch also taught writing later, but with God's approval, the stars, constellations, planets, course of the Moon (and eclipses etc think Stonehenge), abortion, the stages of fetal growth as in what months a fetus grows hair, nails, etc, that it can survive outside the womb at 6 months gestation (we only know that NOW with technology) but can be safely born at 8 months gestation, etc. As above I said they also taught medicine, the Egyptians had not only medicine but surgery. It was found on a mummy that brain surgery have been performed on it. Another one had had a broken leg healed with a splint etc.

And on and on it goes. There's more just can't think of it right now. None of the above was 'bad' in itself, it became bad when people used it the wrong way. They were secrets of Heaven, and these angels sins in part, was letting these secrets (like astrology, which is the 8th and 9th Heavens - The Firmament of Heaven) out to man which can then become corrupted. Abortion no doubt was taught because of these hybrids...

So, next time you wonder where ancient knowledge came from, remember this post.

Excuse the sarcasm it’s an old post. To elaborate on that, these are some of the named angels I didn’t mention with their teachings:

Shemhazai:

Taught magic and enchantments, cutting of roots

Armaros

Taught the resolving of enchantments (removal of magic, or ‘black magic’)

Kasyade

Taught abortion, the teaching that the fetus could survive at 6 months gestation but was safe at 8 months gestation, fetal growth of nail hair, etc

Penemue

Taught reading and the use of writing with ink and papyrus paper, which through this man would go astray, bittnerness and sweetness

Kesabel

Lead the sons of the angels (Nephilim) astray, and it would seem induced them to the creation of the animal hybrids

Gadrel

Taught every medthod of death to man (instruments of death, the coat of mail, the shield, and the sword for slaughter; every instrument of death to the children of men ) similar to Azazel’s teachings, seduced Eve (i.e. the serpent)

Tamiel

Taught astronomy

Sariel

Taught the motion of the Moon

Ezeqeel

Knowledge of the clouds (meteorology)

Araqiel

The signs of the Earth

Shamsiel

The signs of the Sun

Etc.

Considering that the only full copy that has ever been found was found in Ethiopia, that is no surprise. Only fragments exist of the others, not full texts, and within those fragments are also found different stories, indicating that the book of Enoch was also subject to alternative readings.

The story is the same no matter which text you read. Variations found otherwise are due to interpretation and translation of the writer copying the original text. Fragments existing just further prove there were many copies made. If it were mere fiction and considered corrupted such popularity for this text would not exist.

Enoch contains many things that were not part of the ancient belief system, and thusly earned Enoch a rejection rather than inclusion as accepted Biblical text.

Is this your opinion? Enoch is paralled continuously throughout even the canonical Bible. I’ve gone over the reasons for exclusion several times. If what you are saying were true then why were Jesus own followers not only reading and revering Enoch, but quoting it? As in not just the events therein, but passages from the actual BOOK of Enoch? While that may have meant naught to the Judaic community, in the Christian community that gives every reason for inclusion.

Similarly, the stories that have become so popular in the last fifty years about good people becoming angels and helping others find their way to heaven is purely fiction,

You are entirely correct there. No human, bar two both of Biblical history have ever become angels. Both names appear in the canonical Bible, and their reappearance goes right up until Revelation. In general, humans don’t become angels, humans are a separate creation.

Unless she can show that the accepted biblical cannon is compatible with the texts of Enoch, there is no reason to accept that Enoch is a valid text of the Judeo-Christian faith.

I do believe, beginning with Genesis, where the Be’nai Elohim (Sons of God) came in unto the daughters of men and bore giants, right up to Revelation with the war in Heaven and the fall of the angels grants merit and is entirely compatible with Enoch. This of course isn’t including all those in between from Jude’s quoting of the actual Enoch Book, angel’s bound in hell for leaving their original inhabitation (Heaven/space) and lusting after strange flesh, to the Azazel goat of Atonement which I’ve already mentioned, or the passage in Corinthians stating that women should cover their hair (hence the idea, for unwarranted fear of, since these angel’s history was, shall we say, a momentary lapse of self control, i.e. a one time deal – however, still relevant to the Enoch text) so as to not tempt angels. Etc

1) Evidence presented that the stories in it actually took place, keeping in mind that unbiased third-party sources cannot, by definition, be part of the same belief group, 2) Evidence that the events that effected the greater global community took place, such as that of a global flood, and 3) Evidence that the ancient leaders of the faith were mistaken in deciding that the descriptions presented within Enoch were not compatible with the accepted cannon.

This is not at all what is up for debate. That would take several lengthy debates, but I have provided a few examples within these bodies of texts. Just a reminder again that this debate is about the book itself. That really, more than anything else strictly goes into the canon vs pseudepigrapha debate which I have covered and have even gone well outside the boundaries of.

Which brings me to this:

If my opponent wishes to declare that Enoch merits inclusion, she will have to show why her opinion overrules that of the leaders of the ancient people

If I could, by every fibre of my being I would, well beyond this debate, take this right into the Vatican and debate – and overrule – this issue with even this very current Pope dearest Benedict the 16th. However, being that the Vatican would then have to admit they were in error, I could talk until I turn blue in the face, provide evidence to no end, and prove well beyond a reasonable doubt why this book should be accepted as canon, and of course, being that the church isn’t at all prone to corruption shrouding their own errors, I’m sure you could imagine – besides my instant ex-communication of which Benedict is so fond of conducting – what the verdict would be. Happily, more people read the Book of Enoch because it’s an excluded book – and apocrypha – than they would if it was canonized, so, no matter what the result of this debate, justice is, and will be served.

Even having said that, I would like to point out a few things about these sources: The book of Jubilee cannot be considered an independent verification of Enoch because, in the words of James C. VanderKam: "Jubilees is a work that draws upon the early Enoch booklets (which it mentions) and Aramaic Levi. It is a retelling of the biblical stories from creation to the scene at Mt. Sinai, often reproducing parts of Genesis-Exodus but also adding to or subtracting from them.” In other words, the story of Jubilees is based on the stories of Enoch. Of course they are going to be similar. Genesis, which is listed separately, is a story within Jubilee itself;

Again I shall say Genesis, first book of both the Torah and canonical Bible is taken from Jubilees. It does not rely on Enoch at all - and what you quoted is but one man’s opinion, and even in spite of itself goes in my direction – it was, and by all chronological accounts should be as Moses was in existence after Enoch, and Moses is the author according to Jubilees itself. Therefore, as the texts speak, Enoch, the accounts he described, his works, calendars, timing, and even his books predated Moses who according to that text wrote Jubilees, which is why Jubilees has a second account (or re-telling) of creation as told by an angel to Moses, whereas Enoch heard the account of Creation, first time, predating Jubilees, from God Himself. So, as I’ve been saying all along, Genesis, being a second account of Creation as seen in both Torah and the Bible is there in bits and pieces from it’s origins in Jubilees as Enoch and all connected with it was forbidden after a certain point in time. That point in time was when canonical books were being drawn up and Rabbi’s were throwing curses on their followers and changing texts by leaving parts out, breaking their own law.

So, in short, it should begin with Enoch, then Jubilees (which includes Genesis), between those two is an obscure book included in part in the Koran called ‘The Life of Adam and Eve’, etc. These ARE the books of the first patriarchs of the Hebrews. These ARE the origins of the Hebrew people, and just because they happen to believe in God, their entire history – including that one of their very own monarch’s, King Solomon – is cut to pieces because of opinion within themselves, and totally ignored as relevant by the general population.

Because of one book – the first book written of a Biblical nature, by one of the first to write, written by the first prophet - all of history was changed, censored and shrouded in mystery. That book is Enoch.

[Guest]

aquatus has been granted extra time to post.

[aquatus1]

I did type a response. I was about half-way through when I realized that I was typing, essentially, the exact same thing that I have typed twice now in my previous posts. For some strange reason, despite different words being used, the arguments are remaining the same.

I regret that this post will be my last, and that I will have to forfeit this debate due to my impending absence. All I will do here is make the following closing statement, and take my leave:

No matter how well spun, a story is a story. Telling us in detail about Sauron's monsters does not make them any more real than before. Putting up other stories and claiming that, by merely changing the name, context, and features, you have the same story you are supporting is a simplisitc argument; there are only so many storylines, and reducing any story to this will find its common denominator somewhere in the world. The story of Noah, the story of Gilgamesh, the flod of the Incas, is the same basic end-of -the-world story, but that does not mean that each one is proof that the other was a historical event. It merely proves that the basic storyline existed in multiple cultures.

My opponent has really done nothing more than demonstrate that the story existed. We knew that already. Claiming that it is supported by Jubilee is similar to claiming that the storry of the crucifixion of Christ is supported by the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. A story that is derived from a source cannot be used as support for the source. Claiming that Enoch used to be cannon is blatantly wrong, whether intentionally or otherwise. Enoch was never part of the canon of any of the judeo-christian branches, and was only canon in Ethiopia after it was discovered, despite the knowledge of the story having existed prior to then. Even the fragments of the Enoch story that we have show signifigant differences, indicating that the story, like all others was subject to heavy revision.

Ultimately, we have nothing to indicate to us that Enoch was anything other that a ancient version of Highway to Heaven. It was a story that made incorrect claims concerning the religious figures withing a religious systems. Yes, it named names, it referenced existing locations, people, and events, it even served as a source for other stories that use the same concept of ordinary people becoming angels. It meets, in short, every single element that my opponent has brought into play. That includes the rejection by the official church due to the misrepresentation of their religious icons. Angels were made by God; they are not the result of good people taking on those positions upon death. One can argue that the church is doing this out of fear that it is true and that they will lose power if this becomes widely know, but the reality of the situation is that the church isn't rejecting Highway to Heaven because it fears it will overthrow the authority of the Vatican; it rejects it because Highway to Heaven is an incorrect interpretation of clear biblical teachings, and no matter how appealing this interpretation is, it is not what the religion is all about. It, in other words, is no more than a story, just as Enoch was, so long ago, and like Enoch, it is relegated to the apocrypha, to the side-stories, to the lessons occassionally mentioned as an interesting sidepoint or to make an example, but never as canon, or even as a legitimate interpretation.

Enoch the story existed, no doubt about that. It existed, however, the same way that all other stories existed, through the imagination of the followers, through the desires they felt, through the want of something a bit less terrible, a bit more human, than their religion offered. It gave them the secure comfort that entertainment brings. It made them happy, nostalgic. It was though, ultimately, only a story. It has never been shown to exist as anything other than a story. Chances are good that it never will be either. Only the future knows.

I thank you for your attention, and most especially for your patience. I take my leave of you, and I will return sometime in the future. Farewell.

[Guest Lottie]

Aquatus1, Thankyou for your response and I wish you well for the future. Come back to us safe and sound!

AshleyStarChild, I am sorry that this great debate has been cut short.

If you would like to answer Aquatus post and write a conclusion...thankyou.

Edited August 31, 2005 by Lottie

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I realize Aquatus has left, but I had already written most of this body post up (bar the few references just made) and therefore I feel I should post it.

Now to address my opponent’s last post. I realize Aquatus will not be countering this, but I feel it needs to be addressed before my conclusion.

Quote-[No matter how well spun, a story is a story].

In having said that, the accounts of World War II would be ‘just a story’ or the life of J.F.K. would be ‘just a story’, or Darwin’s life was ‘just a story’. There is a difference between ‘fiction’ and ‘non-fiction’ when it comes to ‘stories’ and that is evidence. The physical evidence is there to back up Enoch, thereby making it more than ‘just a story’. History has reflected the events of Enoch. Enoch is in the ‘non-fiction’ category.

Quote-that it is supported by Jubilee is similar to claiming that the story of the crucifixion of Christ is supported by the musical Jesus Christ Superstar.

Not at all. I may have to make this clearer, as I did try to explain this in my last post. In order of events Jubilees given to Moses by an angel lived AFTER Enoch. Enoch was the first to write and therefore the first prophet who wrote the first Biblical book. The accounts thereafter quoting and referencing Enoch are exactly in line with the chronology of events. Even your own quote made mention of the fact the Genesis came from Jubilees. I really don’t need to go through this again.

Quote-Enoch was never part of the canon of any of the judeo-christian branches, and was only canon in Ethiopia after it was discovered, despite the knowledge of the story having existed prior to then

Now I feel like I’m going in circles, I already addressed this. It was even included in early versions of the Christian Bible.

Quote-It was a story that made incorrect claims concerning the religious figures withing a religious systems.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, whatsoever.

Quote-as a source for other stories that use the same concept of ordinary people becoming angels.

Within Genesis it says and I quote

‘and Enoch lived 365 years and he walked with God’

Enoch was a prophet, the first, and only he and Elijah, a very revered prophet, who became the angel Sandal6hon, twin angel to Metatron (Enoch) who sit by God’s throne, became angels. This IS proven within Bible texts that they became (especially Elijah, but Enoch was also mentioned) angels, by Jesus Himself. And so the prophecy goes that there will be a ‘forerunner angel to the Messiah’. That forerunner angel was Sandalphon/Elijah, and as Jesus said Himself ‘everyone keeps looking for Elijah, he is already here’ He was there as John the Baptist (yes, reincarnation, and not the only reference of it) as the FORERUNNER ANGEL to the MESSIAH. Jesus also stated that Enoch too, in due time would return and die. These two are the ‘Two Witnesses’ in Revelation.

There are in other books mention of angels (not fallen) deciding to incarnate human ‘to dwell among men for a while’. There in also a prophecy at the end of Enoch stating that at the final judgment the angels given the most blame (especially A’siel, but also Shemhazai, and Uzza) would after being bound 70 generations (7000 years) be released by other angels and sent into their hell (Pluto) for 2000 years (it’s stated elsewhere they only fell for 9 ‘days’ which equals 9000 years) they would ‘heal the Earth they plagued and give life back to her (the Earth)’ thereby finding their own redemption. In fact in yet other texts it states that the other angels bound in the 5th Heaven turned angel hell (not the ones given full blame as ‘scapegoats’) where in their angel hells burning ‘but their souls were with God’. Angels, even fallen angels, still retain their ranks and loyalty to God, even Satanail, whose sole wish is to return to God in Heave in the state of grace he was in.

In order for these angels to have this redemption they need to incarnate as humans, as humans and humans alone have the free-will to be tested in order to reach that state of redemption. Yes angels can fall by refusing God’s command, but they are instantly punished. Humans however, have a choice. As is said of humans by God when explaining to Adam of his free will ‘and I will see who among your race loves or abhors Me’. Adam and Eve it should be remembered, before their fall into mortality, were created a ‘second kind of angel’ and death literally would NEVER have touched them.

Quote-Angels were made by God; they are not the result of good people taking on those positions upon death

Correct they were, and humans were once a ‘second kind of angel’ a fallen race now. And as has been shown angels have incarnated as humans. It would be fair to say therefore that both Enoch and Elijah were angels to begin with, and born human.

Quote-it rejects it because Highway to Heaven is an incorrect interpretation of clear biblical teachings, and no matter how appealing this interpretation is, it is not what the religion is all about.

And what is it all about then? Heaven on Earth, God in a big white fluffy cloud? Enoch goes into more detail because He was THERE. The church bans such things for fear of what they don’t understand.

Quote-but never as canon, or even as a legitimate interpretation

Like I’ve said a multitude of times, it was part of the early Christian Bible, Jesus read it, His followers quoted and revered it, all the early books quote it. It WAS considered legitimate. The ‘ban’ came after.

To elaborate on the last body post’s account of the teachings of the malakh (angels), Shemhazai, with his teachings of ‘cutting of roots’ also taught medicines and conversely drug abuse. The Egyptians had as the throne of their ‘God’ Orion, and it is Orion, hung upside down whom Shemhazai is associated with. They also had the ‘Garden of Eden’ and ‘Tree of Life’ (as did the Sumerians, the Sumerians showing a cocaine plant as the mysterious flower of that tree). It appears the Egyptians were quite fond of Shemhazai’s teachings (and shall I repeat again he was one of the tutelary angels of Egypt) as it has been discovered through forensic investigation that the Egyptians were stoned up to their eyeballs with Cocaine. This was discovered in their hair (in mummies) which was loaded with cocaine. This would have helped A’siel’s teaching along it would seem as he is accredited in Babylon for the teaching of several sexual practices still popular today in Cosmopolitan magazine et al including homosexuality in both men and women and certain oral practices, amongst other things. A’siel was also accredited for teaching the making of beer and getting everyone drunk in taverns, creating ‘mixed choirs’ i.e. inventing music. Seductive music actually, that which when played had those listening seduced into fornication. And seeing as it states that ‘their privy members (were) like horses’ (I’m sure you can figure that one out) it seems they were looking ahead when taking that Oath. Now tell me, why would any man want to write that!? That would be giving them just a little too much credit if it were mere fiction. And on that note, it’s no wonder the men were peeved and saying there were no women left for them (the Nephilim also took wives and husbands for a good many generations until, bar Noah’s bloodline, the great-grandson of Enoch, there was NO ONE left who was not of the angelic line or slaughtered by the ‘giants’ aka animal hybrids. Even Enoch’s grand-daughter married into the angelic line). Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, looks like they were having a ball. Who ever said history was boring eh? Shall I also mention Egypt was the first to make beer and considered it a sacred drink. It also states that these angels ‘took over kingdoms’, and as I’ve pointed out before, in Jubilees one of the habitations of these angels was Egypt itself as a son of Noah discovered an artifact of the teachings of the angels (astrology related) and was warned by Noah to not touch it.

Maybe the question there would be why once Holy angels would teach such abominations? That too is explained. They did what they did to shall we say impress the wives they had, giving away secrets (one such case involved blackmail, where again the angel Shemhazai asked his wife a *request* in which she asked first for the secret of what the firmament of Heaven was - the Zodiac belt, 8th level of Heaven - in which the trade was made), and maybe just a little too much of enjoying the joys of Earth. Shemhazai also, upon learning of the coming flood flew his wife to another planet to save her, even knowing himself that he would be bound for the next 7000 years. Another however, upon discovering his wife in bed with another man (a mere mortal I’ll add) torched the place. Why? Because it would seem that although they taught all manner of corruption they still, in some weird way kept to the rules of God. While everyone else had harems of wives and concubines, they had one wife, and it would appear even despite teachings even of a sexual nature, remained faithful to them.

The significance of this? If this entire account were fiction then it would follow the course of bad guy=all out evil just as Christianity during the Dark Ages deemed some things as ‘spawns of satan’. Instead, these angels are not 2 dimensional characters, but 3 dimensional and very real. Things in life are not so clear cut and black and white, there’s that grey area in the middle, middle ground between real ‘evil’ and real ‘good’. That and, no writer of a Biblical nature would DARE to create a tale about HOLY ANGELS falling prey to lust for women or any of the other accounts depicted – all other fears aside the major one would be God deeming major punishment on such a writer for such sordidness. The idea of women AFTER this book was in their hands – and as presented throughout the Bible, the thought was that women were ‘evil’ and able to cause the temptation of men and as evident by some texts even within the Bible such as Corinthians, angels – is the idea that prevailed. While the Enoch text did not mean to have this effect, it did in turn do so. According to yet other texts, angels would not even be present when humans were in compromising situations and some angels were said to be crying to God to NOT send them to watch over man as they did not wish to fall themselves. The keyword here, and throughout the entire book is corrupted. These weren’t fallen angels or evil angels from the start, they were Holy Angels, crrupted by the Earth. For one to be ‘corrupted’ they must have been of higher moral standing previously. Shows how easy it is to fall.

Now, I shall go into less sordid teachings, and that which was deemed by God fit for human knowledge. The teachings of Enoch. There is absolutely no doubt that Enoch was ahead of his time with astronomy and calendars. He INVENTED calendars and timing. It was HIS calendar the Hebrews lived by. And His knowledge came from God. In fact in Jubilees the angel says that the calendars will change and all timing will be off, Holy Days will be wrong, etc. He accounted for ALL the planets, not just in order, but even by DESCRIPTION. It started with one like a pearl (Mercury), then two ‘reddish colored’ ones (Mars and Venus) then two like Jasper (Jupiter and Saturn). Now not only is Jasper the right color, it’s also BANDED like those planets. Then there were two like sapphires (Uranus and Neptune). After that, there was ‘an icy wasteland’ of a planet at the ‘edge’ i.e. the last planet. This ‘icy wasteland’ was the hell of the angels, the ‘ultimate end’ and would be used ‘to heal the angels’ though they did not know it. The latter planets were only formerly discovered RECENTLY, and in very very ancient discs, it appears people DID know of these other planets but somehow that got lost in the sands of time. But the point is, he didn’t just know about these planets which weren’t visible to the naked eye, he know they colors, and even composition (Pluto’s ‘icy wasteland’). He knew because, as the texts says he was there. The earliest form of space travel. He also knew about the ozone layer which he called a ‘phoenix’ which protected the Earth from the Sun for without this layer which covered the earth, on account of the Sun all life on Earth ‘would die’. Again, we only know about this NOW. He also as said before taught reading and writing alongside one of the angels. God tested one of His own angels for this knowledge, asking one to bring out the books (in Heaven) for Enoch, knowing that at that time it was forbidden for man to read and write. The followed God’s command, and man learnt by God’s blessing. In fact these books you claim aren’t credible were very specifically told by God to Enoch to share them with every single generation. God WANTED these books out. Man, with free will, changed the order of the Biblical books, and Enoch by far is not the only one. Just about every single Canon book has been ‘cut down to size’. Now tell me whose hiding what.

Quote-Jesus Christ quoted often from the Book of Enoch, indirectly testifying of its authenticity. Now it has been discovered that Enoch returns the favor because the key dates in the life of Christ are "holy days" on the Enoch Calendar. Thus, Enoch, who prophesied of the Elect One, indirectly witnessed that the Messiah would be none other than Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ and his apostles quoted from the Book of Enoch (also called 1 Enoch) as authentic scripture. It was once in the Bible and was accepted as having been written by Enoch himself, the majestic antediluvian prophet who was translated into heaven without tasting death (Heb. 11:5). During the Third and Fourth Centuries AD the book fell into disfavor and was removed from sacred canon, destined to become one of the "lost books" of the Bible. It was rediscovered in 1773 in Ethiopia and is now readily available in English, but is still largely unappreciated. Before looking at the calendar it describes, let us briefly review how it contains doctrines or phrases of the Savior, which are apparently examples of the Savior quoting Enoch.

Source

And on that note, Enoch DID talk about Jesus, the Messiah to come, as the ‘Son of Man’. He also predicted the final judgment, and that, at that time, (NOT the flood, many generations to come, 7000 years from then in fact), that ‘the seasons will change, note how they never change, in the end, they will change’ (global warming) and ‘mountains will melt like candle wax’ and that women will adopt their children out and abandon them for dead, and kill them (adoption and abortion) like never before, etc. He also made prophecies about everyone that succeeded him, including Moses, right up to Jesus, and the end of time. How people will be, etc. ALL THESE PROPHECIES HAPPENED AND WERE STILL OCCURING WHEN THEY ‘BANNED’ ENOCH. He stated he saw all things from the beginning until the end. They couldn’t explain how these prophecies were still occurring and apparently didn’t actually believe in real ‘prophets’ who could tell the future.

My mentioning of the Ark of the Covenant in my last post is there because, as it went from Solomon (who quite clearly had read Enoch and was directly dealing with the Nephilim children of mortal mothers and angel fathers who dwelt among the stars) to Ethiopia through Sheba and her son. With her as I said, she took the Ark of the Covenant which contained the most Holy of texts. The most complete version as you stated is in Ethiopia. Enoch was in the Ark of the Covenant. This is the SAME Solomon in the Canonical Bible, and the text dealing with Nephilim was ‘cut out’ and all you have now is the censored version. Enoch, quite clearly is all through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. The missing part of the puzzle, the part too revealing it had to be censored and banned, the secret knowledge. The Apocrypha Daniel talked of. This IS a case of church authority censoring, and in doing so, they’ve cut their nose off in spite of their face.

This wasn’t just a story, this is history, and it has physical evidence. It is intricately woven throughout the Bible, it’s traces are found in artifacts and anomalies, it’s origins formed such things as Tarot cards (every ‘key’ is based on an angel, e.g. the Hanged Man being Shemhazai, also associated with Orion), angelology, and magic. Their teachings weren’t just of a religious nature, but scientific (like medicine, astronomy, meteorology, obstetrics, cosmetology, reading/writing, etc), and show quite clearly that man WAS at one point primitive, but after the invasion of these ‘secrets of Heaven’ they gained great knowledge.

There is also another matter. To prove that the Hebrews did in fact regard Enoch as a sacred text, even without the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is another text. That text is 3 Enoch. This one is not (and is not intended to be) written by Enoch. Instead this is a latter account by Rabbi Ishmael who ascends into the Heavens and sees Enoch as Metatron, even his dethroning upon account of a man who upon seeing Metatron on a throne, known then as the ‘lesser YHVH’ assumes there are ‘two powers in Heaven’, and receives 60 lashes of fire by another angel (Anaphi’el YHVH) on God’s command and is dethroned. The relevance? This is a Hebrew account and is known as the ‘Hebrew Enoch’. It’s an aftermath and does not in any way, shape or form contradict Enoch’s actual books, but rather re-affirms his ascension into Heaven as the angel Metatron. Yes, he was dethroned, no he was not ‘fallen’ or ‘cast out’ and his place still stood while he conversed with Ishmael in the Heavens. Rabbi Ishmael I’ll add. It has also been titled ‘Seper Hekalot’ (The Book of the Palaces), The Chapters of Rabbi Ishmael, and The Book of Rabbi Ishmael the High Priest. It was later called ‘3 Enoch – The Hebrew Apocalypse of Enoch’ as it dealt with the Rabbi’s encounter with Enoch/Metatron (and clearly states within it that Enoch became Metatron). What’s interesting about this book is that it yet again has many themes parallel to Revelation (like the angel with the scroll, which is there described and named, scrolls with seals etc).

While this is not all I could have offered for evidence towards this debate, I shall stop here as it's only fair since there is longer an opponent.

Edit- I tried to fix quotes but didn't work, so changed to color instead. (Lottie)

Edited September 1, 2005 by Lottie

[Ashley-Star*Child]

This is my conclusion for this debate, as the debate has been cut short.

I am sorry to hear you are leaving Aquatus. I wish you all the best and hope you return soon. Unfortunately, as much as I would have liked for this debate to continue, as I feel it could have gone a lot further, it seems it must now be time for a conclusion.

Everything my opponent has brought up I have countered. This begins with asking for alternate accounts which I provided, to saying ‘no text stands in proof of itself’ in which I provided a list of texts outside of which made reference of it, to different points of view, which I showed there was, to talks of references to real places and landmarks which I also provided (like Mt. Hermon), to the explanation of why the most complete copy was found in Ethiopia, etc. The only thing my opponent has actually done is ask questions which I have answered in detail, even well beyond the scope that is required for this debate. Certain question outside the boundaries of this debate I have also stated I will not go into as it is not relevant to this particular debate.

The point still stands. The first book of the Canonical Bible begins with Genesis which came from Jubilees and quotes Enoch. Thereby Enoch is older than Genesis/Jubilees and SHOULD be in the Canonical Bible. If Enoch is pseudepigrapha, then so is the entire Pentateuch. And even if you say the entire Pentateuch is pseudepigrapha (and I have shown that history reflects otherwise, Enoch inclusive) then there is no logical reason why Enoch should not be there. Therefore, as my conclusion to this debate, Enoch was both a real man, who wrote a real autobiographical book including the events around him, and that book is as sacred and credible as any other in the OT and should therefore be there, the only reason for it’s exclusion being fear. The book existed before that fear which lead to the ban.

The number of books of a Biblical nature which directly quote and/or reference the Book of Enoch, passages therein, or the events therein is astounding and should raise eyebrows as to why it was not included in the Canon. The very fact that the Ethiopian Coptic church has always accepted it as Canon and that that particular church is a blending of Hebrew and Christianity, topped with the fact that Enoch was Ethiopian ad the Ark of the Covenant landed there should not be ignored. Not only this, but extra-Biblical history (far more than I’ve had a chance to recount here) reflects the events of Enoch, but with an added cultural flavor. It’s a renowned event, told and re-told by many cultures all over the world, but none as clearly and as detailed as that of Enoch. The accuracy of Enoch’s astronomy, scientific knowledge (like the fetal development), etc should also not be overlooked.

No other book has received the favor, attention and ultimately fear that this book invokes, by a man who re-counted the history in making occurring around him that time would rather forget, in a book containing such sordid accounts it was censored. A book accepted and quoted by Jesus’ own followers, entwined so greatly within the entire of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, that no matter how hard one tried to ban it, censor parts of books quoting/referencing it (like Jubilees, The Testament of Solomon, to the Damascus document from where the Hebrew rules were laid out, etc) breaking their own law, it’s traces are still found. This book is no ordinary book, and the man no ordinary man. Written by the first prophet, the first book of a Biblical nature, by one of the first to write, thus is the Book of Enoch.

I thank my opponent and the judges for their time and patience, and again I wish my opponent all the best.

[Guest Lottie]

Its unfortunate it had to end so quickly.... but thankyou Ashley-Star*Child and Aquatus1 for a shortened but neverless informative, well thought out and well written debate!

I will now let our fabulous judges decide your fates!

Lottie

[AztecInca]

Debator 1: Ashley Star-Child

Relevancy:9

Countering:10

Style:9

Persuasiveness:9

TOTAL:37

Debator 2:aquatus1

Relevancy:10

Countering:9

Style: 8

Persausiveness:9

TOTAL:36

[Irish]

Great job both of you you have inspired me to actually read the book of Enoch.

Debater 1: Ashley Star-Child

Relevancy:8

Countering:9

Style:9

Persuasiveness:7

TOTAL:33

Debater 2:aquatus1

Relevancy:9

Countering:7

Style: 7

Persuasiveness:7

TOTAL:30

[Kryso]

Impressive read; and very deep. You both put a lot of work and effort into your posts, and I would have enjoyed reading it to it completion; with reference to being fully completed. But due to unforeseen circumstances aquatus couldn’t finish. But even so it was very insightful!

Debater 1: Ashley Star-Child

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 9

TOTAL: 35

Debater 2:aquatus1

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 8

TOTAL: 33

[AztecInca]

As I have become Debates organiser my judging score will no longer count and I would ask of one our other debate judges to give the third and final score so that the winner of this debate may be decided.

Edited September 19, 2005 by AztecInca

[stillcrazy]

I will step in to cover for AztecInca

Both did a great job, very interesting reading in all post.

Ashley Star Child

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 8

TOTAL: 34

aquatus1

Relevancy: 8

Countering: 8

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 8

TOTAL: 31

[AztecInca]

aquatus1 finishes this debate with a final score of 31.3

Ashley-Star Child wins this debate with a final score of 34.

Well done to both our debators!

Edited September 19, 2005 by AztecInca