Berean
Well-Known Member
I never said Jesus was a "crated" I said he was Created!
Tell me, WHAT "beginning" are you speaking of?
How many worlds filled with people has God made?
- Thread starter NotTheRock
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Tell me, WHAT "beginning" are you speaking of?
Dash RipRock
Member
Jesus is not a created being. Only cults claim that He was created.
Jesus is the Word of God Who has been with God all along and is God.
Read the first chapter of John and believe what God says in His Word to escape false teaching
Jesus and the Father are One along with the Holy Spirit.
Nothing but stanky malarkey that has nothing to do with the reality of what God's Word teaches.
You're welcome.
You speak as one who is worried about rich people and what they do and don't do which is an earmark of someone who is obsessed with the rich due to being jealous of them.
You should tend to your own business and let them tend to theirs.
In other words, who cares what rich people do or don't do? Apparently you worry a lot about the rich
That's pretty funny.
There's only One Teacher and I hate to pop your balloon but you ain't Him.
Nice try at getting me to bow down to your fake authority to teach. Thanks for the laugh.
The Gospel of Christ
Active Member
lol... Explain the twisting going on here.. Genesis 6:2-4 says plainly that “the sons of God” took wives from among human women, and their children became giants — the Nephilim.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
I've heard the Nephilim interpretation as the offspring of Angels and humans, and don't buy it - nor do I accept tue Book of Enoch as God's word. God is the creator of all life. Angels were not equipped to procreate. If there were such a hybrid, God would have created them ... as an abomination ... to be condemned? No.
The Gospel of Christ
Active Member
I already addressed all of this back on page 3 — including the tired claim that “angels can’t procreate.”
The Book of Enoch wasn’t excluded by God — it was excluded by Rome. The same Rome that built cathedrals of gold, murdered reformers, burned Bibles, and replaced the Gospel with sacraments.
Jude directly quotes Enoch in the New Testament (Jude 1:14–15), calling him “the seventh from Adam.” That alone validates its prophetic credibility — especially since no other book tells that prophecy in such detail.
Let’s also be real: Enoch wasn’t some mystic living in a cave. He was Adam and Eve’s great-grandson and Noah’s great-grandfather — a man who walked with God and was taken (Genesis 5:24).
And you think his firsthand account of what happened between Eden and the Flood shouldn’t be preserved? The decision to leave it out of the final canon was completely illogical.
If the Book of Enoch had been widely taught in the church, 95% of the West would understand:
Who the Watchers were
Where demons came from
Why there were giants and genetic abominations
And how all of it ties into the spiritual war we’re still in today
And that’s exactly why the Book of Enoch was removed — because it revealed too much.
And in case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, the demons in Rome don’t worship Christ — they worship the very angels who rebelled against Him.
You want proof? Fine. Let's talk about it plainly.
The Vatican doesn’t worship the God of the Bible — it reveres the very beings He judged. Just look at St. Peter’s Square: at the center stands a 4,000-year-old Egyptian obelisk, a pagan phallic symbol dedicated to the sun god Ra. Why is that at the heart of Roman “Christianity”? Inside the cathedrals you’ll find sun wheels, zodiac mosaics, Babylonian floor patterns, and golden ceilings covered in the same celestial idolatry condemned in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. The pope and bishops wear mitres shaped like the fish-head of Dagon, the Philistine god — that’s not accidental, it’s inherited.
The use of holy water in Catholicism mirrors the ritual purification practices of the ancient pagan priesthoods, especially the Sumerian and Mesopotamian religions — where the Watchers were first venerated by name under figures like Enki, Ea, and Oannes.
The Sumerian gods — the Apkallu — were half-man, half-fish beings said to have descended from the heavens to teach mankind forbidden knowledge. These beings were often depicted holding a small bucket (bandudû) in one hand and a pinecone-shaped object (mullilu) in the other — which they used to sprinkle water for “blessings” or “purification.” That exact ritual — water sprinkled from a ceremonial vessel — is identical to the Catholic practice of priests walking down the aisle, sprinkling holy water onto the congregation with an aspergillum.
That’s not Christian. That’s Watcher imitation.
Rome didn’t invent holy water. They inherited it — from Babylon, from Sumer, from the fallen angels who taught corrupted rituals to mankind in the days of Enoch.
They call it sanctification. But God calls it abomination — a copy of the forbidden, masquerading as sacred.
Revelation 17 describes her perfectly: Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. She sits on seven hills, just like Rome. She is drunk with the blood of the saints — and history proves that through Crusades, Inquisitions, and executions of reformers. She blends religion and empire, ritual and power — and Scripture says she is destined for destruction. Meanwhile, Jude 1:6 and the Book of Enoch describe the Watchers — angels who descended, corrupted mankind, and were judged. And what does Rome uplift? Rituals, relics, sacred objects, false priesthoods, incense, and even necromantic prayers to the dead. That’s not New Testament Christianity — it’s Watcher worship wearing a robe.
Catholicism teaches prayers to dead saints, bowing before carved images, the exaltation of Mary above Christ in shrines across the world, and the daily re-sacrifice of Jesus in the Mass — a direct contradiction of Hebrews 10:10, which says He died once for all. None of this came from the apostles. It came from a spirit of rebellion dressed in holy garments.
Even their own words give it away. Pope Leo XIII claimed the pope holds the place of God Almighty on Earth. Vatican II declared the Church itself to be the universal sacrament of salvation. The Catechism teaches that the pope has “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power over the whole Church.” That’s not humility. That’s divine usurpation.
So yes — the demons in Rome don’t worship Christ. They worship His enemies. The Vatican is not a church, it’s a throne for the fallen. And every cathedral is a monument to the same Watchers God chained in darkness for corrupting the earth.
The Church of Satan isn’t a couple of edgy clowns trying to erect a Baphomet statue outside an elementary school. That’s just theater — a distraction.
The real Church of Satan is in Rome — wrapped in gold, cloaked in ritual, adored by kings, and worshipped by billions.
It doesn’t wear horns. It wears a mitre.
It doesn’t hiss blasphemy — it chants it in Latin.
And it doesn’t reject Christ outright — it replaces Him.
And you wonder why they kept the Book of Enoch out of the final canon? ROFL! They had GOOD REASON to do so believe me..
It blew the cover off the exact system they were building — the one still standing in Rome today.
Last edited:
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
The theory that angels mated with women is a flawed misinterpretation! The Nephilim were a breed of large men, like Andre the Giant or larger like Goliath.
Men are "sons of God".
> If angels could procreate, would God make them that way foreknowing the outcome? God is the creator, so any life form is His creation. What would be God's purpose in creating angels that could procreate?
Gen. 6:4 says they were men, just large men.
The clue lies in our perception of what life was like before the flood.
This brings us to Noah's sons. Pre-Flood men and animals lived hundreds of years, their growth cycle much longer, needless ti say, they were huge. Lizards don't stop growing, hence the dinosaurs. But God limited man's age to 120 years after the flood. Noah's sons were men of renown, sons of God who still lived longer and still mated with later generations whose lifespan and size were limited. The large size, which was a component of their genetic makeup, gradually washed out. We saw remnants in the Philistines, sons of Arnak, Goliath. He was a giant, but could have been a descendant of the Rehaim, (Nephilim breed).
The Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33), appear to be present before and after the flood. The Emites, the Ammonites (or Anakites) and the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 2:10-11), existed after the Flood and appear to be separate entities although the scribes often use the phrase ‘like’ suggesting they had a similar phenotype. The Anakim seem to be derived from the Nephilim. The Rephaim although similar to the Nephilim, appear to be distinct from them with respect to family lineage. Deuteronomy 2.21 states the Rephaim were largely subdued by the Ammonites which ‘dwelt in their stead’ One of the most prominent Rephaim was Og, King of Bashan, who slept in ‘a bedstead of iron; nine cubits was the length, and four cubits the breadth of it’ (Deuteronomy 3:11). A cubit was the distance from the elbow to the fingertips, so that is about 13x6. Allowing some extra room for stretching, a cubit above and below his body, He was likely 8-9 feet tall. He appears to be one of the last survivors of the Rephaim. A race of giants implies a hereditary element and the origins of some names may indicate the genetic pathway involved.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
Of course. Principalities are Deman prince's in charge of various regions of the world, like China, Russia, India, The Middle East, etc. All areas where false religions abound, these princes/ generals of Satan are in charge and warned against by Holy angels.
Eph. 6:12
For our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
It is interesting that tue Lord cast down many fallen angels who left their first estate in heavenly places - but not all.
They do serve a purpose. It is uncomfortable for people to realize that Satan and his demons serve a purpose in God's overall plan. Otherwise he would have rid thenplanet completely of them, locked them all up at the time of their rebellion. And as we have seen in the story of Job, Satan cannot do anything unless he has God's permission. That is a confounding idea most of us will wrestle with.
shepherdsword
Active Member
soberxp
Well-Known Member
Why not directly educate Satan to be a spirit that does not tempt people, and then create new human beings?
Or simply eliminate Satan directly and then create innocent humans.
No doubt.
This made me think of Pharaoh in the Ten Commandments movie…
Yul Brenner pouring out the “sacred water” into the Nile.
It didn’t work.
The Gospel of Christ
Active Member
1. "Men are the sons of God."
Not in the way Genesis 6:2 uses the term.
In Genesis, the phrase “sons of God” (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is never used for men — it always refers to angelic beings.
Job 1:6 – “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”
Job 38:7 – “…when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”
In Hebrew usage, bene ha’elohim never refers to human males until much later metaphorical usage in the New Testament (i.e., those born again in Christ).
In Genesis 6, it refers to divine, supernatural beings — angels — not Seth’s descendants.
2. "If angels could procreate, why would God make them that way?"
God also gave mankind free will — that doesn’t mean He caused the Fall.
The Watchers sinned by violating their created boundaries — not by obeying God's design, but by rebelling against it.
Jude 1:6–7 – “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling... just as Sodom and Gomorrah... indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire…”
2 Peter 2:4 – “God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into Tartarus…”
This is not about normal human corruption. These angels "left their estate" — their domain — to do something unnatural: take wives and produce offspring. That’s the entire context of their judgment.
3. "Nephilim were just large men, like Goliath or Andre the Giant."
Then explain why God sent a global flood just to wipe out "tall guys."
Or why these “large men” had semi-divine fathers, as the text literally says:
Genesis 6:4 – “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
The text doesn’t say they were just tall. It says they were born from a union between supernatural beings and women.
Also, Goliath is descended from the Rephaim/Anakim, who themselves were remnants of this hybrid line (Numbers 13:33). That’s not debunking the angelic-human hybrid interpretation — it confirms it.
4. “They lived longer before the flood, so they were just naturally bigger.”
This is speculation with zero textual support.
Genesis doesn’t say “everyone was a giant” — it says the Nephilim were the result of a specific event: the sons of God taking wives and bearing children.
Also, Noah wasn't a giant. Nor were his sons. The Ark was measured in cubits based on normal-sized humans.
5. “Enoch and Jude are irrelevant.”
Jude quotes Enoch word-for-word and ties it directly to the angels that sinned in Genesis 6.
The early church fathers — Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian — all accepted the angelic interpretation and the Book of Enoch as historically valid.
It wasn’t until St. Augustine of Hippo (4th–5th century AD), writing under the rising influence of Imperial Roman theology, that the “Sethite view” — the notion that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 referred merely to the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the daughters of Cain — began to gain traction. This interpretation, while widely adopted in later Western Christendom, has no foundation in ancient Hebrew linguistics, Second Temple Jewish thought, early church exegesis, or intertestamental literature.
No respected Hebraist, Second Temple scholar, Dead Sea Scrolls expert, or patristic theologian prior to the 4th century held the Sethite view. In fact, the overwhelming consensus among:
the writers of 1 Enoch,
the scribes of Qumran,
the translators of the Septuagint,
the authors of Jubilees,
and the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Lactantius,
…was that the “sons of God” were angelic beings — the Watchers — who transgressed divine boundaries and mated with human women, producing hybrid offspring: the Nephilim.
Augustine’s reinterpretation was not rooted in the Hebrew text or ancient tradition — it was a philosophical compromise, influenced by Neoplatonism and a desire to demythologize the Genesis narrative in light of Greco-Roman sensibilities.
In short: the Sethite theory is a late, Western innovation — not the historic view of either Judaism or early Christianity.
Genesis 6 says what it says — and all the ancient Jewish and early Christian sources agreed:
The sons of God were angels,
The Nephilim were hybrid offspring,
And the whole situation was so corrupt and unnatural, God wiped it all out with the Flood.
Denying the supernatural in Genesis 6 isn’t interpretation.
It’s whitewashing a divine rebellion that the rest of Scripture repeatedly affirms.
Ya know?
I know people spend time thinking such thoughts...
But the reality is that it doesn't matter. The closest planet that possibly contains any sort of life in the form of bacteria is 128 light years away.
Which if we were to try to travel to....
If somehow we were to create a ship that could attain some fraction of light speed by accelerating over a year at a time....
Time then slows down for the travelers but continues at the same speed for Earth residents. Meaning it would take a minimum of 500 years for a ship to travel to this planet. Then sending a message would require (at best) another 128 years to get back to Earth.
500 years ago we, as earthlings, were just developing the printing press.
So....all this to say....it's completely not relevant and a waste of time. Even if we knew beyond all doubt they definitely had people there.
I agree.
It does explain why the Flood had to be global.
In Jesus’ day, demons could possess “swine.” (Matt.8:28-32) So by destroying “all flesh that has the breath of life”, (Gen.6:17), God was denying them any means of staying on the Earth. They were forced to de-materialize, and revert back to spirits.
That these “sons of God” (Gen.6) were angels who “forsook their proper dwelling place” (Jude 6) and became demons, is verified by the common thread of gods sleeping with women & fathering children, that is found in numerous legends of the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Hindi — worldwide, really…from cultures located in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Afroasiatic Middle East, Western Eurasia, Asia-Pacific / Oceania,
North America, South America…
These cultures are mostly unrelated, having had no contact with each other for thousands of years, since Babel.
Yet, their myths contain such similar stories!
There’s also another striking similarity, which is the festivals / celebrations of the dead, held by many cultures at the same time of year.
(Not all, but many.)
An excerpt from the book, “The Worship of The Dead”, by John Garnier, in establishing the Flood as fact, states:
“
The force of this argument is illustrated by the fact of the observance of a great festival of the dead in commemoration of the event, not only by nations more or less in communication with each other, but by others widely separated, both by the ocean and by centuries of time. This festival is, moreover, held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., “The 17th day of the second month” — the month nearly corresponding with our November.
The Jewish civil year commenced at the autumnal equinox, or about September 20, and the 17th day of the second month would therefore correspond with the fifth day of our month of November; but as the festival was originally, as in Egypt, preceded by three days’ mourning, it appears to have been put back three days in countries where one day’s festival only was observed, and to have been more generally kept on November 2nd.
Mr. [Robert Grant] Halliburton says : “The festival of the dead, or feast of ancestors, is now, or was, formally observed at or near the beginning of November by the Peruvians, the Hindus, the Pacific Islanders, the people of the Tonga Islands, the Australians, the ancient Persians, the ancient Egyptians and the northern nations of Europe, and continued for three days among the Japanese, the Hindus, the Australians, the ancient Romans and the ancient Egyptians.
“Wherever the Roman Catholic Church exists, solemn Mass for All Souls is said on the 2nd November, and on that day the gay Parisians, exchanging the boulevard for the cemetery, lunch at the graves of their relatives and hold unconsciously their “feast of ancestors” on the very same day that savages in far-distant quarters of the globe observe, in a similar manner, their festival of the dead. Even the Church of England, which rejects All Souls as based on a belief in purgatory and as being a creation of Popery, clings devoutly to All Saints.” Again, with reference to the Peruvian festival of the dead, Mr. Haliburton writes:—“The month in which it occurs, says Rivers, is called ‘Aya Marca,’ from ‘Aya,’ a ‘corpse,’ and ‘Marca,’
‘carrying in arms,’ because they celebrated the solemn festival of the dead with tears, lugubrious songs and plaintive music, and it was customary to visit the tombs of relations, and to leave in them food and drink. if it is worthy of remark that this feast was celebrated among the ancient Peruvians at the same time and on the same day that Christians solemnize their commemoration of the dead —2nd November.”
(Reference given as:
”The Year of the Pleiades”, by R. G. Haliburton;—from “Life and Work at the Great Pyramid”, by [Charles] Piazzi Smith(sic)[Smyth], vol.ii, pp. 372-373, p.388)
Thus we see the origins and timeframe of Halloween.
Truly fascinating!
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
There has been much conflicting arguments over these passages by the best of scholars. Let me further explain my view.
Job 1:6 "...the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among them".
In contest, Job was just speaking of his sons in their occasional acts of sin during their feasts, and that He would afterword pray for them, ask for their forgiveness.
Satan is the accuser of the sons of God; but God picks out Job from all of them and challenges Satan.
Let's back up.
Vs. 4 "And his sons would go and feast in their houses, each on his appointed day, and would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did regularly.
Job 38:7
God is questioning Job about his knowledge of the beginning ... and the end. The first three questions were about Creation and then, in God's timeless reality and mind, He jumps far into the future when the multitude in heaven ( John's vision in heaven of the sons of God) standing before God and the angels with shouts for joy over their salvation.
Job not only wasn't there during creation, but he hasn't a clue what God's overall Plan is, the end of the story.
The Gospel of Christ
Active Member
You're welcome to adopt an allegorical interpretation, but let’s be clear: no ancient Jew, Second Temple writer, Qumran scribe, LXX translator, early Church Father, or New Testament author interpreted the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6 as humans. That idea is a late Roman revision. You’re not defending ancient faith — you’re defending Augustinian damage control.
The Catholic Church worships the fallen angels — it’s beyond obvious at this point. That’s why they buried the Book of Enoch 1700 years ago. It didn’t just clash with their doctrine — it blew the lid off what they were doing. Enoch exposes the Watchers, the hybrid offspring, the secret knowledge, and the divine judgment that followed. It draws a straight, unbroken line from angelic rebellion to human corruption, and ultimately to the systems of power that have always tried to masquerade as divine.
You think Rome — with its Egyptian obelisks, sun wheels, graven images, Vatican serpentine architecture, pine cone idols, Mithraic hats, Dagon fish miters, Babylonian stargates, Jesuit death oaths, basilicas shaped like inverted crosses, throne rooms shaped like the mouth of a serpent, crypts lined with bones, mass in Latin to hide the meaning, and paintings of Nephilim babies adorning their cathedral ceilings — just forgot Enoch?
Yeah, right.
Adam and Eve’s great-grandson —
Noah’s great-grandfather —
A man who “walked with God” and was taken without seeing death,”
who wrote down a firsthand account of what happened after Eden,
who was quoted directly by Jude,
and whose prophecies shaped the worldview of Jesus’ own disciples…
But sure.
That guy’s “unbiblical.”
Totally unreliable.
Meanwhile, you walk into the Vatican and it looks like a Book of Enoch nightmare brought to life —
a three-ring circus of Watcher worship, Nephilim iconography, serpent symbolism, and angelic rebellion painted as divine glory.
C'mon..
They didn’t reject Enoch because it was "false".
They rejected it because it was true — and dangerous to their system.
Because Enoch names them.
And exposes exactly what they’re still doing.
Last edited:
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
It's not allegorical, it's a literal interpretation. Oh, and I suppose you knew them and their thoughts and all their writings? Lol.
I'm done, not much more to say. Believe what you will.
BTW, making up lies, trying to incorporate all scholarly knowledge into your view is just bs.
[Augustine and the reformers Luther and Calvin all agreed that the correct interpretation was that the “sons of God” referred to the lineage of Seth while the “daughters of man” referred to the lineage of Cain. ]
Last edited:
The Gospel of Christ
Active Member
“Oh, I suppose you knew them and their thoughts?”
No — I didn’t need to.
Their writings are still here.
And they’re crystal clear.
The Book of Enoch (written during the Second Temple period) explicitly names the “sons of God” as angels called the Watchers
The Qumran community (Dead Sea Scrolls) preserved and revered Enoch as authoritative — they didn't think it was about Seth
The Septuagint translators — the same men who rendered the Hebrew Bible into Greek — translated bene ha’elohim in Genesis 6:2 as "angels of God", not "sons of Seth"
Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Lactantius all affirmed the angelic interpretation
Even Jude, in the New Testament, quotes Enoch verbatim and connects it to the angels that sinned
So no, I don’t need to know them personally. I read.
“Making up lies, trying to incorporate all scholarly knowledge into your view is just bs.”
That’s not “making up lies.”
That’s called historic consensus — until Augustine rewrote it to fit Rome’s evolving theology.
He rejected the supernatural reading because:
It didn’t fit his Neoplatonic worldview
It clashed with imperial respectability
And it made the Church hierarchy look a little too much like Babylon when you connect the dots
“Augustine and the Reformers agreed on the Sethite view.”
Exactly — and none of them were Second Temple Jews, Qumran scribes, Septuagint translators, or Apostolic-era believers.
They lived hundreds, or even thousands of years later, and based their view on philosophy, not Hebrew exegesis.
So yes, I believe the people closest to the text, the culture, and the language — not Roman theologians trying to make the Bible safer for an empire.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
You said All Jewish and Christians scholars held this view. Now you are back peddling?
RC Sproul's teaching:
[The immediate context of Genesis 6 supports this conclusion that the " sons of God" are men from the lineage of Seth. Following the narrative of the fall in Genesis 3, the Bible traces the lines of two families, the descendants of Cain and of Seth. Cain’s line is recounted in Genesis 4, and this line displays proliferating wickedness, capped by Lamech, who was the first polygamist (Gen. 4:19) and who rejoiced in murderous, vengeful use of the sword (Gen. 4: 23–24). By contrast, the line of Seth, which is traced in Genesis 5, displays righteousness. This line includes Enoch, who “walked with God, and . . . was not, for God took him” (Gen. 4:24). In the line of Seth was born Noah, who was “a righteous man, blameless in his generation” (Gen. 6:9). Thus, we see two lines, one obeying God and the other willfully disobeying Him.
Therefore, many Hebrew scholars believe that Genesis 6 is describing not the intermarriage of angels and human women but the intermarriage of the descendents of Cain and Seth. The two lines, one godly and one wicked, come together, and suddenly everyone is caught up in the pursuit of evil, such that “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). We do not need to surmise an invasion of the earth by angels in order to make sense of this chapter.]
Dash RipRock
Member
Yeah a lot of people pick and choose which passages they want to believe in as their disrespect the Word of God as their "spirit guides" are not of the Lord.
So if this was true would you agree to the claim that Jesus Christ lacks the power and authority to control what went in to His canon?
If so, that means God's Word cannot be trusted and should be tossed in the trash because it would be filled with lies if in fact Jesus Christ lacks the power and authority to control what went in to His canon
The truth of the matter is it was the Lord personally Who decided what went in to the Word of God as He influenced mankind to include some writings while excluding others. Like a lot of writings, the Book of Enoch contains some historical value but it it not the inspired Word of the Living God.
satan is corrupt and there is no rehabilitating him as there is no salvation for angels.
Those that seek to stand up for the devil are in opposition to the Lord and are false brethren
That's what this thread is all about, a satanic ploy to get people to waste time they should otherwise be spending on actually study of God's Word so they can experience legitimate growth in their personal relationship with the Lord.
Similar threads
