GoogleFallen Angels Have Attempted to Censor Biblical History |

Fallen Angels Have Attempted to Censor Biblical History

Written By: CK Quarterman - Feb• 11•12


It is obvious that fallen angels have attempted to censor Biblical literature about themselves.


Justin Martyr, a philosopher who converted to Christianity during the time of Polycarp, suggested that fallen angels had infiltrated the highest offices of the church and desired to remove any evidence of fallen angelic activity prior to and after the flood. This is why any book that referred to the Book of Enoch was censored. However, the Bible supports evidence of fallen angel intervention.


1- Fallen angels have attempted to censor Bible information about their history.


Where they successful? I am not sure, but see my note below for my personal opinion on how we should treat these books.


Did you know that the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch have always been canon in the Ethiopian Bible? Tertullian even called the Book of Enoch “Holy Scripture“.


What did Justin Martyr think about the fallen angels? He was the earliest church writer (Early Church Father).


But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men, and women, and cities, and nations, which they related, ascribed them to god himself, and to those who were accounted to be his very offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called his brothers, Neptune and Pluto, and to the children again of these their offspring. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and his children, by that name they called them“. Justin Marty Second Apology


2- They lusted after the daughters of Adam

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair (Gen. 6:1)


3- Their offspring were the demigods of mythology the “men of renown” or Nephilim. The children of the Fallen Angels were the Nephilim of Genesis Chapter Six.


And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gen 6:1-4)


Julius Caesar wrote about giants. I would not want to include his writings in anything canon. Flavius Josephus wrote about Christ. He is a historian. It may have been a first or second hand account, but its not in the canon, nor would I put it in the canon. Please, don’t allow books that are history (only) to confuse the issue of what is canon. Just because they claim or don’t claim to be canon is irrelevant. They are not canon, but they should not be thrown out on the trash heap anymore than the works of Julius Caesar.

Flavius Josephus is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity. Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Book of Giants, and Jasher are all historical not canon, but should be accepted where they agree with canon and rejected where they do not agree with canon. Just as you would any high school text book!

These books together add color to the Biblical account. They in no way take away from the Biblical account. Why not allow them to have a historical value? Allow them to fill in some of the story and color the edges so we understand the story a little more?

Julius Caesar in several volumes gave first hand accounts of fighting giants. Should we discount that, because the Bible doesn’t mention Julius Caesar’s accounts? No!

Hence, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!

The Bible gives us the outline. There is nothing wrong with connecting the dots in the outline using historical Jewish writings.

Did Jesus Quote from the Book of Enoch ?

It is possible Jesus confirmed the Book of Enoch by calling it Scripture, even quoting from it. There is a phrase in Matthew 22:30 which is close to a quote from the Book of Enoch. Jesus teaches a principle that angels in heaven don’t marry, but this principle isn’t found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found only in the book of Enoch. Since the book of Enoch was found with the Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), we know it was in existence during the time of Christ. Is it conceivable that Christ was quoting from the Book of Enoch?

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. (Mat 22:30)

But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world.  And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling”. (Book of Enoch 15:6-7)


How should we treat EXTRA-BIBLICAL TEXTS?

Bottom line: We just don’t allow them to create doctrine! Meaning where they disagree with scripture (the 66 books of the Cannon) we just ignore them. Some books like Jasher have interesting things, but depart from the basics of scriptural doctrine. A good example is its support of the “seed theory’ which I reject, but it does mention angels mating with humans which I feel Genesis the Sixth Chapter is explaining to the reader. So we “eat the meat and spit out the bones” so to speak. Any augment made should be an augment from scripture backed up by, or “colored” so to speak with historical texts, archeology, and extra-Biblical texts. However, if a point of view can only be supported by reference to extra-Biblical texts then it should be held as a “tongue-in-cheek” idea, or rejected outright. The “seed theory” I mentioned earlier is a non-scriptural heresy that Cain was the product of Eve and Satan. The Bible does not support this notion, only the Book of Jasher, hence we shouldn’t build a belief involving Cain being the seed of Satan based purely upon the Book of Jasher. Simple: Let scripture (the Cannon) reign, and support the text with extra-Biblical material, historical texts, and archeology don’t create beliefs based upon extra-Biblical material.


There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation.” — Edmund Spencer


While it is beyond the scope of this post to thoroughly discuss a subject such as Canonization I want to briefly touch the topic. Why are certain books in the Bible and why have certain books been left out?   Writings attributed to the apostles which circulated among the earliest Christian communities became  authoritatively equal to the Old Testament. Writings which are falsely attributed to a biblical character or time is usually considered a spurious writing. Spurious writings are sometimes called “lost books”. The so-called lost books were known such as Enoch by the Jews and the Christians and were not at times debated but in the end not considered inspired. In the case of Enoch it has remained in the Ethiopian cannon. Lost books weren’t lost nor were they removed from the Bible because they were never in the Bible to begin with. Most were not incorporated in the Cannon because of a lack of apostolic or prophetic authorship, or where it was in doubt. A tradition of use, authority within the communities, antiquity or apostolicity, and orthodoxy were factors in deciding which books were “in” and which were “out.” Other books were accepted by some Christian communities but not others. Sometimes they were labeled “heretical” by more powerful Christian groups like Rome or they were not popular or known well enough by Greek-speaking Christians. The Books of Enoch and Jubilees were not “Canonized”, but should be considered informative for their historical value.





Book Trailer

Enhanced by Zemanta

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

%d bloggers like this: