Do you accept Enoch? It has all these bizarre things about angels and women marrying, which Christ said could not happen, and it talks about the watchers and all these goofy mystical things.

Do you believe in the intermarriage of angels and human women?

But since it is declred scripture, we believe that God affected its writtings. I assure you that there is nothing that you mention that was unknown by the people of the councils

Okay. I assure you that they wrestled with themselves and others over theology.

But the councils are not jsut some human thing

They were trying to square the circle in many ways.

So the conclusion is that God, through the Church, through the writer of the book, wants Enoch to be read, and considered, and whatever

Some things were left open to theological wrestling

This isn't one of them

"For in the resurrection they [humans] neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30; see Mark 12:25).

**Matthew 22:30 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<30> For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. ```

**Mark 12:25 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<25> For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. ```

This contradicts the idea of angels marrying women.

And Enoch is still declared Scripture by the Church created by Christ

Wow, sounds like a mess.

Doesn't seem like a mess to me

Do you really think that a book can't be scripture if you consider it to contradict whatever?

How do you deal with that apparent contradiction?

I think Enoch is absurd, yeah. It contradicts scripture. Jasher gives us a better explanation, and is cited as historical throughout the bible.

The label of Scripture marks something as divinely inspired, with a grasp of something divine

That is, divine intervention in some way, I would say

Now if you want to study the canon

Study the councils where they were declared canonical!

Well, I'll have to see what the more educated dudes have to say about that passage in Luke. GG

It doesn't apply only to Enoch, but to many books where some say "this is part of the canon" or "this is not". I follow the catholic canon.

Now anyone can dismiss the luke parable with a quick excuse

But it is up to you to determine if the excuses are consistent

And sound

It helps when you read the earliest christians and they all agree on something

Thought you guys might like this:

St Maximus the Confessor

RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia

*RE: psychosis

fixed

@-EE- BaltBerg Its called the energy essence distinction

@Mozalbete ⳩ Also, he's a saintt in the Catholic church as well. Would watch your mouth, blasphamiing papist.

Dude, I just mentioned how "gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia" are just psychosis

In relation to St. Maximus the Confessor by the looks of it

??

He said "RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia"

And I simplified it