Sex and Scripture: The Case Against The Book of Enoch

A couple of decades ago, I read the “Book of Enoch”. The copy I had was published by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, a mystic who believes the nepholim(sp.?) ,fallen angels, are still around. Despite Prophet’s (IMO) daffyness, the book was accurately translated. Early church fathers resented the book for depicting horny angels and proscribed it. (Iranaeus, et. al.) The Greek orthodox church still retains the book as scriptural.
Edgar Cayce also believed that angels fell by wanting to know what it was like to experience sensory contact with matter. In Blake’s poem “The book of Thel” a spirit desiring to be born looks down on the Earth and sees only a sexual devouring. She flees back to the safe realm of spirits.
I have difficulty with the fall as sexual, since the sepent in most middle eastern religious and mythological tradition was interpreted as knowledge. The Biblical word “know” uses both sexual and epistemological interpretations.
What is your take on all of this?

fiction. like most of the rest of the bible. Moses was an invention based upon a real man… as was christ. Most of what we know of christ came from Paul, who saw him in a vision, then the gospel stories were created.

Most founders are based upon real people, but alot of what we know about them… especially from an “inner” circle is not really the way they were.

There are still recorded instances of
the act of summoning
the lincobus or succubus.

I suspect the “Book of Enoch” to be corrupted in some way, imperfect, etc., but also I expect it to be “true”.

Suspected instinctive mechanism:

These beings were not created by “God”, but instead, usedto be human, and after such a long time of “evolution” – they became unlike any normal ghost, but still possessed their attraction to human, material bodies, [somewhere deep in their memories and passed instincts].

RELIGION IS DOR DOO DOO HEADS!!!

Please don’t take offense to this, but why is it that the older I get all this stuff written so many centuries ago is about as accurate as the Emperor’s New Clothes? Scenario: we have some nuclear winter where much of everything dies but the only think left is data on a site called ilovephilosophy.com. One thousand years later it is thought of as the new scripture and the small population of people left buys into it as a standard for spiritual fulfillment. The God they worship being (of course) Dunamis.

:confused:


Do you see where I’m going here - or are you going to begin an internet prayer chain for me?
And I’m NOT a cynical woman.

It depends upon how adopted an old idea is, and how decrypted/farther-developed it becomes.

No offense found anywhere. Good diverse ideas!!!
Here’s some more info. from research. The fifth chapter of Genesis begins with direct quotes from the
pseudepigraphic" Book of Enoch". It tells of the sons of heaven and the daughters of men. Paul warns women to cover their heads because of the angels, who apparently see women from a sky perspective. Muslim religious traditions still honor this injunction.
The book is dated circa 200 BCE, but its references are to much older writings. Jesus was familiar with the book and quoted it as scripture.
What does all of this have to do with our current religious understandings?
First, it shows the fallibilty of angels, who are now revered by Christain fundamentalists as God’s messengers. Secondly it shows both Eastern and Western concepts about the inferiority of women. More importantly, it begs the question as to what is expected of human morality. If angels fought a war in heaven, the precedent for war on Earth was established. If angels lusted after women, could any man be blamed for doing so? The problem does not consist of progressive ideas, but of regressive ones that dominate our cultures. To what extent are these regressive ideas based on dogmatic interpretations of Scripture?
We live in an age of religious fundamentalism, Christian and Muslim. Unless we understand these beliefs we will suffer their consequences.

I am glad you weren’t offended. If there could be some form of evidence or at least interest generated in this direction, maybe fundamentalists could evolve in their understanding thus becoming more tolerant. The issue isn’t so much even their belief system, but the lack of tolerance in other’s. Am I understanding you? Or am I seeing it from my own perspective point?

Lack of tolerance? – More accurately: lack of liberty.

But when one takes liberty in their own faith by putting another’s down - it is lack of tolerance.

Bessie,
You are right on the mark!!! The issue is taught intolerance. Santayana (sp?) “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Forgive me, I can’t spell worth a damn and am too dumb to improve. Or maybe it is because my mind sometimes spews out portmanteaus and dyslexic writing because the inspiration is faster than its written materialization. In any event, I apologize for such sloppiness.
The point is that the early church fathers hated the idea of horny angels because they had problems with their own sexuality. Augustine was horrified because he felt homosexual inclinations in the communal baths. (See Matthew Fox, “Original blessings.” ) According to Elaine Pagels (scholar on early Christian and gnostic writings), the Hebrew religion tried to counter pagan beliefs in connections between sex and spirituality. It countered the Earh mother in Isis and Diana, insisting intead on a patriarchal ideas., i.e., the father god as omnipotent (but not always moral!) Human sexuality as normal, natural, good is a thoroughly modern idea as is the fact that women are not Adam’s rib.
As for the fall as angels wanting to know sensory experiences (Cayce, et. al.), IMO, stuff and nonsense. The myths are covers for a developing human sense of self-consciousness, of minds expanding as brains evolved. In order to counter taught intolerance, we must first realize who and what we are on a biological level before burdening ourselves with moral implications. We are sexual beings. We are all in this plight of the human condition together. There are no inferiors among us, just persons struggling according to various levels of ability to define for themselves the meaning and value of being and becoming in the teeth of death. I resent any belief that sullies what is human.