Origin of the Nephillim

[De_Maria]

Prodigal1984:

Yes but the Church never said and no other books at Trent.

The question isn’t merely Trent; it’s what the Church teaches in general. And, what it teaches is that we expect no further revelation until the eschaton. Therefore, the canon is settled.

You’re still equivocating with “further” or “new” revelation. The Orthodox Canon has existed as long as the Catholic. Nothing new.

But, if the Catholic Church wants to reunify with the Orthodox, I’m sure that condemning their canon will only complicate matters.

It might be interesting to find out whether Eastern Catholics are forbidden to use the Orthodox Canon.

 

[thistle]

Do Catholics and Orthodox Have the Same Bible? | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[Gorgias]

Non sequitur. You have agreed that we are talking about existing revelation which is included in the canons of other Churches. Yet, you included new revelation in your conclusion.

Not so. In all of my assertions to which you agreed, I was talking about a particular subject – a particular “we”. That subject, who is making determinations about the canon, is the Catholic Church. It is she who has made these statements and who has determined what the canon of Scripture is. Therefore, what other churches have decided – whether valid Churches or simply ecclesial communities – have decided about their canon is irrelevant. That’s the non sequitur of your argument.

We can look at them and recognize apostolic succession and conclude “valid Church”; but that doesn’t imply that we give approbation to any particular assertion that they make. And, that certainly doesn’t mean that we must, or should, or even might be expected to actually adopt their decisions.

Although, above, you equivocated between new and existing revelation.

Umm… no. “Equivocation” means dealing with two things as if they were the same – you know, like you did when you conflated what Trent says about Protestant communities with what the Church says about other valid Churches.

On the other hand, I was pointing out the difference between “new” and “existing” revelation. Umm… that’s the opposite of equivocation, friend…

Thus, in Session IV, the Church made the infallible proclamation that anyone who denied the canon of the Latin Vulgate, was anathema.

Thus proclaiming the Catholic Canon correct, but neither alleging nor proclaiming the Orthodox canon, false.

Two thoughts:

• the anathemae of Trent (or any other council, for that matter) only applies to members of the Church. Therefore, by its very definition, it has no effect on those who aren’t Catholics. (At the time of Trent, the Protestants – from the Catholic viewpoint – were Catholics who had committed apostasy.)
• The Church wasn’t addressing Orthodox Churches. However, if I say that 2+2 is 4 and only 4, and you say 2+2=5, then what does my statement say about the validity of your conclusion? Not “what does it say about what I’m gonna do about your conclusion”, mind you, 'cause I’m just gonna shrug and say “whatever, dude”. No… I mean, what does it say about whether I think your conclusion is valid? That’s what’s in play here.

 

[Gorgias]

The fact that the Catholic Church wants to reunify with all true Churches makes it obvious why the Church did not condemn their Bibles. Condemning their Bibles would make it that much more difficult to bring those Churches back into the fold.

Yeah… I guess that’s why the Catholic Church doesn’t declare the Pope as the head of the bishops, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that unleavened bread is the only valid matter for Eucharist, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that celibacy for priests is optional. After all, each of these will “make it that much more difficult to bring these Churches back into the fold.”

(You kinda have an odd conception of what true ecumenism is. It might be helpful for you to review the actual documents of the Church on ecumenism. )

Thus, your claim that the Catholic Church would not at some time in the future, accept the Orthodox version of the Bible, is not well thought out.

Do me a favor: take a step back and re-read what you wrote. You’re claiming that the Church would modify Divine Revelation – one of the two parts of the Deposit of the Faith itself! – in order to get someone to rejoin the Church? And it’s my position that’s not “well thought out”?!?

But, if the Catholic Church wants to reunify with the Orthodox, I’m sure that condemning their canon will only complicate matters.

I don’t know where you’re getting this from. I never claimed that the Catholic Church was in the business of condemning Orthodox Canon. I’m just refuting ya’lls’ claim that the Catholic Church might modify their canon to pacify reunion-friendly Orthodox Churches!

 

[Prodigal1984]

It isn’t new revelation
New revelation is someone claiming after the Apostolic age that they received private revelation which contradicts the public revelation which was given to the Church.
How is this even possible to say the Book of Enoch could not possibly be scripture when the Epistle of Jude quotes from it!? What so the verse Jude chose to use from that unrevelation book only becomes scripture because he chose to use it? So whose hand was really divinely inspired in that case in that verse? The author of Jude or the author of Enoch, but only as he wrote that one verse?

 

[Prodigal1984]

I’ll just leave it at this verse in 2(4) Esdras and maybe we can all walk away from it understanding who is at right here.

And it came to pass, when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, and let the worthy and unworthy read it: But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them to such as be wise among thy people: For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. And I did so.
II Esdras 14:45‭-‬48 RV1895

 

[De_Maria]

Not so. In all of my assertions to which you agreed, I was talking about a particular subject – a particular “we”. That subject, who is making determinations about the canon, is the Catholic Church.

We are both talking about the same particular “we”, the Catholic Church.

It is she who has made these statements

She has only stated that anyone who denies that the canon of the Latin Vulgate, is anathematized. There is no other claim.

and who has determined what the canon of Scripture is.

The Catholic Church does not make that claim. Produce it if you want me to believe it.

Therefore, what other churches have decided – whether valid Churches or simply ecclesial communities – have decided about their canon is irrelevant. That’s the non sequitur of your argument.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church of Christ. Over and above any other Church. Even in the days when the Orthodox and Catholic Church were one Church, the Catholic Church allowed the use of the Orthodox canon. It was not invented after the split.

If there had been a problem with the use of the other canon, the Catholic Church would have put a stop to it back in 400 ad. But she didn’t.

Unless you want to show the proof of your claim.

We can look at them and recognize apostolic succession and conclude “valid Church”; but that doesn’t imply that we give approbation to any particular assertion that they make. And, that certainly doesn’t mean that we must, or should, or even might be expected to actually adopt their decisions.

Before 800 ad, we were one and the same Church.

Umm… no.

Umm, yes.

“Equivocation” means dealing with two things as if they were the same – you know, like you did when you conflated what Trent says about Protestant communities with what the Church says about other valid Churches.

Uh, read Trent IV. Apparently, you don’t know that the Catholic Church had a session precisely on the Catholic Canon.

On the other hand, I was pointing out the difference between “new” and “existing” revelation. Umm… that’s the opposite of equivocation, friend…

No, you didn’t. In the same breath, you said that Orthodox canon was new revelation. And it isn’t.

Your two thoughts are irrelevent. Bottomline, the Orthodox canon existed for a longer time than the Latin Vulgate canon. But the Catholic Church did not stop the Orthodox, which were subordinate to the Roman rite, from using that canon. Why not?

 

[De_Maria]

Yeah… I guess that’s why the Catholic Church doesn’t declare the Pope as the head of the bishops, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that unleavened bread is the only valid matter for Eucharist, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that celibacy for priests is optional.

That’s a good point. Why did the Catholic Church never deny the validity of leavened bread which is used in the Orthodox Churches? Remember that the Orthodox Church was once part of the Catholic Church.

After all, each of these will “make it that much more difficult to bring these Churches back into the fold.”

You said it.

(You kinda have an odd conception of what true ecumenism is. It might be helpful for you to review the actual documents of the Church on ecumenism. )

No, you have a strange view of who decides Catholic Doctrine. Apparently, you think that you are the Magisterium’s teacher. In this discussion, you are assuming that your presuppositions are Catholic Doctrine. They’re not.

Do me a favor: take a step back and re-read what you wrote. You’re claiming that the Church would modify Divine Revelation – one of the two parts of the Deposit of the Faith itself! – in order to get someone to rejoin the Church? And it’s my position that’s not “well thought out”?!?

Your thought is very Protestant. You’re assuming that the Bible is the totality of Divine Revelation. It’s not. Sola Scriptura, much?

I don’t know where you’re getting this from.

History and logic.

I never claimed that the Catholic Church was in the business of condemning Orthodox Canon. I’m just refuting ya’lls’ claim that the Catholic Church might modify their canon to pacify reunion-friendly Orthodox Churches!

No, you’re making the assumption that the Catholic Church has closed that canon at 73 books. She hasn’t. If she had, she would have stopped the use of the Orthodox canon back when the Catholic Church and the Orthodox were one Church.

 

[dochawk]

Not part of our canon, correct. But part of the Orthodox.

AFAIK, also (with limited exceptions) of the corresponding Eastern Catholic Churches . . .

Yeah… I guess that’s why the Catholic Church doesn’t declare the Pope as the head of the bishops, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that unleavened bread is the only valid matter for Eucharist, or why the Catholic Church doesn’t say that celibacy for priests is optional

There has got to be a better way to express what you’re trying to say, given that in the overwhelming majority of the churches in which the RCC is in full communion use only leavened bread, and have married clergy as the norm . . . that, and that the universal use of unleavened bread in the RCC barely goes back to the time of the schism . . .

 

[Gorgias]

How is this even possible to say the Book of Enoch could not possibly be scripture when the Epistle of Jude quotes from it!?

In the OT, we see quotes from Egyptian philosophers. In the NT, we see quotes from Greek philosophies. Is Egyptian theology therefore canonical Scripture? Is Greek philosophy? I mean… nice try, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

She has only stated that anyone who denies that the canon of the Latin Vulgate, is anathematized. There is no other claim.

No, that’s incorrect. There’s the claim of the Catholic Church of what is canonical Scripture, and what is not.

The Catholic Church does not make that claim. Produce it if you want me to believe it.

Wait – are you saying that the Catholic Church doesn’t assert what the canon of Scripture is? Before I quote what the Catholic Church says is canonical Scripture, I want to make sure I haven’t misunderstood what you’re asking for. Are you really sure you want to claim that the Catholic Church hasn’t ID’ed what is Scripture and what is not?

In the same breath, you said that Orthodox canon was new revelation. And it isn’t.

If it were added to the Catholic canon, it would be.

That’s a good point. Why did the Catholic Church never deny the validity of leavened bread which is used in the Orthodox Churches? Remember that the Orthodox Church was once part of the Catholic Church.

Because, IIRC, that rule came into effect after the split.

Apparently, you think that you are the Magisterium’s teacher.

Right. I should step back and cede that role to you, then?

Your thought is very Protestant. You’re assuming that the Bible is the totality of Divine Revelation. It’s not. Sola Scriptura, much?

RIF. “one of the two parts”.

There has got to be a better way to express what you’re trying to say, given that in the overwhelming majority of the churches in which the RCC is in full communion

No – that’s the whole point! The claim was that we must keep open the possibility of changing the RC’s canon to what the Orthodox hold as canon, because otherwise, there’d be no chance of reunion. Yet, my examples show that the Latin Rite has kept its own disciplines, and that hasn’t prevented reunion with the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches!

 

[Anrakyr]

I’m really annoyed at the uncanny valley like effect that happens with historical finds.

Find an African tablet showing first orgenized writting, cool.
Find another passage or book in the dead sea scrolls that could provide context, uncool.

Hence the valley, the closer you get to biblical history the more it’s dismissed on face value.

We may never know what the nephilium are because every time we get close someone will sputter about how it’s not Canon.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

She has only stated that anyone who denies that the canon of the Latin Vulgate, is anathematized. There is no other claim.

No, that’s incorrect. There’s the claim of the Catholic Church of what is canonical Scripture, and what is not.

Show me.

Wait – are you saying that the Catholic Church doesn’t assert what the canon of Scripture is?

Lol! Quit trying to change my argument. You keep claiming that the Catholic Church denies the inspiration of the Orthodox canon.

I’m telling you that the Catholic Church does NOT deny the inspiration of the Orthodox canon.

Before I quote what the Catholic Church says is canonical Scripture, I want to make sure I haven’t misunderstood what you’re asking for. Are you really sure you want to claim that the Catholic Church hasn’t ID’ed what is Scripture and what is not?

The Catholic Church has not denied the inspiration of the Orthodox canon.

If it were added to the Catholic canon, it would be.

Nope. The Catholic Church knew of its existence even before the Latin Vulgate was put together.

Because, IIRC, that rule came into effect after the split.

Show me. I say the Catholic Church has never denied the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist. But if you say that she has, show me.

Right. I should step back and cede that role to you, then?

Absolutely. After all, you claim to have quotes and teachings that don’t exist.
So, you must be the source of these teachings that the Magisterium has never heard of.

RIF. “one of the two parts”.

But you’re denying the first part. Did you not realize that ancient Orthodox Teaching is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church?

No – that’s the whole point! The claim was that we must keep open the possibility of changing the RC’s canon…

Nope. That’s a fallacious argument. I never made such a claim.

The claim is that you believe the Catholic Church has closed the canon of the Bible. I contradict your claim and prove it with quotes from the Council of Trent.

A subordinate claim is that you believe the Catholic Church has denied the inspiration of the Orthodox canon. I deny it.

Provide your proof.

 

[thistle]

Do Catholics and Orthodox Have the Same Bible? | Catholic Answers Q&A

 

[Gorgias]

Show me.

For your reading pleasure.
Note particularly the part about both “positive” and “negative” assertions – the Church, in her description of the Canon, is both affirming what’s in the canon and what’s not.

Lol! Quit trying to change my argument. You keep claiming that the Catholic Church denies the inspiration of the Orthodox canon.

Pot, meet kettle.
No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that the Catholic Church does not accept the canon of the Orthodox Churches (where it diverges from her own) as her own definition of canon. Moreover, I’m pointing out that the Catholic Church teaches that there will be no new revelation (i.e., no new additions to canon!).

I’m telling you that the Catholic Church does NOT deny the inspiration of the Orthodox canon.

Irrelevant. We’re not talking about what the Orthodox Churches believe; we’re talking about what the Catholic Church teaches.

Nope. The Catholic Church knew of its existence even before the Latin Vulgate was put together.

“Knew of [the Orthodox Canon’s] existence” =/= “accepted it as the Canon of the Catholic Church”.

This argument is a non-starter. The Catholic Church also knows that the Orthodox Churches think that the Pope is merely one bishop among equals. By your reasoning, we agree to that idea, too!

Show me. I say the Catholic Church has never denied the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist. But if you say that she has, show me.

Again, straw man argument. I’m not claiming “the Orthodox Eucharist is invalid”. However, you continue to miss (or misconstrue) my point: it’s not valid matter for the Latin Church. Please re-read those last words – they’re the critical part of the argument: the context of this discussion is what’s relevant in our Church, not someone else’s!

Absolutely. After all, you claim to have quotes and teachings that don’t exist.

Nah… I just disagree with your positions. That’s what’s got your goat…

The claim is that you believe the Catholic Church has closed the canon of the Bible. I contradict your claim and prove it with quotes from the Council of Trent.

“We now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Dei verbum, #4.

If we accepted another Church’s canon, where it had diverged from the Catholic Church’s canon, we would be adding new revelation to our canon. The Church declares that this cannot be so.

 

[Prodigal1984]

If we accepted another Church’s canon, where it had diverged from the Catholic Church’s canon, we would be adding new revelation to our canon. The Church declares that this cannot be so.

How is it new revelation?
We have already established that three texts that were included in the Vulgate were not affirmed into the Canon, nevertheless Pope Clement Vlll put them in an appendix to the Vulgate ensuring people could still read them. Was that new revelation? No it wasn’t because anyone would know they are ancient books which by the way are used in liturgy
Next time you speak that popular prayer on days for the dead, Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them, I hope you realize you are speaking a cited passage from a book you claim has absolutely no influence on the Church. Next time that happens, picture me going,
No new public revelation has nothing to do with ancient books that were considered valuable to early Christians and even Greek speaking Jews. The public revelation refers to the Church saying Marian apparitions are public revelation and we need to use them as an article of faith and teaching as well.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Blessed Catherine Emmerich said in her visions, that the nephelim were fallen angels who during the Fall of Lucifer during which a third of the angels chose to follow satan rather than follow God, that the nephilim were a group of angels that refused to choose either God or satan, and were cast to earth until the Apocalypse is to happen, rather than immediately to Hell, as a slightly less punishment,

She said these angels seduced mankind into occult dark arts prior to the Flood. The women gave themselves entirely over to possession by these demons, and the offspring of these women were giants.
Giants are mentioned multiple times in scripture, in the Old Testament and New Testament and extremely tall human beings have been found by archaeologists also.

Also: look up online the Smithsonian’s cover up that biblical giants existed.

Catherine Emmerich stated that the fallen angels were trying to mess up the human bloodline/ dna, in order to disrupt the coming of the Messiah.

After this event God banishes the Nephilim angels from a mountain they were residing at, to a certain part of the sky, so they would no longer interfere with mankind.

The bible even has a quote that these giants are those heroes we now read about from other myths, (Hercules, Achilles, etc), the bible says: ‘They were giants, very strong, whom we know of as the great heroes of old.’

Just noting the conspiracy theories about this, according to the tradition of Blessed Catherine Emmerich!


Anyone else want to share what other saints have written about the Nephilim?

 

[thistle]

Catherine Emmerich stated that the fallen angels were trying to mess up the human bloodline/ dna, in order to disrupt the coming of the Messiah.

The alleged revelations of Catherine Emmerich are not approved by the Church because they are suspected of being fraudulent.
In fact Anne Emmerich never wrote them. They were written by the poet Brentano who interviewed her.

If you are going to use private revelations to try to support something at least choose ones which are approved by the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

[For your reading pleasure](https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Canon-of-the-Holy-

Lol! Nice try, but the Catholic Answers website does not meet the qualification of a Church decree. You’ve not provided the Church quote you claimed you would provide.

No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that the Catholic Church does not accept the canon of the Orthodox Churches (where it diverges from her own) as her own definition of canon.

Since no one made that claim, you’re battling a straw man.

Moreover, I’m pointing out that the Catholic Church teaches that there will be no new revelation (i.e., no new additions to canon!).

New revelation does not mean new additions to canon. New revelation means new claims of teaching from a divine source.

Irrelevant. We’re not talking about what the Orthodox Churches believe; we’re talking about what the Catholic Church teaches.

On the contrary, this is precisely the point in question. If the Catholic Church has not declared any part of the Orthodox canon invalid, then, the Catholic canon is still open.

“Knew of [the Orthodox Canon’s] existence” =/= “accepted it as the Canon of the Catholic Church”.

I didn’t say it did. So, another straw man. You’re getting good practice at making straw men. You ought to go into the scarecrow business.

This argument is a non-starter. The Catholic Church also knows that the Orthodox Churches think that the Pope is merely one bishop among equals. By your reasoning, we agree to that idea, too!

Non sequitur. Remember that the Orthodox once accepted the Pope.

Again, straw man argument. I’m not claiming “the Orthodox Eucharist is invalid”.

You brought it up.

However, you continue to miss (or misconstrue) my point: it’s not valid matter for the Latin Church. Please re-read those last words – they’re the critical part of the argument: the context of this discussion is what’s relevant in our Church, not someone else’s!

It was our Church before 800 ad. And the Roman rite did not declare it invalid then.
And if we reunify, will it be our Church, then? And will, do you think, the Orthodox Eucharist be invalidated then?

And remember, you brought this up. Now suffer the consequences of your error.

Nah… I just disagree with your positions. That’s what’s got your goat…

Technically, I am disagreeing with yours. Since you posted first.

“We now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Dei verbum, #4.

The Orthodox canon is public revelation. It is hardly new.

If we accepted another Church’s canon, where it had diverged from the Catholic Church’s canon, we would be adding new revelation to our canon. The Church declares that this cannot be so.

The Catholic Church has never declared it invalid. Not when the Orthodox were part of our Church. Not after they schismed off. Not when the Catholic Church convened to infallibly declare the inspiration of the Latin Vulgate.

So far, you’re batting zero. Where is the quote you offered to produce?

 

[Gorgias]

How is it new revelation?

It would be revelation newly added to the canon – that is, the canon that was declared to the exclusion of these texts, multiple times, over the centuries.

We have already established that three texts that were included in the Vulgate were not affirmed into the Canon, nevertheless Pope Clement Vlll put them in an appendix to the Vulgate ensuring people could still read them. Was that new revelation ?

That wasn’t “canonical Scripture”. Apples and oranges, brother…!

Next time you speak that popular prayer on days for the dead, Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them , I hope you realize you are speaking a cited passage from a book you claim has absolutely no influence on the Church.

“Popular prayer” isn’t “canon of Scripture”.

No new public revelation has nothing to do with ancient books that were considered valuable to early Christians and even Greek speaking Jews.

That’s your personal opinion. Thanks for asserting it here. It doesn’t mean that it’s the teaching of the Church, though.

The public revelation refers to the Church saying Marian apparitions are public revelation and we need to use them as an article of faith and teaching as well.

Wait – what?!? The Church doesn’t say that it is. However, the Church also says that we do not expect any additional public revelation. In other words, we don’t expect any additions to what has been declared to be the Deposit of the Faith. Explanations of it? Sure. No additions, though.

Lol! Nice try, but the Catholic Answers website does not meet the qualification of a Church decree. You’ve not provided the Church quote you claimed you would provide.

It does not. However, it does do what you asked for: what the claim of the Catholic Church is, with respect to what is (and what isn’t) canonical Scripture.

Since no one made that claim, you’re battling a straw man.

Actually, that was the claim made upthread: namely, that we can’t close Scripture, since it would damage efforts at reunification.

New revelation does not mean new additions to canon. New revelation means new claims of teaching from a divine source.

Since these texts have not been declared as “teaching from a divine source”, then their addition – by your own admission! – would constitute “new revelation”. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t say it did.

You should read your own posts a little more closely, I’m afraid. Here’s what you said:

you said that Orthodox canon was new revelation. And it isn’t.

And, in your most recent post, you just gave a standard for “new revelation” – namely, “new claims of teaching from a divine source.” No straw man here, I’m afraid. Just holding you to your word.

And remember, you brought this up. Now suffer the consequences of your error.

Riiiiiiiight.

The Orthodox canon is public revelation.

Does the Catholic Church include the differences in the canon in her canon? If not, then no … not “public revelation”, from the perspective of the Catholic Church.