Since Elijah and Enoch did not die, were they free from original sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesl4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mesl4 said:
Or, will they come back some day and then die? Or???
Click to expand...
No, Elias and Enoch were free from original sin. Only Jesus and Mary were free from original sin. They were taken up to heaven for various reasons and will remain with the father for ever.
 
tobinatorstark said:
No, Elias and Enoch were free from original sin. Only Jesus and Mary were free from original sin. They were taken up to heaven for various reasons and will remain with the father for ever.
Click to expand...
But then somehow were not subject to the curse of death, which was the penalty of sin.Why?
 
We know that Enoch 'walked all his days with God" … what this tells us is that though Enoch was born in a fallen state [concupiscience - with a tendancey towards sin - the stain of original sin - however you wish to describe it] he [Enoch- exercised his free will to choose God. Enoch chose each day to walk with God …and he was taken directly up to heaven [did not die an earthly death] … this was the state into which Adam and Eve were created …

Some translations of Genesis read that Satan said “surely you will not die the death [or die-die]?” … as in there is a death that is greater then just bodily … perhaps body and soul … some theologians think that was the “original sin” … that Satan came and Adam and Eve feared for their lives [The serpent being ancient foe [Dragon] described in Revelation] … the did not trust that God would save them or bring them from death … and thus they lost there lives [except for the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus which brings everlasting life!!!] but that is another though related topic …

Elijah I think is less clear whether he died and was transported immediately by chariots of flame or was transported while still alive … Elijah too, evidenced extreme fidelity to God - even if he we do not have the same declaration of “walking all his days” … suffice it to say, both men used thier free will to choose Life over death, God over the empty promises of Satan …

And as such they are models for the Christian life 👍 We should look to their example on walking with God 🙂
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
I too am of the early tradition that Enoch and Elijah are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11. I could be wrong of course, but to me it just makes too much sense when compared to alot of other things in Scripture.
Click to expand...
I am a strong supporter of patristic exegesis, and that is strongly supported by the Church Fathers. Here is an excellent footnote in a commentary that I have on Revelation by St. Andrew of Caesarea…

This interprétation of the two witnesses goes back at least as far as Irenaeus (Hères. 5.5.1) and was followed by other commentators, including Oikoumenios (6.11.1-4) and Hippolytus, (Chr. andAnt. 43, Comm. on Dan. 4.35 and fragments preserved by Dionysius Bar Salibi). The same tradition existed in the West, as witnessed by Augustine who wrote of “…Enoch and Elias, who did not die, but were removed in their bodies from contact with men. I pass over the gênerai belief that they will meet death later, for several interpreters of John’s Apocalypse refer to the two Prophets what he says without mentioning their names, namely that they will then appear in the bodies in which they now live so that they, too, may die, as other martyrs hâve died, for the truth of Christ.” (Ep. 193, FC 30, 295-96) Augustine also found it perfectly logical that Enoch and Elijah would hâve to return to die since they were human and he believed that original sin demands death as a conséquence of sin. “Enoch and Elijah, both dead in Adam and bearing in their flesh the seeds of death, will return to this life, as it is believed, to pay this debt, and after so long a delay will die.” (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 9.6.11. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers séries, vols. 41 and 42 [New York: Newman Press, 1982], 42:77.) Gregory the Great also seems to refer to the same tradition in Morals 9.8(9). However, although he refers to Elijah in connection to Rev. 11:4, he does not specifically state that the other prophet is Enoch. The belief that one ofthe two witnesses would be Elijah arose from the Malachi prophecy (Mal. 4:5) that Elijah would return before the Day ofthe Lord, which seems to hâve been universally accepted among both Jews and Christians. Victorinus is in agreement that definitely one ofthe two is Elijah, but he mentions various options proposed by others for the identity of the second prophet, including Moses and Elisha, both of whom Victorinus rejects because both died and there appears to be no reason for them to return. He settles on Jeremiah because Jeremiah was told that he would be a prophet “to the nations” (Jer. 1:5) and since Jeremiah never prophesied to the nations, the second prophet of Rev. 11:3 must be him because the word of God must be truthful (Vie. 11.5).
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I am a strong supporter of patristic exegesis, and that is strongly supported by the Church Fathers. Here is an excellent footnote in a commentary that I have on Revelation by St. Andrew of Caesarea…

This interprétation of the two witnesses goes back at least as far as Irenaeus (Hères. 5.5.1) and was followed by other commentators, including Oikoumenios (6.11.1-4) and Hippolytus, (Chr. andAnt. 43, Comm. on Dan. 4.35 and fragments preserved by Dionysius Bar Salibi). The same tradition existed in the West, as witnessed by Augustine who wrote of “…Enoch and Elias, who did not die, but were removed in their bodies from contact with men. I pass over the gênerai belief that they will meet death later, for several interpreters of John’s Apocalypse refer to the two Prophets what he says without mentioning their names, namely that they will then appear in the bodies in which they now live so that they, too, may die, as other martyrs hâve died, for the truth of Christ.” (Ep. 193, FC 30, 295-96) Augustine also found it perfectly logical that Enoch and Elijah would hâve to return to die since they were human and he believed that original sin demands death as a conséquence of sin. “Enoch and Elijah, both dead in Adam and bearing in their flesh the seeds of death, will return to this life, as it is believed, to pay this debt, and after so long a delay will die.” (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis 9.6.11. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers séries, vols. 41 and 42 [New York: Newman Press, 1982], 42:77.) Gregory the Great also seems to refer to the same tradition in Morals 9.8(9). However, although he refers to Elijah in connection to Rev. 11:4, he does not specifically state that the other prophet is Enoch. The belief that one ofthe two witnesses would be Elijah arose from the Malachi prophecy (Mal. 4:5) that Elijah would return before the Day ofthe Lord, which seems to hâve been universally accepted among both Jews and Christians. Victorinus is in agreement that definitely one ofthe two is Elijah, but he mentions various options proposed by others for the identity of the second prophet, including Moses and Elisha, both of whom Victorinus rejects because both died and there appears to be no reason for them to return. He settles on Jeremiah because Jeremiah was told that he would be a prophet “to the nations” (Jer. 1:5) and since Jeremiah never prophesied to the nations, the second prophet of Rev. 11:3 must be him because the word of God must be truthful (Vie. 11.5).
Click to expand...
The problem I see with Elijah being one of the 2 witnesses, is that Jesus (?) said that John the Baptist was “the Elijah who was to come.” Whatever that means. Sounds like reincarnation to me but I guess that’s not it.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top