The book of Enoch is quite long (which I've read, but don't remember every line). Which part am I supposed to see that will make it "make sense"? You've presented something as some sort of evidence, but left out too many connecting dots for it to make any sense at all. I can't comprehend how the verse you are quoting connects to what I said, much less what Enoch has to do with it.
In addition, while I agree the book of Enoch was likely canon at the time (at least for some people), it is not in any way a part of the religion that ruled the world, nor a part of the Bible (a specific subset of contextual writings, used to create a narrative).
On top of all of that, it doesn't actually address that all Christian religions (really all Abrahamic religions, but mostly Christian) do talk about a "New Covenant" to explain away the drastic change from OT to NT. The entire "sacrificed his only begotten son" story is the main driver of that "change" narrative, a line that is once again teaching us a strict separation from Source, and that We are not Divine.
The entire purpose of the Abrahamic Religions is to separate us from Source. As I said, you can't Rule without that step. And rule us with that belief is exactly what they did; almost the entire planet, for 2000ish years.
The book of Enoch is quite long (which I've read, but don't remember every line). Which part am I supposed to see that will make it "make sense"? You've presented something as some sort of evidence, but left out too many connecting dots for it to make any sense at all. I can't comprehend how the verse you are quoting connects to what I said, much less what Enoch has to do with it.
In addition, while I agree the book of Enoch was likely canon at the time (at least for some people), it is not in any way a part of the religion that ruled the world, nor a part of the Bible (a specific subset of contextual writings, used to create a narrative).
On top of all of that, it doesn't actually address that all Christian religions (really all Abrahamic religions, but mostly Christian) do talk about a "New Covenant" to explain away the drastic change from OT to NT. The entire "sacrificed his only begotten son" story is the main driver of that "change" narrative, a line that is once again teaching us a strict separation from Source, and that We are not Divine.
The entire purpose of the Abrahamic Religions is to separate us from Source. As I said, you can't Rule without that step. And rule us with that belief is exactly what they did; almost the entire planet, for 2000ish years.
The book of Enoch is quite long (which I've read, but don't remember every line). Which part am I supposed to see that will make it "make sense"? You've presented something as some sort of evidence, but left out too many connecting dots for it to make any sense at all. I can't comprehend how the verse you are quoting connects to what I said, much less what Enoch has to do with it.
In addition, while I agree the book of Enoch was likely canon at the time, it is not in any way a part of the religion that ruled the world, nor a part of the Bible (a specific subset of contextual writings, used to create a narrative).
On top of all of that, it doesn't actually address that all Christian religions (really all Abrahamic religions, but mostly Christian) do talk about a "New Covenant" to explain away the drastic change from OT to NT. The entire "sacrificed his only begotten son" story is the main driver of that "change" narrative, a line that is once again teaching us a strict separation from Source, and that We are not Divine.
The entire purpose of the Abrahamic Religions is to separate us from Source. As I said, you can't Rule without that step. And rule us with that belief is exactly what they did; almost the entire planet, for 2000ish years.