If Sam starts a Bible study course he and his students will create a revolution and they will be unstoppable. Thats the kind of knowledge this man has been blessed from above.
Great idea that I also had … like why no Bible class? I’m hungry for knowledge and understanding and know that I’d be baptized in fire in a Bible study with Sam!
Never wanted to read the Book of Enoch because I thought it was corrupt, hence being removed from the Bible. But after Sam showed that Jude, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit( 2 Timothy 4:1-4 and 2 Peter 1:20-21) , quotes the Book of Enoch, I’m now convinced that not only do I need to read it but I have so much to learn
Sam didn't say the Book of Enoch is or was inspired, or not corrupted. Rather, what you're seeing is that the Bible does indeed quote external sources authoritatively, such in the case of Jude, where in His inspiration by the Spirit of God, upheld information that is true. The specific quotation of the Book of Enoch in his epistle. We do this all the time with movies, books, magazines, etc. we glean that which is true, and leave the rest that is not. Quotation is not a proof that the text quoted is inspired or doesn't lack corruption, but rather that there is still useful, beneficial, true information amongst the information that falls short, to be upheld, so keep that in mind. Again, we do this with modern days movies, books, TV shows, games, etc. which themselves align with truths of reality in varying degrees. I'm just advising you to be diligent and rightly divide the Word of Truth, my friend.
Martin Luther’s take on the Book(s) of Enoch was they were not canonically inspired but they were worth reading and studying. Just because a book did not make it into the Bible doesn’t mean it has no value for education and inspiration. However Luther noted one must be carful not to bring in or weigh such books on the level of the inspired works in the Bible. It may give a person more understanding and depth of scripture but it does not add to or change scripture.
oh sam shamoun you badass ..you just cleared up a doubt that lingered too long about Enoch that the new testament shows in the book of jude ,,thankyou brother
Sam, I not only found these verses convincing but I was even challenged by Peter and Jude so that I saw the chronological order in them !!! Thanks, God bless you and your loved onces 😇
sam, i love these short clips as well! you have SO MUCH GOLD in your content in your livestreams, and so these short clips capture the best & key teachings that we in the audience need to learn like second nature
John 1:11-13 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The doctrine that it was the descendants of Cain vs Set instead of fallen angels has the same gnostic roots and Calvinism. It's in the same hererical spirit
Instead of barking like a dog you better Skype me to go live so I can show you what you wrong is that you think you are a Christian: benny_malik3 Don’t hide like a female dog or I will block you. Don’t make us wait.
Sam do you think the phrase went in unto them could mean some kind of possession? And bare children unto them could mean the babies were given to the angels to possess in exchange for their renown or something? I can't see any ot or nt scripture against this view. It also takes away the angelic sexual reproduction which the bible never mentions, but seems to say the opposite in the nt. What do you think? Sister Jo
Nice. These videos and topic are the ones I like.. Deuturonomy in the section of the Tower of babel they mention the SONS of God in certain translation and found in the dead sea scrolls. Some say SONS of Israel 🤷🏻♂️but the original say SONS of God when the nations were divided buy God.
Sam, I just saw one of your videos that the book of Enoch was not inspired of God and not written by Enoch, so why would you use it as a reference? Just looking for clarity. Thanks and God Bless.
Personally, atm, I've found the Sethite view more convincing. If I recollect correctly, Sextus Julius Africanus, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Cassian, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage, St. John Chrysostom, St. Philastrius of Brescia, St. Jerome Hieronymus, St. Bede, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. definitely didn't take the angelic interpretation. A few excerpts: St. Athanasius of Alexandria "From Adam Seth was born, who was the third after Abel, and from Seth Enosh was born. He hoped to be called the Lord and God. Therefore, the children born from him bear the name ‘sons of God’, just like we also from the name of the master Christ are called Christians. The race of Seth was segregated and not mixed with the race of Cain because of the curse which was laid on him by the God of the universe. But later, when they observed how beautiful the daughters of Cain’s family were, they became enchanted and took them for themselves as wives, thus ruining their ancestral nobility" [PG 28: 740]. St. Cyril of Alexandria "That we rightly understand this passage is also very much confirmed by the interpretation of the other translators. Aquila says: ‘When the sons of the gods saw the daughters of men’. On the other hand, instead of ‘sons of the gods’, Symmachus rendered the expression as ‘sons of the rulers’. They called the descendants of Seth and of Enosh sons of the gods, or better, sons of the rulers, because of the piety and godliness which was in them, and because they could defeat all adversaries: while God, I suppose, in all likelihood came to their aid, and made known all around this pious and holy generation, which was not mixed with that other one, that is to say, with the descendants from Cain and, what is more, from Lamech" [PG 69:53]. St. John Cassian "The sons of Seth who were the sons of God who saw the daughters of those who were born of the line of Cain, and inflamed with the desire for their beauty took to themselves from them wives who taught their husbands the wickedness of their fathers, and at once led them astray from their innate holiness and the single-mindedness of their forefathers" [John Cassian, Conf. 8.21 NPNF s.2 v. 11]. St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage "When Noah saw that the generation of Seth was intermingled with the house of Cain, which was cursed, he determined that he would not marry a wife nor have children, so that they should not be intermingled and cursed with the house of Cain, the cursed seed" [Demonstrations 13.5]. St. Philastrius of Brescia "There is a heresy which asserts bout the giants that prior to the flood angels intermingled with women, and that, as a result, giants are imagined to have been born. . . if one has thought it to be justified that angels, transformed into flesh, sinned in that way, and that they also remained in the flesh, or if one believed that they committed such carnality, history will decide that this is a bad explanation; like also the lies of the pagans and the poets assert that the gods and goddesses were guilty of horrible unions" [PL 12: 1224]. St. John Chrysostom "These descendants are called sons of God in the holy Scriptures, because they had imitated the virtues of their ancestors up to that time; the name of the son of men was given to those who were born before Seth, that is to say, to the sons of Cain, and also to their descendants. And it came to pass, when men had multiplied themselves on the earth, that they were born daughters. As soon as the sons of God (the descendants of Seth and Enos) had seen the daughters of men (those whose birth was mentioned earlier), they found them beautiful. See how this single word shows impurity! They thought not only of having children, but of the wicked sirs of the senses. As soon as they saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, the desires excited by this beauty led them to their ruin; the aspect of beauty was the occasion for them of unbridled libertinism. And that’s not all; they took as their wives all whom they chose. This completes to show us the excess of their disorders; defeated by beauty, they could not restrain the violence of their desires, but they were intoxicated and subdued by sight to the point of alienating the heart of God by this impious conduct. And to make us understand that they did not attach themselves to marriage or paternity, Scripture adds: When they saw that they were beautiful, they took as their wives all that they chose" [John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, PG 53 Hom. 22:3].
do I need to block you for writing a lengthy post? I don't like when folks do that. However, since you cited the fathers then I will let it stand since I would have folks choose the fathers' view when they are unanimous or when a majority of them agree, over against what I have to say.
@@qatoliqayaqushta6889 they are church writers. However, the fact still remains thsat if the fathers are not unanimous but disagree then that means there is freedom to disagree as well.
In Thomistic angelology, angels can not generate (beget). "Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain." - St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Q. 51, Article 3, Reply to Objection 6).
@@shamounian Even Heiser says his opinions on the subject matter aren't unique to him. I was just making a joke as he's well known for talking about this stuff.
Sam I've always liked you stuff buddy but this is what I call a mashup. Question what about the book of hebrews chapter 1 1-8. Pls can you explain this to me
Manoun, I just did a session refuting the misuse of Hebrews 1 to argue against Genesis 6:1-4. So you are indeed a mashup since you don't know the Bible. Choose your words wisely before you get blocked.
@@shamounian it's fine I have a hard time believing this mashup but it fine we will find out when we stand before the father.also if you feel like blocking me it's ok also.
Hey Sam can we consider Book of Enoch to be biblically accurate lined up with the word of God or it's just an unreliable Source how seriously should we take it as Christians.
He created them angels to serve a particular purpose, so how could created heavenly being whose job was do what task God gave them.....yet they were able to destroy mankind with sin? What did Eve say when Cain was born? What did Eve say when Seth was born? 2 lines. Angels did teach mankind knowledge that led to their destruction. God's knowledge=tree of life, vs tree of knowledge of good and evil=all is good. Test everything. I am a son of God. The book of Enoch was written when? Found where? Oh yes in Essene cave of books of gnosis
stop butchering Hebrews 1 or I will block you since that is not what the passage means. Call in my stream so I can expose your butchering of Scripture for all to see or I will block you: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RE0NgqzYYB8.html
Thanks sam this is what I asked you in Skype one time I'm convinced sons of God is the angels now, I said to you I can't prove the sons of God were angels you told me sucks to be you lol 😁
It is fallen angels. A group of spirits tried to get me to sell my soul “they called themselves the annunki , because I was interested in aliens I actually attracted demons who called them selves aliens. If you fo research the annunaki who call themselves gods those are them . When I was in the process of freeing myself from this I walked into the bathroom and I head a very deep and perverted voice say “I can seeee youuuu”. ” I said you tried to scare me infintesimal”. This was a fallen angel I had people praying for me and now I am redeemed by JESUS and l am closer to the FATHER THE HOLY SPIRT AND JESUS everyday!!!
Thank you Holy Spirit for your servant Sam. Someone just ask me a question why God killed including the babies and children in the flood.. I said that the people in Noah's time are wicked and sinners and only Noah's family was not corrupted by the fallen angels. Thank you Holy Spirit
Sam asks how could these sons of God, if human servants of God, could do things so evil leading to destruction of humanity? The same logic applies if sons of God applies to angels...they are servants of God yet they inticed humans into sinful acts. Rebellion is an option for human or angelic servants of God per this reasoning.
stop barking here thinking you know the Bible since your "response" shows you are stupider than Muhammad for not even getting my point. skype me to go live so I can make an example out of you for perverting the texts or I will block you: benny_malik3 Don't make us wait.
female d-0-g stop barking here thinking you got my point. you better pretend to be a man and not a d-0-g and skype me to go live so I can show why you are a tool of Satan or I will block you. stop hiding, female d-0-g. you got an hour.
Unfortunately Sam never read Genesis 1 to 6 without preconceived opinions. Also, never defines terms. The sons of God were the lineage of Adam, the God of the Garden. The sons of men were the lineage of Cain, the bringer of sin in the world. Genesis 6 speaks of the spread of evil in the world. There were no angels!
Ok so how did the Giants return to earth after the flood did the Angels come back and have sex with women again? If so when were they chained to gloomy darkness?
because I never said the giants were their offspring. so stop pretending to hear me. moreover, who told you that those are the only angelic beings that can commit this sin?
@@shamounian .. Genesis 6:4 King James Version 4 There were👉🏾👉🏾 giants👈🏾👈🏾 in the earth in THOSE DAYS; AND ALSO AFTER that, when the👉🏾 sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,👈🏾 and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
You did not read it. The Bible said his daughters made him drunk enough to where he didn’t know before he slept and after he slept both nights. It was demonic and and daughters raped him out of fear of reproduction and it was perverted sin of the daughters read KJV.
Book of Jasher is also quoted a couple times in the Bible. But it can't be considered Scripture because it's not preserved. Point is, just because the authors quote a certain book, doesn't mean it's inspired. It'd only be like quoting a relevant philosophical book.
quoting a book doesn't mean it should be canonized since Paul also quoted the books of pagan poets and writers in Acts 17:28. The point is that Enoch has a genuine prophecy which was preserved and included within this book. No more no less.
No. 66 books is enough. The 67th book is the Lamb's book of life. In the new earth, we shall eat from the tree of life and worship God in his new moons and his sabbaths. Revelation 22:14, Colossians 2:16, Isaiah 66:22,23. After being circumcised in the heart, males must be circumcised in the flesh to enter the sanctuary of the Lord Jesus. Ezekiel 44:9. You must be circumcised after the manner of the Lord Jesus to be saved. As you read the law of Moses every sabbath day, you would learn more and obey if you have turned to God. Acts 15:21. It is a sin: to not get circumcised in the flesh as a male, to wear mixed clothing, to eat pork, shellfish and other abominations. Animal sacrifices and stoning sinners is the law of death that was done away with. No more eye for eye, etc. Judge Jesus will cast many false Christians into the lake of fire. Matthew 7:21-23.
@@1newearth Actually scripture says that as you continue to read and exalt the law of Moses, a vail remains over your eyes and you miss the reality of what Christ has done and fulfilled. 2 Corinthians 3:13-16
Hey Sam. I do mostly believe that they were angels, but my only problem with that take is what Jesus said about marriage after the resurrection. In Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25, Jesus says that at the resurrection, no one will marry or given in marriage, but will become like angels. But if angels don't enter marriage, it wouldn't make sense for them to have reproductive organs which allows them to have children with humans. Curious to know what you think about this.
@@shiammi907 thank you for pointing it out. That was helpful. There's still a small doubt remaining, but hopefully he addresses it in the live stream. God bless you as well 🙏
My problem with them being angels is Acts 17:26 where it says God made all nations of men by one blood, and if you add angels bloodlines, well that makes more than just the one bloodline of Adam.
The sons of God phrase is also used in the book of Job. Jesus was an heretick to the Pharisees. He is the Prince of peace, but he came to bring a sword. He divides the holy Christian saints who read the old king James Bible from false Christians who read the nkjv, esv, csb, rsv, niv, nlt, nasb, and other perversions. The false Christians of today are worse than the Pharisees. At least Jesus taught some of Pharisees the truth and they didn't cast him out of the temple or out of Simon the former leper's house. They slew him after 3 years but many of them repented after his resurrection and ascension. Subscribe to 1newearth to learn more.
@@homielifesaver2332 Thats another reason why the flood was brought about. The mixing of bloodlines was a aberation that God completely purged As there was no angle blood in the 8 souls that were saved
Can you explain hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”? Or again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son”? And romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Ok ill rewatch it I didn't see these explained or did I miss the point I'd there are multiple definitions for sons of god and if bein led by the Spirit applies to us or only angels thanks
I never knew angels had blood and sperm. Angels are spirits and spirits doesn't have blood. I love this man teaching but I know that flesh and blood aren't in heaven. Just a thought.
Well laid out, this has been debated for centuries & the Catholic Church has no official teaching on it. There are a few interps, one thing is that its metaphysically impossible for Angels to procreate & generate offspring, also this could bear an issue for Christ being born of the Holy Virgin Mary. Another thing is that humanity was punished for these acts that were of the angels. This given, & many holding to the descendants of Seth, the righteous son of Adam, Jude & Peter make a good case for the Angelic position as you laid out, hence I can see the long debate, peace
never assert what is impossible for angelic creatures since you do not know enough of their nature to pontificate. For instance, in Genesis 18 two angels appears as men and eat human food along with Jehovah. Moreover, in Psalm 79:23-25 we are told that the manna that Israelites ate is actually the food of angels sent down from heaven. Tread lightly. Watch my session today as I further discuss this, Lord willing: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RE0NgqzYYB8.html
@@shamounian your absolutely right, the question would be their desire to procreate since being immortal beings not needing to generate, even as Christ says we will be as Angels in heaven & not given in marriage, ie not needing to generate. I can't help but now lean toward your view as I was previously leaving as a mystery. I appreciated Dr Pitre going through all the views but also Jimmy Akin sheds light on each & seems to, although not set definitely, but lean toward the Angelic view. Either way its even more interesting than I previously appreciated, there is even a variation between the early church fathers on this as well as Gen ch 1-11 not taken all in a wooden literal sense but as literature, but as you mentioned Jude & Pet, plus Angels taken human form even pulling Lot inside his home, also we may entertain Angels unknowingly
never assert what the angels can and cannot desire, especially when Genesis 6:1-4 and the other texts that I mentioned show they desired to procreate, So you need to stop begging the question and putting the cart before the horse, and stop appealing to authority, but prove your case exegetically or get blocked. I go live: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RE0NgqzYYB8.html. So call in and discuss your assumptions with me.
@@shamounian if I appeal to your authority you cant block me as a brother lol, Im joking, but maybe I was misunderstood but I was agreeing w/ & appreciating your exegeting of this text & I can't go against the scripture of Jude & Peter. I was only briefly touching on a couple of legit questions that have been discussed for centuries, & as a Catholic I appeal to the Church's authority, as you know via the catechism & or the church fathers, while also appreciating the freedom when we have no set teaching such as in Gen ch 1-11. Btw I usually listen in & not chime in so much, peace to you
I can see the reason for the long debate too. It will forever be a riveting discussion. Saint Thomas Aquinas ruminates on angels and eating in Prima Pars, Q. 51, Article 3, Reply to Objection 5. Reply to Objection 5. Properly speaking, the angels cannot be said to eat, because eating involves the taking of food convertible into the substance of the eater. Although after the Resurrection food was not converted into the substance of Christ's body, but resolved into pre-existing matter; nevertheless Christ had a body of such a true nature that food could be changed into it; hence it was a true eating. But the food taken by angels was neither changed into the assumed body, nor was the body of such a nature that food could be changed into it; consequently, it was not a true eating, but figurative of spiritual eating. This is what the angel said to Tobias: "When I was with you, I seemed indeed to eat and to drink; but I use an invisible meat and drink" (Tobit 12:19). I was reading a book by Scott Hahn yester evening. By happen-chance it featured his interpretation. He wrote, "When people began to multiply on the face of the earth, 'the sons of God,' that is, the Sethite men, were seduced by the beauty of 'the daughters of men,' that is, the Cainite women. The beauty of the wicked proved stronger than the resolve of the righteous. Sethite men found a new forbidden fruit, the beautiful but ungodly Cainite women, to be irresistible. And they didn’t just marry them; 'they married as they chose,' which might imply that, along with mixed marriages, polygamy had now also entered into the line of Seth, the covenant family of God. Thus, violent men were born. When left unchecked, sin becomes institutionalized. In every age of salvation history, sexual immorality and violence go hand in hand, triggering the hard remedy of God’s judgment in the form of the covenant curses. And nothing institutionalizes sin more than marital infidelity. The whole culture gets clobbered, especially the children. And afterward only a remnant survives, barely." I discovered that Sam's birthday is today. Happy Birthday! God bless!
Yes, but what about the first race of giants? It says the angels arrived after the giants. Why would you believe the men of great renown were giants also? The meaning is in contrast, not the same. Who made the original giants?
Why can't " the book of Enoch" be after jude cos whoever wrote Enoch read the bible? The bible says Enoch prophesied , not necessarily a book. There's errors and mistakes in the books of Enoch. Just saying....
Heb. 1:5 "For to which of the angels did God ever say: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”? Or again: “I will be His Father, and He will be My Son”?" So, according to this verse, angels are not sons of God. So, it seems sons of God and angels are two different breeds.
did you watch my session on this text or are you chiming in without knowing what this verse actually means? let me know so I can decide whether to block you.
@@shamounian You want to decide if to block me for engaging in scripture discussion? In that case block me, yes block me, I will learn nothing from you. But really, worry not, I won't be visiting a lame discussion like this with you again.
