Yes, you read that title right.
NO one should be surprised about Harvey Weinstein, nor about the other revelations of sexual assault and harassment in Hollywood that I’m certain will be forthcoming in the weeks, months, and years to come. Few people should be complaining about it.
Allow me to explain
It is very hard to write about this, but I feel there is a lesson here. A child in my family was being abused by his stepfather, unknown to the rest of the family. He had emotional and behavioral problems that were long attributed to disorders of various types, but that we now know are likely the result of PTSD. He is now being treated and protected and being set upon the right path.
Being set upon the right path is not something that happens for many children in show business. There is obviously something wrong with so many of them though. Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus, and so many others who display overly sexualized behavior have often been chalked up to youngsters who have ridiculous wealth and fame and no reality check.
There’s probably SOME truth in that, but what if it is more? What if these young adults who grew up in Hollywood did so being sexually abused by the likes of Weinstein and have been taught that this is “normal” behavior? Might their current behavior not be reflective of that?
Couple this with the fact that Hollywood regularly produces movies and shows that glorify all kinds of sexual abuse. Have you SEEN Game of Thrones? Why would so many in Hollywood produce this crap unless it came from years of believing that this was normal, acceptable behavior?
No, I’m not the least bit surprised Weinstein did all of these things. I promise you he wasn’t alone. The feigned shock from the others in Tinseltown was just an effort to cover up their own crimes.
Brave or accessories
Some view the men and women coming forward now as brave. I see them as accessories. They could have done something about this long ago, but they refused to because being rich and famous was more important to them than protecting future victims.
At the same time these actors, actresses, and movie executives were silent on men like Weinstein they had the audacity to be hair-on-fire mad about Donald Trump. Trump has his own long history of sexual abuse allegations dating back to his first wife Ivana who accused him of raping and beating her. It doesn’t change the fact that the Hollywood liberals were unbelievably hypocritical in complaining about Trump.
Now you even have those that are saying a President and a movie producer shouldn’t be held to the same standard.
Well, first of all, NONE of this activity should accept from ANYONE. Ever!
Second, those complaining about “Republicans electing THEIR sexual predator’s President” need to shut up. Many of them were old enough to elect Bill Clinton. They certainly had no problem trying to elect his chief enabler, his wife Hillary.
In retrospect though, it’s easy to understand why the Ashley Judd’s of the world complain about Weinstein but had no problem with Hillary. Judd did nothing about Weinstein when she most certainly could have, so condemning Hillary Clinton would have been condemning herself.
Yes Liberals, you’re hypocrites on this.
Republicans and Conservatives: You are guilty as well
Now, to Republicans and conservatives (no, these are NOT the same thing), you also have a problem. We all visited our righteous indignation on Bill Clinton and those now who supported him for years. You now want to join me in condemning the hypocrisy of those who slammed Trump but protected Weinstein and God only knows who else.
Most of you don’t get to. You’re just as big of hypocrites as they are.
If you voted for Trump, you’re the same as they are. I, and others like me, warned you that voting for Trump is to surrender the moral high ground. You did it anyway. Many of you voted for Trump to “stop Hillary.” Congratulations. You did it. Donald Trump is President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is a historical footnote.
All it cost you was your credibility and integrity for the rest of your lives. Credibility is like glass. Once cracked it is not easily repaired. On the issue of sexual harassment and sexual assault at least, if you voted for Trump, however reluctantly it might have been, your credibility wasn’t cracked, it was SHATTERED. I truly hope it was worth it.
So, Leftists, if you supported Bill Clinton, and Hollywood if you covered for Weinstein, you don’t get to say anything about Trump or any other Republican in the future on this issue ever again.
And if you voted for Trump, you don’t get to complain about Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, or any of the many, many others I’m sure will follow.
Short version, most of you should just shut up, and focus on this issue inside your own world.
THIS is why keeping your credibility and integrity are so very, very important. I still have mine. Liberals haven’t had any in decades. I’m sorry to see so many Republicans and even some conservatives throw away theirs so cheaply. I truly hope it was worth it, but in my heart of hearts, I know it won’t be because in a few years Trump will be gone, most of anything good he doesn’t accomplish will be overturned, and you’ll still be crying “but Gorsuch.” Your credibility and integrity on this issue won’t ever be coming back. Ever.
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
Extra-Biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch are often frowned upon by churches. Some see 1 Enoch as fake. Others say it’s a good historical reference but not inspired. The Ethiopian Bible includes it as scripture. Should we read it?
To understand the answer to this question, we need to consider three things. First, it was referenced as holy by many of the early church fathers, but was excluded from official canon. Second, Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.
Many who oppose the validity of Enoch say that it was written after the Book of Jude because the it includes the quote that Jude references, but fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which most scholars date to before Jude was born.
The scripture in question is Matthew 22:29-30:
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Nowhere in the 66 Books of the Bible does it say angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. What did Jesus mean when he said “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” in reference to the angels not marrying?
Here is 1 Enoch 15:5-7:
5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.
As with anything regarding extra-Biblical texts, I must urge caution. Many who believe 1 Enoch is authentic refute the authenticity of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Then, there’s the question of inspiration and protection of the text. Many Christians believe the Bible has been able to survive and flourish despite so many attempts to disrupt it is because it has been protected over the millennia. If that’s the case, why was Enoch not included the whole time?
The answer to this question, to those who believe in its authenticity, may be found in the first two verses of the manuscript.
1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3 for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:
If Enoch is real, it’s meant for a later generation living in the day of tribulation. If it’s a fake, then it’s intended to deceive those in the end times. Either way, it’s understandable that it would not be included in most Bibles.
I tend to believe 1 Enoch is legitimate, but not to the point that I would teach on it. Not yet. Much more prayer and study is required before I would ever risk misleading anyone.
Nevertheless, the reference in Matthew 22 is compelling.
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
This article first appeared in Torah Driven Life. The site appears to be down currently, so we’re including this page here for reference.
The following is a compilation of attestations to the authenticity and acceptance of the Book of Enoch as Scripture by the fathers of the early church. This list is, by no means, an exhaustive list of quotations from the church fathers, but is rather just skimming of the surface. At any rate, the case is clear, that even beyond Jude’s open reference to it, the Book of Enoch had some degree of acceptance in early Christianity.
Tertullian and the Book of Enoch
Tertullian, an early church father and founder of Latin Christianity, wrote a few positive things concerning the Book of Enoch. Tertulian writes as follows in his 2nd century work, On the Apparel of Women I 3:1-3.
“I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason for rejecting it, let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s ‘grace in the sight of God,’ (Genesis 6:8) and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of his preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition of things made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
“If Noah had not had this conservative power by so short a route, there would still be this consideration to warrant our assertion of the genuineness of this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
“But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ (2 Timothy 3:16) By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, just like all the other portions nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.” (Jude 1:14-15)
Origen and the Book of Enoch
Origen appeals to the Book of Enoch as having the same canonical authority as he does the Book of Psalms. He writes as follows in De Principiis IV.
“But some one will perhaps inquire whether we can obtain out of Scripture any grounds for such an understanding of the subject. Now I think some such view is indicated in the Psalms, when the prophet says, ‘My eyes have seen your imperfection;’ (Psalm 139:16) by which the mind of the prophet, examining with keener glance the first principles of things, and separating in thought and imagination only between matter and its qualities, perceived the imperfection of God, which certainly is understood to be perfected by the addition of qualities. Enoch also, in his book, speaks as follows: ‘I have walked on even to imperfection;’ which expression I consider may be understood in a similar manner, viz., that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its scrutiny and investigation of all visible things, until it arrived at that first beginning in which it beheld imperfect matter existing without ‘qualities.’ For it is written in the same book of Enoch, ‘I beheld the whole of matter;’ which is so understood as if he had said: ‘I have clearly seen all the divisions of matter which are broken up from one into each individual species either of men, or animals, or of the sky, or of the sun, or of all other things in this world.’”
These quotations which he attributes to Enoch are not found in the Ethiopic text of the Book of Enoch, upon which our modern translations are based. There are, however, two sufficient reasons to believe that Origen is still quoting from the Book of Enoch. First, notice how Origen mishandled Psalm 139:16, “My eyes have seen your imperfection,” as if to indicate that God had imperfections which could be seen. Psalm 139:16 is more accurately translated, “Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw.” (YLT) So it is very possible that Origen was simply incorrectly quoting passages that do exist in the Ethiopic text. Second, it is known from the discovery of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran that there are large portions of text that are not present in the Ethiopic manuscripts. (See 4Q209 and 4Q211) So it is also possible that he was quoting from portions of Enoch that may have not been translated into the Ethiopic text, and hence have not survived to today.
Irenaeus and the Book of Enoch
Irenaeus, in his work The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 18, records a condensed retelling of Enoch 6-8. He does this without directly citing the Book of Enoch, yet the citation here is unmistakable.
“And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them: and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness, in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colours and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled.”
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas and the Book of Enoch
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas is frequently ranked among the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. the founding documents of gentile Christianity. This letter contains several blatant quotations from the Book of Enoch, citing it as “Scripture” in Barnabas 16:5-6.
“Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up. For the Scripture says, ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days that the Lord shall deliver the sheep of His pasture, and the sheep-fold, and their tower to destruction.’ (Condensed from Enoch 89:54-56) And it took place according to what the Lord said. But let us inquire if a temple of God exists. Yes, it exists, where He Himself said that He makes and perfects it. For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass when the week is ended that a temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.’ ” (Similar to Enoch 93:6-7)
Given that the writing style of Pseudo-Barnabas does not always give exact quotes from the Scripures, but frequently handles them in a very midrashic style, it is probable that the author is giving a condensed paraphrase of the passages in question from the same version of Enoch we have in our possession today.
Athenagoras and the Book of Enoch
Athenagoras of Athens, in his work 2nd century work Legatio, claims to regard Enoch as a true prophet, and this same work relies heavily upon the angelic cosmology presented in the Book of Enoch.
Ezekiel’s prophecy and the truth about false prophets
The topic of “false prophets” is often difficult to discuss on the internet in general and social media in particular because invariably whenever we warn of false prophets, we’re accused of being false prophets. Such is the nature of our struggle to live a faithful life and spread the Gospel. Naysayers and mockers are always there.
This topic in particular is a challenging one because it’s based upon a set of verses that some believe has been misinterpreted in most churches today. The verses in question are found in Matthew 24, verses 4 and 5.
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
The standard interpretation says that there will be people in the end times who claim to be Christ. While this is also true, as we see regularly, an alternate (and in my opinion, much more credible) interpretation is that false teachers will come in the end times in the name of Jesus Christ and will lead their flocks astray.
The argument is all in how the context is understood. Most read it as people saying, “I am Christ,” as in they’re claiming to be Christ. But what I believe he’s saying is people shall come in His name saying that He (Jesus) is Christ, and then shall deceive many. It changes the risk factor for believers because it insinuates there are those who may be leading a church today who pretend to be teaching the Gospel but are actually preaching a self-serving version of it that still claims to be a message from our Lord and Savior but is actually a great deception.
Those who have seen or even been brought into the prosperity “gospel” may have a very clear idea of what I mean.
This video goes into much more detail about prophetic events told of in both the Old and New Testament. I strongly recommend watching it, if only to make you think about what’s happening in the world around us.
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
Cartoon: Is that another huge immigration caravan?
Ethiopia readies ‘massive offensive’ on al-Shabab in Somalia
No national emergency declaration: Trump’s “major announcement” will be an offer Democrats can’t refuse
This nation deserves a better class of news outlets
As media, Democrats turn to other topics, we need to keep up the pressure for the wall
As progressive tariffs continue, China scores biggest trade surplus in history
3 reasons to build the wall despite polls showing it isn’t popular
Understanding the real crisis at the border and how to frame it properly
A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash
What Allen West has been saying for years is extremely relevant today
Art Laffer on why a trade deficit is a good thing
Thomas Sowell isn’t a fan of tariffs
Rand Paul didn’t like the Democrats raising foreign aid as the border wall goes unfunded
Democrats2 days ago
So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem
Economy2 days ago
Larry Elder, Sean Hannity discuss the shutdown
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Liz Wheeler: March for Life vs Women’s March
Culture and Religion20 hours ago
How ‘Progressives’ are a small but vocal political minority
Democrats1 day ago
Nancy Pelosi can (and should) end the shutdown immediately
Media1 day ago
Is Buzzfeed a credible news source?
Guns and Crime2 days ago
The bizarre downward spiral of Michael Cohen
Democrats18 hours ago
The Onion’s take on Kirsten Gillibrand is hilarious (and not completely satirical)