1- Where the hell (pun) did the Devil come from? The story of the fallen angel, where can that be found?

2- How did Cain find a wife? Eve only had sons, where did Cain's wife come from, if Adam and Eve were the only people orginally created by God?

3- Why was the book of Enoch banned?

I know the answer to some of these and some (number 3) I don't off the top of my head.

1) No where in the old testament is the story of the fallen angels told. That may or may not be in New Testament, I'll have to look. I believe "satan's" first appearance is in the book of Job. I know Angel's show up in Genesis, when Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden an Angel is appointed to gaurd the gate with a flaming sword, that's the earliest mention of Angels. But the term "fallen angel" to the best of my knowledge does not appear in the Bible. They use the term demons. I don't know Hebrew at all, so maybe the Hebrew terms for demon and fallen angel are the same thing... I can check on that if you give me time.

2) It mentions in Genesis that Adam and Even encounter other people after leaving the Garden. It's sorta left open how those other people got there. What I will say is this, most serious Biblical scholars don't take Genesis to be a "creation ex-nihilo" myth, and don't believe that the jews who wrote it down meant it to be read as such. Rather God imposed order on some things already created and then created somethings that weren't. Cain's wife came from these other people.

3) I honestly can't remember what the book of Enoch is. Care to enlighten me?

1- Well, I'm pretty sure that the story is told in the Qu'ran, but outside of that, yeah, no, how do we get the story of fallen angels then?

2- But if you take the creation as a literal event, taking place exactly as told in Genesis, is there any explanation of the existance of it?

3- The Book of Enoch: This scripture reads like a modern day action film,
telling of fallen angels, bloodthirsty giants, an earth that had become
home to an increasingly flawed humanity and a divine judgment to be
rendered though denied a place in most Western Bibles; it has been used
for centuries by Ethiopian Christians. Large portions of this book were
found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And while we are on it, what about the The Protovangelion of James? It was basiclly the story of Mary, about her seemingly miricle of her birth and all that. The only account given as to why it wasn't put in is that it was long, and came before Jesus, and would put the focus on Mary, not Jesus.

Well, I found an answer to the second one:

But the others remain.

To be honest I don't know waht the slection criteria was for the books that went into the bible.

Anybody else know?

Loosely recalling what I'd learned...

In 1611, a group of Chrisitians began compiling the books of the bible, which were to be translated to the English language. Prior "books" or chapters of the bible were enscribed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and a few other languages. I refer to these three specifically because the 1st is the language of the educated non-peasantry of Rome and Greece as well as the oldest original works being in Hebrew.

Most of these were on actual scrolls, hence the compiling of a single tome known as "The Holy Bible". The chapters are not in chronological order, which only confirms to be that they had to try to sequence the writings as appropriate from the various authors. The total number of original authors is accounted as being 36 to 40 or more.

There are two chapters in the bible that are duplicated, which also shows the erring of humanity, even when there is a great collaboration. Or as a reader, you may feel it fits in both places it occurs. If the last is true, then there was a little bit of puzzle-completion when it was compiled. There is thought to be a few chapters or entire collection of works on scroll. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a confirmation that everything was not put into the Holy Bible. So that could mean the collaboraters included only what they thought was pertinent.

It's been really questioned as to the "exclusion" of female importance in the Good Book. The Roman Catholic influences supposedly wanted to focus on the importance of the male aspects. Therefore not enough may have been included about Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, Bathsheba and a few particular others. King David had multiple wives, so even this practice reduces the importance of a single female even in the household. This may have been the influencing factor or they had played key roles in various ways which could have overshadowed other acts or events.

For example, David's coveting Bathsheba whom was already married was against Mosaic law (10 commandments). Previous to the Passover, stoning unfaithful women as harlots was the norm. Naturally, this didn't go for any having the King's protection or living with them. Other events in that household show that even the greatest of champions can sin and can atone, at least from what I see.

Disclaimer: While I lend my faith to believing in the Almighty, my continued research in theology and other areas are mostly for knowledge, not solidifying or confirming faith. So approaching it like an intellectual pursuit, I question many things. Perhaps that makes me a "doubting Thomas". Apparently there were other greatly educated fellows that put store into the Holy Bible's writings, including Sir Issac Newton. Even Charles Darwin was a believer due to mention of his upbringing and baptism. So in good company, I question it and try to see how it fits with other beliefs and idea systems.

Added in edit: As to the question of wives for Cain, if all humanity descends from Adam and Eve, then any wife of Cain would have to have been a sister. While the Bible comes out very strong against the evil of incest, Abraham was guilty of taking his half-sister to wive. By the way, that doesn't infer carnal knowledge and sharing when talking of Biblical husband and wives. It doesn't specifically excluded that sex occured between them either.

Oh the Book of Enoch. One of my favorites.

The book of Enoch was 'banned' really. It was discouraged by the council of trent or nicea(Can't remember). Why? Gnostics. The gnostics are another faction of christianity dating back to just about the dawn of christianity, but to stem the increase in gnosticism many books that had strong gnostic teachings were discouraged and when the council convened to vote on a canon these books were simply left out. However some books were already so popular with the people they couldn't be left out(Gospel of John and the Apocalypse of John). The Ethiopians kept the Book of Enoch as part of their canon and more power to them. Out of all old testament books quoted in the new testament the Book of Enoch would be/is the most quoted.

What about the The Protovangelion of James, do you know about that one?

Nope. I'm only familiar with the ones that were relatively close to becoming canon and a few other odd ones.

The story of Satan as a "fallen angel" is from Revelations 12. It's a realy bizarre story, in true Revelations fashion. There was a time that I could have "explained" what some of the numbers in the story mean, but those details have escaped me. Like I said, odd story, but as far as I know it's the best the Bible offers as far as Satan is concerned.

Hmm,

I'd forgotten about reveleations. Although after rereading it (it is fairly short) it's not clear that is the original fall, but still it's the closest thing to the myth of the fall we have in the Bible.

Here's a partial answer to number 1... though not where The Devil comes from, but rather where Hell comes from.

"Hell" is an ancient European word which Christians picked up during the assimilation of Europe. It was an actual term for the Celtic afterlife, where ALL whose lives ended would return to the fiery pits within the earth (which are actually there - id est, lava) and become part of the earth again from which we sprung out of in the first place. Now, when christians heard this version of afterlife, they deemed it Evil since it was heretic, and adopted it as their Evil afterlife... interesting, huh?

As for the book of Enoch, I think it's the best description of an Alien abduction EVER! (off topic, sorry - hehehe)

not all Christian mythology comes from the bible. one influence on Judeo-Christian beliefs was the Persian prophet Zoroaster. the story of the fallen angels, including satan, lucifer and at least 10-20 others is largely from the Avesta, i think, and taken on board into Christian mythology.

i think the ideas of seraphim and cherubim etc came from it too as well as a developed demonology; the conception of a supreme head (Satan) over the powers of evil; a superhuman Messiah, etc. all a long time before Christianity (somewhere between the 18th and the 11th centuries BCE.)

Well, I'm not sure if it's old testament or new testament, but the story of the fallen angel is there. I believe God warns numerous times of beautiful angels who ask you to do the wrong things.

the Bible says that Cain and Abel were their first children, not their only children. They had hundreds of children that spread across the earth, so Cain inevitably married his sister, which couldn't be frowned upon when there's no one else besides your family.

I don't know at the moment, but I will get back to you on this after talking to my pastor.

Err, prehaps you should read through the topic. Its (the story of the fall of the Angels) isn't in the Bible.

Boru kinda sorta cleared this one up already. Cain didn't marry his sister.

Really? Dammit, that whole theology book I just read was a farkin' lie. *burns the book*

Read this
Source: http://www.bible.ca/su-devil.htm

I skimmed through it, that's pretty much correct.

I do disagree with this section though:

Several scriptures tell the history of the devil.

One of the most quoted though is this one:

Summary:
God created lucifer as one of the three arch angels (think of him as the music director of heaven)
He had a choice to obey or not
He got a big head and decided to rebel with 1/3 of the angels
He lost and 1/3 of the angels fell with him ("fallen angels")

Adding another:

According to John 20: 34 Jesus' side was peirced with a spear. Which brought forth a flow of "water and blood" aside from the obvious question of why was jesus' body holding flowing water, sinse when could you bleed after you died? is this some proof to the "conspirators" that christ did not die on the cross? Or is it that John wasn't there? (all 4 of the recounts conflict anyway but this one sprung to mind)

High time people stopped believing in a badly written story if you ask me- or the Vatican need to prop up a new messiah but write his/her book with a continuity person checking it...

Um, actually, releasing blood and water in that fashion is a well-documented way of recognizing that a person is, in fact, dead. That's why John included that detail, to show that Jesus was dead.

Hell no, those forensic programs on TV lied to me :( seriously... Waking the Dead and some others all gave me the impression you didn't bleed