Sheesh, another renegade rewriting Christianity. All those fools and comes down to you and your Bible and your imagination - aren’t you special.
Angels don’t die because they are not human and never were. It’s quite simple
No, they are one thing - they are angels - fallen or not. That’s not going to happen (any sort of falling away) in Christ’s Kingdom - it’s a new creation - don’t look to find it in the OT - it’s not there.
So the Son of God was influenced by a MYTH? Who are you people? Why are you on a Christian forum?
Gabriel may or may not have been a man, but evidence demonstrates that he was a man like any other and if all humanity comes through Adam, Gabriel also is a son of Adam. There are many men of God, chosen by God who do not come from a Hebrew lineage.
The book of Enoch, on the other hand, is a well known book of parables. The author repeats many many times, everything he writes is a parable and as a parable it does not mean what it says, they are meant to confuse those who have a preconceived idea and interpret it through that idea. The use of allusion is useful because allusion is a metaphor using other forms of literature to prove a point. The book of Enoch was and should only be used as metaphor and allusion, not for literal interpretation of fact.
That is my opinion about it anyway.
Nope, the Son of God was not influenced by a Myth, your ideas of what Scripture meant. There is no evidence that Jesus was at all influenced by the book of Enoch, first for you to make such absurd accusation, and second it is where you got your ideas of angels which were influenced by myth and mistaken for fact. I will be blunt, I have no patience for ignorance.
Simularity is not same, and familiarity can be just coincidence.
First, this is not renegade rewriting Christianity, what I am sharing with you is what Christianity prior to the 4th Century believed prior to the Nicene wars. What you believe concerning angels is a Roman revisionist Christianity and you pass their myths as fact without knowledge of what the Scriptures speak about.
Angels cannot die because they cannot sin. The wages of sin is death, therefore if an angel cannot die they cannot sin. Jesus did not die for the sinless, he died for the sinner. Therefore, if an angel cannot sin, then they cannot fall and therefore there is no Celestial Being who has ever held the office of Angel, who has fallen in any sort of rebellion. Even Satan, the great dragon does not have his origin from heaven to be part of it. It was Satan and his angels who were in rebellion against God, and the 1/3 of the stars flung from heaven are men. Stars have always represented men in service to God. So regardless of you perspective you are flawed one way or another in your reasoning and have no logical or reasonable evidence to provide contrary. #Deuteronomy 1:10; Deuteronomy 28:62; Nehemiah 9:23; Daniel 12:3; Job 38:7; Jeremiah 33:22; etc
Again, RamRam, you demonstration of emotional appeals is not respected, come up with proper support. I have no reason to continue discussing anything with you if you cannot remain civil in this discussion.
In other words, Gabriel was a sinner. Are all the ‘angels/messengers’ sinners? Was Christ calling on legends of sinners to save HIM? If we’re going to rewrite the Gospel - let’s get to it!
Nobody is rewriting the Gospel.
Luke 5:32
“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
So yes, He would have asked for a legion of followers, sinners who came to repentance to save Him, but He did not so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
Take care of yourself RanRan, your obvious disrespect for the discussion is not tolerated and I have no patience for emotionally immature arguments.
And all of those sinners were made a ‘little above’ Him? Of course, scripture says 'legends of ANGELS." I think I will go with scripture and not your ‘logic’.
Sinners saving Christ??? Wow! This is grandest rewrite of Christianity yet!!! This is getting interesting. Anything more to your deep thinking?
Not at all RanRan, as you are unable to speak civilly and therefore try to triumph with emotional appeals and blantant ad hominen fallacies, it demonstrates you have no concept of what and who angels are, and what Jesus actually did on the cross. They are not being, and since you cannot reconcile this, you have relied on dogma and ad hominem attacks to support this claim. There is nothing of true in what you speak when you rely on dogma and fallacy, therefore to even have a discussion with you is rather useless since you have nothing to contribute which is either truthful or in line with the spirit of God.
Galations 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Why would I converse with one who obviously cannot even heed the most simplest of warnings. Either contribute positively to the discussion or receive the due penalty for your perversion.
What is “elohim”, Alex
Dude, Logic is …] your mistress, but now you can’t stand [her]. You got sinners capable of saving Christ. You just said so. That’s your logic working. Fine. Then I gave you a LITTLE bit of scripture logic to point how ridiculous YOUR ‘logic’ is and you freak out on me. If I was being uncivil (A LIAR), I would have agreed with you. But this is a debate forum, and if your ideas can’t hold water - DON’T BLAME ME - they are, after all, your ideas which I am free to attack. Man up.
lol. Then learn to debate.
I know the rules. I debated scholastically from HS on up. I’m tough, but if beaten, I concede. I change.
But back to your idea which you are avoiding now, how exactly were sinners going to save Christ? Hint: Christianity (you know, all those idiots) has always said it’s the other way around.
(In debate, you can dig your hole deeper or concede) Let’s see how your argument stands up.
Watch out for the reviling accusation boys or should I say angels. 
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Jude1:6-9
just another few verses to sweeten the pot … is Michael Jesus?
and I believe you have to get into pre-existence to make sense of the “angel” topic. 
Faulty logic. It doesn’t follow that because an angel cannot die that they cannot fall. Try again. The wages of sin is death FOR MEN.
If Gabriel is a descendent of Adam, would you say that he is dead or alive?
As far as I can tell, the oldest section of the book (The Book of the Watchers) is not said to be a parable; in my copy (a translation by Richard Laurence), the “first parable” doesn’t begin until chapter 38. But even if the author so understood it, I submit that many of those among whom the earliest sections of the work circulated understood it (or at least the tradition on which it was based) as being grounded in historical events. It is evident that the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (who was a member of the Pharisees), was very familiar with the mythology found in this work. In his Antiquities (Book 1, Chap. 3), he refers to the “fallen angel” tradition in the following language:
“For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that the men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians called giants. This notion that the fallen angels were, in some sense, the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity.”
Is this the same Gabriel that’s in Daniel and the same in Matthew at the Annuciation of Mary? If Gabriel were a mere man, how did he live some 550 years after the events in Daniel?
I will give you credit that ‘angel’ means messenger in the Greek. But in the alluded passage in Hebrews 2:7, while in the Greek is ‘aggelos’ which means ‘messenger’, actually harkens back to a verse in Psalm 8:5, which in Hebrew is ‘elohim’ which is translated as ‘rulers, judges, or gods’. I’m curious as to what your response is to this, SotW.
So… what would you say a demon is then?
Mark 5:1- 20, and numerous other passages, clearly speak of evil spirit beings who work in opposition to men and to Christ.
Jesus sure did deal with them often, and clearly demonstrated his power and authority over them.
See also Mark 9:25-27 and 1 Timothy 4:1.
“Demons” (shêd) are referred to only a few times in the Old Testament. As far as I can tell, they are always connected with paganism and idol worship. In Deuteronomy 32:17, we read, "They sacrificed to demons (shêd) that were not God, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded " (cf. 1 Cor. 10:14, 20-21). Here we find that the first time “demons” are mentioned in Scripture they are referred to as being equivalent to the false gods of the Gentile nations, to which unfaithful Israel is represented as offering sacrifices. Similarly, in Psalm 106:36-38 we read:
“They served their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons (shêd) they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.”
Here, the apostate people of Israel are said to have sacrificed their own children to the idols of Canaan. Whereas in Deuteronomy 32:17 “demons” are referred to as being equivalent to false gods, here they are made equivalent to “idols.” Of course, there is no inconsistency in this, since “idols” are nothing more than visible, tangible representations of pagan gods. But the gods of the heathen nations have no real existence; they are not really “gods” at all, but fictitious non-entities, existing only in the darkened imaginations of pagan man. But if (as these verses suggest) “demons” are equivalent to these false gods of the heathen (as well as the idols which represent them), and such pagan gods have no real existence, then would it not follow that “demons” also have no real existence?
While “demons” are twice referred to in the Old Testament, it is significant that “demonic possession” is not referred to at all. There is not a single instance of demonic possession to be found in all the inspired pages of the Old Testament. Some have seen possible evidence of “demonic oppression” (though not possession) in the account of King Saul and the “evil spirit from the LORD” (see 1 Sam 16:14ff; 18:10; cf. 19:9; Judges 9:23). However, there is no reason to understand this “spirit” (ruach) to have been “demonic” (as is commonly understood), or even to have been a personal being. Both in the Old and New Testament, the word “spirit” (ruach and pneuma, respectively) can signify several different things depending on the context, one of which is a mental disposition or state of mind (e.g., Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6). Understood in this sense, the “evil spirit” from God that afflicted Saul simply referred to the troubled state of mind which God allowed Saul to be subject to because of his sin. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown summarize this point well in their commentary: “His own gloomy reflections—the consciousness that he had not acted up to the character of an Israelitish king—the loss of his throne, and the extinction of his royal house, made him jealous, irritable, vindictive, and subject to fits of morbid melancholy.” That this is the true sense is evident from the fact that David’s soothing music is said to have refreshed Saul and made him well, and caused the “evil spirit” to depart from him (1 Sam 16:23).
Not only is there no account of anyone being possessed by a demon in the Old Testament, there is no indication given that demon-possession would ever come to be a problem among the Jewish people that would need to be addressed or dealt with. Nowhere do any of God’s prophets reveal anything about this subject. Search all we may, a “how-to guide” for performing exorcisms is simply not to be found in the Law and the Prophets. Remarkably, however, demonic possession - and the exorcising of demons from those possessed - appears a number of times in the synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, without any explanation at all. Sometime after the OT cannon was completed, it seems demonic possession became a rather common thing among the Jewish people - so common, in fact, that performing exorcisms developed into more-or-less of an art (as it would later become among the Roman Catholics).