Book of Enoch

[other one]

 

I have a friend who's ordering the book and I was thinking to tell her not to get it because she's a verely  new Christian, I was talking to her about discernment and how important it is.. she is  learning about the Bible and Christianity..

 

Thanks for your input

 

I would hope that she has read the Bible at least once before getting into other things...   that really is important.

[other one]

a few early church fathers did believe Enoch was inspired, including
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

 

Tertullian believed that Enoch was rejected by the main stream Jewish system because of the Messianic message of Enoch.

 

 

Josephus, it's just a history book, and there are discrepancies between it and the Bible.  Like other books that have problems by not being inspired, one should be rooted in the Bible before taking them into the knowledge that one uses for his/her personal doctrinal beliefs......     we all have our own doctrine built up over years of study and thought.

[enoob57]

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

This is a most important point! The Bible mentions a great many things for didactic principles but that does not mean they are in themselves truth

from God's own breath... Love, Steven

[other one]

Butero, I'm not Shiloh but I am very familiar with the books of Enoch.    There are actually three books.       The first and it the one commonly referred to as the Book of Enoch basically came from the Ethiopian Bible, but it is backed up by fragments among the dead sea scrolls.   The second book is of Slavic origin,  The third Book which is also known as the Book of Palaces appears to be written by a Jewish Rabbi around the second century.    It's also kind of far out talking about Enoch being transformed into some super angel called Metatron.  

 

Personally I don't think the third book of Enoch has much of anything to do with the first two books other than the person who wrote it had read at least Enoch Book One.   It's more like the writings of the Zohar which have always been kind of spooky to me.

[thereselittleflower]

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

 

The Dueterocanonicals, which are 7 books,  were scripture for christians from the 1st century until Luther took them out.     They are in the canon of scripture from the Early Church.

 

They are still in the canon of scripture for the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptic and the Catholic Churches.

 

One has to ask who gave anyone the authority to remove books that were canonical scripture for 1500 years?

[thereselittleflower]

 

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

 

Thank you Shiloh for your warning.

I know its not Scripture but historical ..I heard about it and just want to know what is says,did you ever read it? 

How can a person know those things if you don't ever read them or at least seen them?

The Bible is the Bible and the only true Word of God ,I will never compromise anything with the Bible ,I don't really know who those writers are other then then their name..

 

How about Josephus?

 

 

 

The Book of Enoch was held in very high regard, and even as inspired by the very early christians.   It almost made it in to the canon of scripture.

 

The book of Enoch was read by Jesus and the Apostles and the early Church.

 

 

It is important to be careful of how we respond to such writings.  It is possible to cultivate an exaggerated and unreasonable fear of writings that are not found in the bible.

 

 

 

 

I think people don't understand what the canon of scripture is, and thus don't understand its relationship to other writings that were held in very high regard for spiritual growth and understanding.

 

I don't think most people even understand what the word  "canon" even means or signifies, especially when it comes to the scripture.

[thereselittleflower]

 

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

This is a most important point! The Bible mentions a great many things for didactic principles but that does not mean they are in themselves truth

from God's own breath... Love, Steven

 

 

 

Shiloh is simply in error regarding his understanding of why Enoch is quoted and alluded to in scripture.   

 

The early christians held otherwise.  I want the christianity of the early christians.  That includes accepting what they accepted to be from God.    Why would anyone want anything else or to deprive themselves of all the early Churches used?

[Qnts2]

 

 

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

This is a most important point! The Bible mentions a great many things for didactic principles but that does not mean they are in themselves truth

from God's own breath... Love, Steven

 

 

 

Shiloh is simply in error regarding his understanding of why Enoch is quoted and alluded to in scripture.   

 

The early christians held otherwise.  I want the christianity of the early christians.  That includes accepting what they accepted to be from God.    Why would anyone want anything else or to deprive themselves of all the early Churches used?

 

 

There are other 'books' quoted in scripture which no one would consider as a part of scripture. They are quoted for didactic reasons. Greek philosophy is mentioned/quoted for teaching purposes.  So if the book of Enoch is quoted in the NT, one can not eliminate the idea it was used for didactic reasons.

 

Is the book of Enoch part of scripture? Or I should say, did the people of that time consider the book of Enoch to be a part of scripture? If the book of Enoch was a part of scripture, it would be in the OT. The Jewish people were the people who kept the OT as the words of God. The book of Enoch is NOT considered a part of scripture by Judaism, now, and was not in Jesus time. So, at the time of the writing of the NT, the book of Enoch was not a part of canonized scripture in Judaism. (Christianity had not yet developed a canon of scripture when the book of Jude was written so the only canonized scripture was the OT which had been canonized by Judaism).

 

So, now we have to look to see if the book of Jude does quote the book of Enoch.

 

The Book of Enoch: “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

 

Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints.”

 

Well, it is clear that Jude 1:14 is not an exact quote from the book of Enoch.

 

Deut. 33:2 And he said: "The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints; from His right hand came a fiery law for them.”

 

Actually the idea of ten thousands of saints is repeated multiple times in the OT.

 

The book of Enoch is actually made up of multiple sections. It was supposedly written by Enoch who lived before the flood. There are debates about the original language but most believe it was written in a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic. Although other small groups in Ethiopia and elsewhere claim it was written in their language. Of course, if Enoch was the author, and lived before the flood, he lived before the tower of Babel, when the languages were confounded. The book of Enoch would not have been written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Historians believe the various sections were written as early as 300 bce, to as late as the 1st century. Those dates would be long after Enoch lived. Enoch is NOT considered to be the author of the book of Enoch, even though the book begins by claiming to be written by Enoch. That is one of the reasons the Christian church rejected the book of Enoch.

 

So, the origin of the book of Enoch is not Enoch according to the scholars. It was not considered scripture at the time of Jesus, although it was known literature, just like the Stoic Greek philosophers writings. While Jude attributes the saying to Enoch it is not the complete sentence from the book of Enoch, and the saying is contained in canonized scripture.   

[enoob57]

 

 

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

This is a most important point! The Bible mentions a great many things for didactic principles but that does not mean they are in themselves truth

from God's own breath... Love, Steven

 

 

 

Shiloh is simply in error regarding his understanding of why Enoch is quoted and alluded to in scripture.   

 

The early christians held otherwise.  I want the christianity of the early christians.  That includes accepting what they accepted to be from God.    Why would anyone want anything else or to deprive themselves of all the early Churches used?

 

simply study of the works themselves and the witness of The Holy Spirit within:

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html   this is accurate to the available histories...

http://www.gotquestions.org/pseudepigrapha.html  this backs up what Shiloh has testified to...

Love, Steven

[missmuffet]

 

The Apocrypha is not Scripture.  It contains numerous historical and theological errors and was never quoted by the Apostles.  

 

The book of Enoch  may have been quoted a times by the NT writers, but it was for the purpose of making a didactic point. They, at no time, elevated it to Scripture.

This is a most important point! The Bible mentions a great many things for didactic principles but that does not mean they are in themselves truth

from God's own breath... Love, Steven

 

I agree enoob