DO WE USE THE BOOK OF ENOCH, AS A BELIEVERS ?

[The_Patriot21]

I wouldn't care if it was mother Theresa, Dwight L. moody or Billy Graham, they were definitely in the wrong. I'm sorry, but the glory of Gods truth in the Bible trumps any mans opinion, regardless of who that man is. The book of enoch is in contradiction of the Bible-direct contradiction. So therefore it is wrong and so is anyone who teaches out of it. 

[WilliamL]

9 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

I wouldn't care if it was mother Theresa, Dwight L. moody or Billy Graham, they were definitely in the wrong. I'm sorry, but the glory of Gods truth in the Bible trumps any mans opinion, regardless of who that man is. The book of enoch is in contradiction of the Bible-direct contradiction. So therefore it is wrong and so is anyone who teaches out of it. 

And so I suppose you don't care that Peter, the Lord's brother Jude, and Moses teach from it. They must not have been inspired either, according to your definition.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

And so I suppose you don't care that Peter, the Lord's brother Jude, and Moses teach from it. They must not have been inspired either, according to your definition.

None of them taught from it. That is a FALSE assumption, and not one you should be making. The notion that they do was started when the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book, and like many of the things the catholic church has done in the past (and still doing) they were wrong to do so, and it is nowhere near a Biblical argument.

[WilliamL]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

And so I suppose you don't care that Peter, the Lord's brother Jude, and Moses teach from it. They must not have been inspired either, according to your definition.

34 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

None of them taught from it. That is a FALSE assumption, and not one you should be making. The notion that they do was started when the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book, and like many of the things the catholic church has done in the past (and still doing) they were wrong to do so, and it is nowhere near a Biblical argument.

Jude 14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

This is a quote Jude takes from Enoch 2:1 and 26:2. This isn't a teaching by Jude from Enoch? How do you figure?

Incidentally, the Book of Enoch is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were transcribed well over a century before Jude was born, not after he wrote this passage.

As far as Catholicism justifying the use of the Book of Enoch, what is your source?

 

[The_Patriot21]

Enoch was a real person, and he may have made the prophesy. And the book of enoch may have it. But, theres 2 points-first off, doesnt mean that they were quoting the book of enoch-they may have both been quoting the same source. Second, many false prophets and false teachings, will incorporate a little bit of truth. Its actually a common trick-one that every false prophet starting with the serpent in the garden has used, you mix the truth in with a lie, so that people have a hard time differentiating between the two. So we can look at it and say "well that part is true so it must all be true" the problem with that line of logic is that it is a lie.

 

I also should point out, that nowhere in Jude does it say "it was written in the book of enoch" And it is entirely possible that Jude was directly quoting Enoch, under the guidance of the holy spirit, or more likely, there was another source, be it a lost book or tradition, that both Jude and the writers of the book of Enoch quoted from. Seeing as the book of Enoch was written sometime in the last 2 centuries before Christ, it is impossible that Enoch himself put that in there, or directly quoted it. Combine that with all the heretical contradictions between the book of Enoch and the Bible, you can safely assume Jude was NOT quoting from the book.

[WilliamL]

It is clear that the original Book of 1 Enoch has been corrupted. So has the Book of Revelation: there are so many variant texts, more than any other NT book, that no one knows the precise original text.

That said, such does not mean that there is no useful information contained in the texts of Enoch that we do have. It is faulty logic on it's face to automatically presume the contrary, as you do.

16 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Seeing as the book of Enoch was written sometime in the last 2 centuries before Christ, it is impossible that Enoch himself put that in there, or directly quoted it.

You presume that the Book of 1 Enoch was composed 2 centuries before Christ, but have no proof for that statement. Others presume that the Torah was composed during the Babylonian captivity. Everyone is welcome to presume whatever they want.

[The_Patriot21]

No, I don't presume I'm stating fact. That is when it was written according to most scholars. And im not saying its been corrupted-its been corrupted from the start. And your presumption that revelations is corrupted is just that a presumption, and a false one at that. All the Bible from Genesis to revelation is the inspired word of God.

 

The book of enoch directly contradicts the Bible in so many ways one can't even count. That's what I'm basing my views on. Not when it was written or how. It contradicts the Bible, Gods holy word, so therefore it is a lie. Pure and simple. There is no justification for using it.

[WilliamL]

3 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

None of them taught from it. That is a FALSE assumption, and not one you should be making. The notion that they do was started when the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book, and like many of the things the catholic church has done in the past (and still doing) they were wrong to do so, and it is nowhere near a Biblical argument.

If you shoot your gun wildly from the hip like you shoot your words, you are as much of a danger to patriots as enemies.

Take this absurd statement: "the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book." QUITE THE CONTRARY: the Catholic Church succeeded in suppressing the book so thoroughly that the only remaining full texts were to be found in Ethiopian churches.

Then you quote "scholars" for your source that 1 Enoch was written in the 2nd century BC. Some scholars do say this, others do not. Neither have conclusive evidence one way or the other; rather both are opinions, most likely skewed by their pre-determined views. (Just like yours.) There is no more conclusive evidence for when Enoch was written (or begun to be passed down orally) than there is for the Torah. The earliest manuscript evidence for both comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Period.

Your opinions stated as such are fine. But when opinions are stated as fact, without any evidence to back them up, then they become merely unfounded accusations, unworthy of this board.

[The_Patriot21]

21 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

If you shoot your gun wildly from the hip like you shoot your words, you are as much of a danger to patriots as enemies.

Take this absurd statement: "the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book." QUITE THE CONTRARY: the Catholic Church succeeded in suppressing the book so thoroughly that the only remaining full texts were to be found in Ethiopian churches.

Then you quote "scholars" for your source that 1 Enoch was written in the 2nd century BC. Some scholars do say this, others do not. Neither have conclusive evidence one way or the other; rather both are opinions, most likely skewed by their pre-determined views. (Just like yours.) There is no more conclusive evidence for when Enoch was written (or begun to be passed down orally) than there is for the Torah. The earliest manuscript evidence for both comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Period.

Your opinions stated as such are fine. But when opinions are stated as fact, without any evidence to back them up, then they become merely unfounded accusations, unworthy of this board.

actually, I wasnt going from the hip, and the fact your now going personal, is proof of that. There is no need throw out personal attacks, especially if what you say is true. 

 

But, let me actually throw some actual proof out there. Lets look at chapter 40 in the book of Enoch

1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude 
2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things. 
3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory. 
4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever. 
5 And the second voice I heard blessing 
6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits. 
7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord 
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have 
9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’ 
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days

 

The Bible never, ever, mentions an angel named phanuel, not alone one who is set over the repentence of those who inherit eternal life. Only Jesus is over our repentence! there is no angel! that is blatant Heresy! 

 

lets look at chapter 48:1-3

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

 

Jesus was never named, Jesus himself said in revelation 1:8 "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Here we see yet another contradiction.

 

Now lets jump to chapter 69-8-12 

8 ...And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the 
9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to 
10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation 
11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power 
12 it is consuming me.

no angel taught us sin, or how to read and write. Satan himself is who tempted eve-and there is nothing to suggest that a angel taught us to read and write. Furthermore, we were not created like the angels, we are not equal to them in any way. In fact, quite the contrary, 1 corinthians 6:3 states that in heaven we will be above the angels.

 

So you see, Im "not firing from the hip" here is just 3 examples, of the books heretical teachings, I can do this all day, literally. I can go chapter by chapter, verse by verse if you please. Have you noticed, the strongest argument youve used so far, the one about the multiple sources in revelations, has required you to actually question the validity of the Bible? That alone is more proof of this books heresy-if you have to discredit the Bible, just to prove this book is valid, then its a pretty safe assumption the book is the one that is invalid, not the Bible.

[WilliamL]

4 hours ago, the_patriot2015 said:

The Bible never, ever, mentions an angel named phanuel, not alone one who is set over the repentence of those who inherit eternal life. Only Jesus is over our repentence! there is no angel! that is blatant Heresy! 

Neither does the Bible mention Raphael. So what? One of the basic rules of logic says, "Lack of evidence for is not evidence against."

Repentance is a common topic of the OT, before Jesus was ever born. Which is the era spoken of by Enoch. You have provided no real reason why God would not assign an angel to assist people seeking to repent.

lets look at chapter 48:1-3

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

Jesus was never named, Jesus himself said in revelation 1:8 "I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Here we see yet another contradiction.

I fail to see what the contradiction is to which you refer.

 

Now lets jump to chapter 69-8-12 

8 ...And the fourth was named Penemue: he taught the 
9 children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to 
10 eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation 
11 to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power 
12 it is consuming me.

no angel taught us sin, or how to read and write. Satan himself is who tempted eve-and there is nothing to suggest that a angel taught us to read and write. Furthermore, we were not created like the angels, we are not equal to them in any way. In fact, quite the contrary, 1 corinthians 6:3 states that in heaven we will be above the angels.

Satan initially tempted Eve to sin. According the the Book of Enoch, and also Genesis 6:1-2, and also 2 Peter 2:4, and also Jude 6-7, other angels later rebelled against God by descending to earth and corrupting mankind.

And yes, Adam was originally created like the angels in that both were originally created to "the intent that they should remain pure and righteous."

 

So you see, Im "not firing from the hip" here is just 3 examples...

Now you are shooting blanks. And you have entirely ignored any response to my pointing out your absurd accusation that "the Catholic Church started twisting scripture to justify the use of the book."