God did not teach us these things

[Alive]

Frankly, I think the most relevant fact is that the writers of the NT quoted it as the Holy Spirit led them in order to express the truth that God wanted us to have.

Do with that what you will--but that can't be successfuly debated--IMO.

:-)

We have the scriptures that teach us of God and Jesus Christ our redeemer.

And this they do! It is sufficent for His purpose.

Having said this---I think it is possible as the Day of the Lord approaches--whenever that might be, that His Body may see things we don't yet understand. This in the same way that the early disciples didn't understand much of what Christ said, until those things manifested. We will know when we know and He will make sure we do.

So what are we to do. See the gospel preached to all nations until the time of the gentiles is fullfilled, see false christs and prophets continue, see a time yet to come when many Jews will turn to Christ (Rom 11). We keep an eye out and yet realize that Jesus put the kabosh on date setting when He said "know man knows...".

 

[Justin Adams]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

The Book of Enoch was disfavored because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels."

Of course.

They have been attempting to obfuscate this for thousands of years. Only modern 'enlightened men' seem to have taken the bait, hook line and sinker AND the holder of the fishing pole too.  

Edited September 7, 2021 by Justin Adams

[Starise]

34 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Did you read the whole quote?

Yes.

34 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Scholars don't even believe that Enoch wrote it, since the first known mention of it was not until thousands of years after Enoch had died.

 Biblical books were written by other than the subjects in the books themselves. Does this make them irrelevant?

The early Christian father Tertullian wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.

The fact that the book was not mentioned in historical writings until much later does not indicate with certainty that it didn't exist prior to this.

42 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Only the Ethiopian Orthodox accept it as Scripture, and they persecute genuine Christians.

This may be true today but at one time the book was included in the canon of many other bibles.

There are some almost identical passages in Enoch 1 that are found in Jude and at one time some church fathers were going to eliminate the book of Jude.

The Greek language text was known to, and quoted by nearly all, Church Fathers. A number of the Church Fathers thought it to be an inspired work, particularly Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, based on its quotation in Jude.

However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work. By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was eventually entirely omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (except the Ethiopian Orthodox Church).

48 minutes ago, David1701 said:

There are giants in the Bible, but they are of a height that is physically possible (roughly 9-16 ft. tall); whereas, 1 Enoch has giants nearly a mile tall!

I personally think this is a translation error, or maybe someone intentionally put it in to discount the rest of the book.

50 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Large chunks of the teaching found in 1 Enoch are not corroborated by the Bible.

Large chucks of Genesis are not corroborated by Revelation. Large chunks of Job are not corroborated by Matthew. This is flawed logic in my opinion.

52 minutes ago, David1701 said:

In other words, there are no valid reasons to include it in the Bible - none.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It isn't in most modern Bibles. What I find compelling about it is that someone just decided to take it out when it was a part of many bibles before this. A handful of 'church fathers'. We know what happens in churches sometimes when men presume to decide over God.

At the very least I would have included it as a required reading. If we totally eliminate it, I think we are loosing some insight to be had nowhere else that expands and explains things we didn't know about prior.

[Kelly2363]

9 minutes ago, Starise said:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It isn't in most modern Bibles. What I find compelling about it is that someone just decided to take it out when it was a part of many bibles before this.

 

Which bible was the five books or parts of Enoch a part of before it was taken out - according to your claim? 

[Starise]

Just now, Kelly2363 said:

 

Which bible was the five books or parts of Enoch a part of before it was taken out - according to your claim? 

You are fair to ask for proof. I have read various writings that simply say Enoch 1 was in earlier bibles. Back then they didn't necessarily give labels to their bibles in the same way we do today. It was simply THE HOLY BIBLE before church fathers removed Enoch.

I would like to give more specifics. In looking at who made the decisions there were a handful of church leaders who thought it should stay as per my references in the above post. There was another group opposed.  The group opposed won out, so wouldn't it make sense they destroyed all of those earlier bibles?

If we were to dig a bit I feel certain we could uncover at least the confirmation this is what happened.

[Hopefully]

No one here says they  put Enoch over the Bible. It seems most here have a problem because some of us have simply read the book for their learning. 
 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Hopefully

[Waggles]

The book 1st Enoch tells us in paragraph six about the fall of the angels -

verse 6: "And they were in all two hundred; who descended [in the days] of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it."

Now to the NT - where did Jesus go to perform his transfiguration? He went to Mount Hermon. Why there? Mount Hermon was known in the pagan religious cultures of Mesopotamia, the Greeks and the Romans as the gates to the underworld. 

Matthew 17:1  And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: 
2  and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light. 
3  And lo, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with him. 

Matthew 16:13  Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? 
14  And they said, Some say John the Baptist; and some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 
15  He saith to them, But who say YE that I am? 
16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 
17  And Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. 
18  And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 
19  I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatever thou shalt loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens. 
20  Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no one that he is the Christ. 

Cesarea Philippi was anciently called Paneas, from the mountain of Panium, or Hermon, at the foot of which it was situated, near the springs of Jordan.

Luke 9:37  And it came to pass, on the next day, when they were come down from the mountain, a great crowd met him. 
9:42  And as he was yet a coming, the demon rent and convulsed him grievously. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Waggles

[Hopefully]

3 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I understand that it is the custom of some who relish argument to hurl fiery darts at others and while this is grievous conduct, we should be ready and willing to accept wrongdoing and forgive those who accuse us. As the apostle John tells us, pray for your brother who has not sinned unto death, and the Lord will forgive him. 

I agree. I have my settings adjusted to prevent these types of comments but there are more attributes I needed to add to it that I didn’t know about until it was too late. 

 

 

[Willa]

2 hours ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Aaaah. Another discussion revolving the book of enoch. I wont lie, its an interesting read and i enjoyed it and learned something from it....but its far from inspired. Theres a reason it wasnt included in the Bible, and it wasnt because of some conspiracy to water down Gods truth. Its because it contradicts scripture. 

If one wants to read it like say they would a good commentary, understanding that it is one mans opinions on certain events, and not necessarily gospel fact, then its excellent material.

But if they hold it up at the same level as the bible, then that is heretical in nature as its clearly not inspired, and claiming something is inspired when it is not, is, in at least my book, heresy.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, yet some got defensive and thought I was accusing you!  Why? Do I express myself that badly? If so, I apologize.

 

 

 

[Waggles]

Ephesians 6:10  For the rest, be strong in the Lord, and in the might of his strength. 
11  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 
12  For our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the authorities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spirituals of the wickedness in the heavenlies. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Waggles