The Book of Enoch

[Tzaousios]

You have a disconnect, and try to deflect and obfuscate, but it does not work.
Enoch stands the test of time and was called Scripture by Jesus Himself.

Nah, it appears you are projecting a bit onto Jipsah. If anyone needs Enoch, it is you, in order to corroborate the pet doctrines that you hold. The questions you have asked about Genesis, Kings, Acts, Jude could be asked of you as well. Why don't you just accept those canonized books instead of having to go to Enoch for corroboration?

 

[Jipsah]

You have a disconnect, and try to deflect and obfuscate, but it does not work.
Enoch stands the test of time and was called Scripture by Jesus Himself.

Quote where our Lord called it SCripture, if you don't mind. That reference is unclear to me. Apart from that, Enoch has dramatically failed the "test of time", being flatly rejected by the Church as a whole. No gainsaying that, at any rate. It is, IMO, precisely analogous to the Book of Mormon.

 

[The Conductor]

By similar argument, though somewhat more tenuous, to what Scripture does Jesus refer here if not to Enoch.

The error that Jesus is referring to here is the error of denying the resurrection.
The scripture mentioned in verse 29 is the one quoted in 31-32.

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Nah, it appears you are projecting a bit onto Jipsah. If anyone needs Enoch, it is you, in order to corroborate the pet doctrines that you hold. The questions you have asked about Genesis, Kings, Acts, Jude could be asked of you as well. Why don't you just accept those canonized books instead of having to go to Enoch for corroboration?

I do accept the books of the Bible, the Law and the prophets, the writings and the histories of them -all of them, even the second canon of them, so called, and Enoch and others from the DSS that were part of the temple books that were hidden.
and you are misleading others about me to make a claim that I do not -please do not tell falsehoods about me!

 

[Jipsah]

I think you do not believe what it says on the flood being global -or do I have it wrong?

You have it wrong.

you pick for yourself based on your opinions to not accept what the Word does say

Enoch is not part of The Word.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The error that Jesus is referring to here is the error of denying the resurrection.
The scripture mentioned in verse 29 is the one quoted in 31-32.

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures ... At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ....

The power of God part they did not know was separate from the Scriptures that they did not know on the angels in heaven not marrying and that in the resurrection they will not marry and be like the angels in heaven.
That Scripture is that written by Enoch, and only Enoch writes that the angels in heaven do not marry and that in the resurrection they will be like/as/one with, the angels in heaven.
Jesus puts Enoch and Moses together in one sweeping condemnation of error and unbelief on the part of the Saduccees.

 

[Tzaousios]

I do accept the books of the Bible, the Law and the prophets, the writings and the histories of them -all of them, even the second canon of them, so called, and Enoch and others from the DSS that were part of the temple books that were hidden.

I never said that you did not accept the canonical books. Rather, I asked why you needed to go to Enoch than use the ones that you mentioned earlier. Do not try to obfuscate my point.

and you are misleading others about me to make a claim that I do not -please do not tell falsehoods about me!

Malarkey. You just do not like your precious Enochian beliefs challenged or questioned. Thus, in order to shield them, you must deflect by accusing others of "telling falsehoods," "misleading," and "not teaching Bible doctrine." Everyone sees this when you chime in any time Enoch is mentioned.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

You have it wrong.

.

Then I apologize on that, and I am glad that you believe the word on the global flood of Noah's time

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I never said that you did not accept the canonical books. Rather, I asked why you needed to go to Enoch than use the ones that you mentioned earlier. Do not try to obfuscate my point.



Malarkey. You just do not like your precious Enochian beliefs challenged or questioned. Thus, in order to shield them, you must deflect by accusing others of "telling falsehoods," "misleading," and "not teaching Bible doctrine." Everyone sees this when you chime in any time Enoch is mentioned.

Okay, you are on ignore from now on. I do not like being attacked with false accusations and will no longer reply to you.

 

[Tzaousios]

Okay, you are on ignore from now on. I do not like being attacked with false accusations and will no longer reply to you.

Do what you will. As I said, everyone sees what you are doing by this point and you only obfuscate my points further by pulling the "Ignore List" ultimatum.

 

[PaladinValer]

Do what you will. As I said, everyone sees what you are doing by this point and you only obfuscate my points further by pulling the "Ignore List" ultimatum.

Indeed, it is very typical. Well done proving how unorthodox and utterly unhistoric the opposing view is.

 

[Lion King]

1000 foot giants?

Thought it was 450 feet?

But are we now working under the assumption that all books are inspired by God unless one can prove otherwise?

Always been easier for me. Unlike you, I don't dismiss prophecies simply because they seem too "strange" or "impossible". I'm more of an open mind kinda guy....

You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken? When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:21-22

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21

 

[Tzaousios]

Always been easier for me. Unlike you, I don't dismiss prophecies simply because they seem too "strange" or "impossible". I'm more of an open mind kinda guy....

LOL...within extremely narrow "ecclesiological" strictures.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Thought it was 450 feet?

Yep, a few persons always come make statements that are not true as to the writings and yet what they attack with to discredit Enoch is not a contradiction to anything written in the Word, and they avoid the things Enoch reveals about the rapture before the tribulation and the return of Jesus and the Lake of Fire and Sheol below earth, and demons roaming the earth as the disembodied spirits of the nephillim who died in the flood, so on...
-and numbers written in Chronicles and Kings on Solomon's stables and horses do not agree, as well as the time Israel was in Egypt by adding it up in Genesis with Stephen's speech at his martydom; but they seem to think that is okay for contradictions in those, but what is not even a contradiction in Enoch to the Word, for the sizes of giants in the Word even differ over time, with the Anakim so tall that the Israelites were like grasshoppers in their site, but hundreds of years later, Goliath was a mere 9' something tall nephillim.

-though different manuscripts discovered of Enoch do give different numbers, not one of them contradicts to the Bible on sizes of the giants before the flood.

After the flood, the nephillim born of more angels falling into fornication with daughters of Adam never grew to the heights of those before the flood, and neither did dragonflies reach a 3' wingspan as fossils show they did before the flood, nor do we have armadillos the size of a Volkswagen, nor do we have terrible lizards reaching the heights -as fossils show- that they did before the flood; nor have we had mile high trees, as fossil trees that are rock formations in the Badlands show that some did.

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?-Mega Fauna- There Were Giants In Those Days

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?-There Were Giants In Those Days

The Biggest Out of Place Artifacts Ever? Immense, Stupendous Petrified Trees of the Black Hills, South Dakota « The s8intcom Blogger

http://summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RL.html

 

[Lollerskates]

Book of Enoch has direct prophecies con earning Christ and His sacrifice for remission of sin.

BoE labels Christ as the Ancient One - acknowledging His fit in the trinity, and His existence from the beginning.

BoE explains in full detail the events of Gen. 6.

The BoE praises the Father - the Most High - over all other magistrates.

The BoE gives detailed account into where souls go after death. It lines up with Lazerus parable, and the parable of the sower from Christ.

Christ admonishes people for not reading and remberring an Enochian prophecy.

BoE explains how - given that human history can be traced through genealogies - we advanced thousands of years into the future in only a few hundred.

There are many other things. Inspired texts has become a subjective measuring rod of the Church. If a bunch of people don't think it should be in a canon it won't be. That is whether or not the people DISCERN for themselves. There was a time when the book of Revelation was not considered canon. I think everyone should be able to discern for themselves - I would rather all books be "canonical" and I get back my God-given responsibility of discerning lies from Truth.

 

[Gnarwhal]

The Book of Enoch is a spurious text that only gets dusted off when people that hold fringe theological beliefs need to feel validated.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Keachian]

The Book of Enoch is a spurious text that only gets dusted off when people that hold fringe theological beliefs need to feel validated.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So it's like the Gospel of Thomas in that respect.

 

[Gnarwhal]

So it's like the Gospel of Thomas in that respect.

At least in the way it's utilized by certain small swaths of Christianity.

 

[Keachian]

At least in the way it's utilized by certain small swaths of Christianity.

Of course the fact that they were both rejected by the early Church (and no the Essene community at Qumran is not the Church) is of no consequence to those who through a strange hermeneutic actually have decided that the correct stance is to hate Christ's Church and shun the commands to meet together.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Of course the fact that they were both rejected by the early Church (and no the Essene community at Qumran is not the Church) is of no consequence to those who through a strange hermeneutic actually have decided that the correct stance is to hate Christ's Church and shun the commands to meet together.

Agreed. Typically those who affirm Enoch—and similarly spurious texts—have already intellectually rejected just about any and all uniform code of orthodoxy and heresy, as perhaps defined in the Creed(s). So with orthodoxy out the door and heresy climbing into bed, who's left keeping the train on the rails? Nada.