1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch, not Jesus

Has anyone here read 1 Enoch? My dad has told me on numerous occasions that the "he" in 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch. This would actually make more sense than saying Christ preached to the spirits which were in prison, because Christ went to paradise after he died. Why would spirits in paradise need to be preached to? Jesus told the criminal on the cross next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise". As I am aware, the Moffatt translation of the Bible does translate the "he" as Enoch, but my dad reads the King James Bible. I know that Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, but those who consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant consider only the verses that are quoted by Jude to be inspired, and they throw away the rest of the book as nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, the Coptic Church considers 1 Enoch to be inspired, and includes it as part of its canon. My dad has told me that the Jews reject it as being too Christian, and the Christians reject it as being too Jewish. Any thoughts?

P.S. Please don't turn this into a debate about the nature of the afterlife, just comment on the subject at hand.

1 Enoch has a LOT of red flags. One of them being that it's creation is typically dated inside of the 400 years of silence (Malachi being the last accepted prophet of the OT). Where God spoke to no one. That if it was written by Enoch in the first place it would have had to survive the flood. Also the Jews didn't accept the book as written by Enoch either and the only complete translation found is an ethiopian copy (found in 1776), there aren't enough of the original greek or aramiac to substantiate it. So was Jude badly quoting an ethiopian copy (because the quotation is not literally of Enoch 1:9) which would mean Jude wasn't inspired or Jude isn't talking about Enoch. Also note that there are no greek or aramiac fragments of Enoch that include that verse, only the questionable ethiopian copy (questionable because it doesn't match aramaic or greek). The writing itself doesn't seem to have an overall style of one author either, as if someone added to it further questioning the ethiopian copy.

There are a lot of inconsistencies surrounding it.

I don't know where Moffatt's translation gets 'Enoch' from, the text of 1 Peter says 'he went' which refers to the subject in the first part of the sentence, Christ. Enoch might seem to make more sense to you and Moffatt, but it is not what Peter actually wrote. The book of Enoch is fascinating and give a useful insight into Jewish apocalyptic literature of the time, but you shouldn't take it seriously.

Watchman on the Wall said:

Has anyone here read 1 Enoch? My dad has told me on numerous occasions that the "he" in 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch. This would actually make more sense than saying Christ preached to the spirits which were in prison, because Christ went to paradise after he died. Why would spirits in paradise need to be preached to? Jesus told the criminal on the cross next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise". As I am aware, the Moffatt translation of the Bible does translate the "he" as Enoch, but my dad reads the King James Bible. I know that Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, but those who consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant consider only the verses that are quoted by Jude to be inspired, and they throw away the rest of the book as nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, the Coptic Church considers 1 Enoch to be inspired, and includes it as part of its canon. My dad has told me that the Jews reject it as being too Christian, and the Christians reject it as being too Jewish. Any thoughts?

P.S. Please don't turn this into a debate about the nature of the afterlife, just comment on the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

I have read The book of Enoch,which I believe is also called "The secrets of Enoch".It's existences was well known during the time of the apostles and I believe is still part of the Bible in some parts of Africa.I think the real reason for many not liking it is that it talks alot about what the Fallen angels taught mankind.To some I think it is too "dark" if you know what I mean.I personally love it along with other texts such as The Gospel of Thomas and a few others.

Watchman on the Wall said:

Has anyone here read 1 Enoch? My dad has told me on numerous occasions that the "he" in 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch. This would actually make more sense than saying Christ preached to the spirits which were in prison, because Christ went to paradise after he died. Why would spirits in paradise need to be preached to? Jesus told the criminal on the cross next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise". As I am aware, the Moffatt translation of the Bible does translate the "he" as Enoch, but my dad reads the King James Bible. I know that Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, but those who consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant consider only the verses that are quoted by Jude to be inspired, and they throw away the rest of the book as nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, the Coptic Church considers 1 Enoch to be inspired, and includes it as part of its canon. My dad has told me that the Jews reject it as being too Christian, and the Christians reject it as being too Jewish. Any thoughts?

P.S. Please don't turn this into a debate about the nature of the afterlife, just comment on the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

It is just a bad interpretation by some folks. It's what happens when a verse is taken out of context.

The "spirits in prison" that "Christ preached to" was those of the very next verse referring to the great event in Noah's day, those lost souls (aka spirits in prison) preached to by the eternal Christ, through Noah, warning them of the flood.

(1Pe 3:20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The point being, as in the next verse, that is exactly an example of how we are now today in our choice, of whether to jump in the Ark of Jesus or to be swept away to death.

(1Pe 3:21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It means nothing else. What it DOES mean is awesome.

Jesus was dead in the grave for three days. He didn't "go anywhere" while dead lol.

Remember, the 'Book of Enoch' has been so walked upon by occultists down through time that there isn't anything of value in reading it today in any sense. It's why it isn't of the Bible.

Blessings in Christ

The Book of Enoch was thought to have been written following the New Testament. This is because of snippets of texts that are copied between the New Testament and Enoch. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls there was an “old” copy of Enoch that predates the New Testament by 300 years. In addition this copy of Enoch was maintained by the Jews at the time of Jesus and the Apostles as scripture. Many modern scholars have attempted to mitigate this conundrum by claiming the Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls were of the obscure sect called Essenes. This despite any artifact found to indicate they were Essenes. Two things of importance - One is that Enoch was part of official scripture to the Jews with the settlement by the Dead Sea. And two. The name of the settlement was Damascus - which is a prominent fact obscured by most scholars associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why because Paul studied scripture at Damascus when he converted to Christianity and most of the western Christian world cannot reconcile their doctrines with the Book of Enoch as scripture. Therefore it is believed - despite evidence to the contrary that Paul was converted on his way to Damascus in Assyria.


However, if anyone is interested LDS believe that Jesus organized righteous spirits to preach to those spirits in prison that did not have the opportunity to learn the truth of the Messiah during this life. We LDS believe a great missionary work is underway in the realm of departed spirits and that all that accept Christ there will receive the benefits of being converted and believing in Christ.

Son of Zadok

Watchman on the Wall said:

Has anyone here read 1 Enoch? My dad has told me on numerous occasions that the "he" in 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch. This would actually make more sense than saying Christ preached to the spirits which were in prison, because Christ went to paradise after he died. Why would spirits in paradise need to be preached to? Jesus told the criminal on the cross next to him, "This day you will be with me in paradise". As I am aware, the Moffatt translation of the Bible does translate the "he" as Enoch, but my dad reads the King James Bible. I know that Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, but those who consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant consider only the verses that are quoted by Jude to be inspired, and they throw away the rest of the book as nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, the Coptic Church considers 1 Enoch to be inspired, and includes it as part of its canon. My dad has told me that the Jews reject it as being too Christian, and the Christians reject it as being too Jewish. Any thoughts?

P.S. Please don't turn this into a debate about the nature of the afterlife, just comment on the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not go to paradise when He died.

"And Jesus said unto him Verily I say unto thee To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

He was talking about the future; the thief would be with Him in paradise with all the saints after the resurrection of the dead/after judgement day.

I reject the book of Enoch for one reason: it says demons are the spirits of the Nephilim.

It's clear that demons are fallen angels. Their frequent obedience in the NT is evidence of this, particularly Mark 5.

I believe the Nephilim are the offsprings of Seth and Cain.

But weren't they giants?

Adam and his sons were giants. The curse placed on Cain "de-evolved" Cain's descendents.

Btw, my father has told me that the blood of Jesus can enable one to cast out demons without struggle and that with the arrival of coming time of peace, God will reveal secrets that were in plain sight. He is also the one who told me about Adam and his sons being giants. I also got it from this site.

Jpark said:

I reject the book of Enoch for one reason: it says demons are the spirits of the Nephilim.

It's clear that demons are fallen angels. Their frequent obedience in the NT is evidence of this, particularly Mark 5.

I believe the Nephilim are the offsprings of Seth and Cain.

But weren't they giants?

Adam and his sons were giants. The curse placed on Cain "de-evolved" Cain's descendents.

Btw, my father has told me that the blood of Jesus can enable one to cast out demons without struggle and that with the arrival of coming time of peace, God will reveal secrets that were in plain sight. He is also the one who told me about Adam and his sons being giants. I also got it from this site.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust that site since there is no scriptural backing for their view.

This site talks about the Nephilim .Who Were the Nephilim?

No one has attempted to challenge the evidence I gave you that the book of Enoch is false and not even written by Enoch.

Son of Zadok said:

We LDS believe a great missionary work is underway in the realm of departed spirits and that all that accept Christ there will receive the benefits of being converted and believing in Christ.

Son of Zadok

Click to expand...

How do you LDS explainaway the fact that YHVH is the God of the living, not the dead????


Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
http://www.christianforums.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:31-33&version=KJV

The Gnostic said:

This site talks about the Nephilim .Who Were the Nephilim?

Click to expand...

The Theistic Evolution Christian reasoning on these passages comes from their Annotated Bible.

They were a species of hominoids.

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men, (through the line of Cain, the species Methusael, i.e., Early Homo erectus), began to multiply on the face of the earth (around the end of the Pilocene Age in the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era), and daughters, (i.e.; through Lamech, Homo antecessorian, derived through the line of Cain), were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God, (the line through Seth, i.e.; Methuselah, or Modern Homo erectus, whom God had taken from the days of Enoch to survive as the fittist),...
... saw the daughters of men, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, or, Naamahians, i.e.; a late stage Neanderthal, here called Lamech's daughter, or Homo antecessorian: that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose, (See Gen. 6:1, daughters of Lamech, or Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain).


Genesis 6: Sons of God




Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit (expressed panentheistically, in the Natural Laws of evolution) shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet his days, (to come, this Neanderthal Man) shall be (only) an (other) hundred and twenty (i.e., thousand) years.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (i.e.; Homo Erectus, two species one through Methuselah and another through Methusael), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (i.e.; the link in the chain to Modern Homos, the Methusaelian line of ascent, or the Homo erectus species), came in unto the daughters of men, (Lamech's Homo antecessors daughters), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (i.e.; hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

God's Fighter said:

No one has attempted to challenge the evidence I gave you that the book of Enoch is false and not even written by Enoch.

Click to expand...

The same can be said for 2 Peter.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

I've read that in medieval Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Enoch and Hermes Trismegistus were often considered the same fellow.

God's Fighter said:

No one has attempted to challenge the evidence I gave you that the book of Enoch is false and not even written by Enoch.

Click to expand...

The Book of Enoch is like our writings today such a Left Behind.

It was one of the many writings that presented the ideas held by the general jewish public about the paradigm of orthodox interpretations and dogmas of that moment.

We might read old books today about the three wise men who visited Jesus, and find medieval ideas woven into that story which do no bear support in the scriptures.

Even the King James interpretors, themselves, were too alarmedby translating "magi" from the Persia roots to use the shicking information they had discovered.
And the RCC until 1990 would not replace "magi" with the actual word, "Astrologers."

The reason for such deceit was that the church had taught against all Astrology, even the Kabbalah, for centuries, based on their own interpretations that ignored the word "magic."

In other words, the many books about the bible and teaching by the authoritities on scripture were best sellers, like the rapture idea, which is long over, but still anticipated.

Ishraqiyun said:

I've read that in medieval Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Enoch and Hermes Trismegistus were often considered the same fellow.

Click to expand...

Did you notice that the Jews thought there were seven "angels" bringing messages to the mind of men?




Book of Enoch (9.1)
This book also names seven "holy angels" (chapter 20) -
Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Jerahmeel.

cupid dave said:

Did you notice that the Jews thought there were seven "angels" bringing messages to the mind of men?




Book of Enoch (9.1)
This book also names seven "holy angels" (chapter 20) -
Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Jerahmeel.

Click to expand...

I see you listed seven but you purposely left out a couple so you can arrive at seven.typical of you.Merry Christmas

What is profound is that nowhere in the Old Testament does it mention that Melchizedek was

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

So, my question is, how could Paul the writer of Hebrews know all this about Melchizedek?

The answer is in chapters 69-73 of the book of 2 Enoch (there are three different books of Enoch). This section describes the virgin birth of Melchizedek and his exaltation. And before you claim that Jesus was the only human ever borne of a virgin, show me where it says that in the Bible!

The Gnostic said:

I see you listed seven but you purposely left out a couple so you can arrive at seven.typical of you.Merry Christmas

Click to expand...

I did?

Therse were the seven I saw in the source which informed me about the names.


Please give me your source as the lame complaint is naked without some such information.

Seeking His Face said:

What is profound is that nowhere in the Old Testament does it mention that Melchizedek was

"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

So, my question is, how could Paul the writer of Hebrews know all this about Melchizedek?

The answer is in chapters 69-73 of the book of 2 Enoch (there are three different books of Enoch). This section describes the virgin birth of Melchizedek and his exaltation. And before you claim that Jesus was the only human ever borne of a virgin, show me where it says that in the Bible!

Click to expand...

Elijah also was born miraculously according to the oldest of Jewish Traditions:


Jewish Encyclopedia:
Three different theories regarding Elijah's origin are presented in the Haggadah: Mention must be made of a statement which, though found only in the later cabalistic literature (Yal?u? Reubeni, Bereshit, 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old (see Epiphanius, l.c.), and according to which Elijah was an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring.
See also Melchizedek.