If I Enoch was canon, it'd be the most Christ Centric book of the Old Testament

[Jamdoc]

and I wonder, because when the Church was picking which books to include in canon, for old testament they just accepted what the Jews had made canon, and the Jews established their canon bible after the 1st century, if the Jews had excluded Enoch BECAUSE it is so Christ Centric and equates Christ on the same level as God, this being a book written before Jesus was born, found in the dead sea scrolls.
I've read part of it and I'm still trying to process it, but many of the doctrines that the New Testament screams, but the Old Testament only whispered about, are screamed in I Enoch, such as salvation by grace, the worship of Christ Himself, the separation of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man as 2 distinct people both worshiped as God, the lake of fire, the new earth, immortality of the elect

But to post first century Judaism those doctrines are anathema, they believe Messiah will be their King but do not believe Messiah is divine. It is whispered in the canon old testament, but shouted in I Enoch.

Now there are problems with the book's descriptions of cosmology, and giants that are miles tall, it uses geographic locations that shouldn't have existed (or at least shouldn't have existed by the names used) pre flood, like Dan, in a similar manner people think the book of Job is the oldest book in canon scripture, believing it to be pre flood, but it uses the Chaldeans, which would have been around the time of Babylonian captivity (I Enoch also mentions the 2 giant monster like beasts that are from Job, Leviathan and Behemoth)
But this book, reads like it'd HAVE to have been written after the new testament, but.. archaeological evidence puts it before the time of Christ.

I really don't know how to parcel it because if it was written before the apostles.. the Apostles seem to reference it, Jude quotes it.

I know it's going to get a lot of flack even posting this thread, but.. reading it, it's just.. a huge flagpole waving just how much it is about Christ., and how much it exalts Christ. Isaiah had a lot about the Messiah and if you really read into it, yeah Messiah is divine.
... But you really have to read into it.
I Enoch.. Messiah's divine and there's not even any way to plausibly deny that He is.
The doctrines in it on Christ are.. so far, consistent with New and Old Testament canon.
But.. cosmology problems and exaggeratedly tall giants.

 

[disciple Clint]

and I wonder, because when the Church was picking which books to include in canon, for old testament they just accepted what the Jews had made canon, and the Jews established their canon bible after the 1st century, if the Jews had excluded Enoch BECAUSE it is so Christ Centric and equates Christ on the same level as God, this being a book written before Jesus was born, found in the dead sea scrolls.
I've read part of it and I'm still trying to process it, but many of the doctrines that the New Testament screams, but the Old Testament only whispered about, are screamed in I Enoch, such as salvation by grace, the worship of Christ Himself, the separation of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man as 2 distinct people both worshiped as God, the lake of fire, the new earth, immortality of the elect

But to post first century Judaism those doctrines are anathema, they believe Messiah will be their King but do not believe Messiah is divine. It is whispered in the canon old testament, but shouted in I Enoch.

Now there are problems with the book's descriptions of cosmology, and giants that are miles tall, it uses geographic locations that shouldn't have existed (or at least shouldn't have existed by the names used) pre flood, like Dan, in a similar manner people think the book of Job is the oldest book in canon scripture, believing it to be pre flood, but it uses the Chaldeans, which would have been around the time of Babylonian captivity (I Enoch also mentions the 2 giant monster like beasts that are from Job, Leviathan and Behemoth)
But this book, reads like it'd HAVE to have been written after the new testament, but.. archaeological evidence puts it before the time of Christ.

I really don't know how to parcel it because if it was written before the apostles.. the Apostles seem to reference it, Jude quotes it.

I know it's going to get a lot of flack even posting this thread, but.. reading it, it's just.. a huge flagpole waving just how much it is about Christ., and how much it exalts Christ. Isaiah had a lot about the Messiah and if you really read into it, yeah Messiah is divine.
... But you really have to read into it.
I Enoch.. Messiah's divine and there's not even any way to plausibly deny that He is.
The doctrines in it on Christ are.. so far, consistent with New and Old Testament canon.
But.. cosmology problems and exaggeratedly tall giants.

maybe this will be of some help to you. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2588&context=etd

and I wonder, because when the Church was picking which books to include in canon, for old testament they just accepted what the Jews had made canon, and the Jews established their canon bible after the 1st century, if the Jews had excluded Enoch BECAUSE it is so Christ Centric and equates Christ on the same level as God, this being a book written before Jesus was born, found in the dead sea scrolls.
I've read part of it and I'm still trying to process it, but many of the doctrines that the New Testament screams, but the Old Testament only whispered about, are screamed in I Enoch, such as salvation by grace, the worship of Christ Himself, the separation of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man as 2 distinct people both worshiped as God, the lake of fire, the new earth, immortality of the elect

But to post first century Judaism those doctrines are anathema, they believe Messiah will be their King but do not believe Messiah is divine. It is whispered in the canon old testament, but shouted in I Enoch.

Now there are problems with the book's descriptions of cosmology, and giants that are miles tall, it uses geographic locations that shouldn't have existed (or at least shouldn't have existed by the names used) pre flood, like Dan, in a similar manner people think the book of Job is the oldest book in canon scripture, believing it to be pre flood, but it uses the Chaldeans, which would have been around the time of Babylonian captivity (I Enoch also mentions the 2 giant monster like beasts that are from Job, Leviathan and Behemoth)
But this book, reads like it'd HAVE to have been written after the new testament, but.. archaeological evidence puts it before the time of Christ.

I really don't know how to parcel it because if it was written before the apostles.. the Apostles seem to reference it, Jude quotes it.

I know it's going to get a lot of flack even posting this thread, but.. reading it, it's just.. a huge flagpole waving just how much it is about Christ., and how much it exalts Christ. Isaiah had a lot about the Messiah and if you really read into it, yeah Messiah is divine.
... But you really have to read into it.
I Enoch.. Messiah's divine and there's not even any way to plausibly deny that He is.
The doctrines in it on Christ are.. so far, consistent with New and Old Testament canon.
But.. cosmology problems and exaggeratedly tall giants.

Here are a couple more academic works that may be helpful.

https://ms.fortresspress.com/downloads/9781451490329_Chapter%202%20excerpt.pdf

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1835&context=etd

 

[Jamdoc]

maybe this will be of some help to you. https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2588&context=etd

Here are a couple more academic works that may be helpful.

https://ms.fortresspress.com/downloads/9781451490329_Chapter%202%20excerpt.pdf

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1835&context=etd

might be a bit to digest at once but I'll peruse these.. but could you give a general gist of what these are saying, like are they considering the book fraud or how are they generally looking at it? I know Michael Heiser considered it useful because it as literature the Apostles were familiar with and made reference to and were influenced by.
He also had a different idea on Inspiration though where it was not God telling the human authors word for word what to write, and to some extent I agree with that, while God took ownership of scripture the vocabulary of the human writers was used.

 

[disciple Clint]

might be a bit to digest at once but I'll peruse these.. but could you give a general gist of what these are saying, like are they considering the book fraud or how are they generally looking at it? I know Michael Heiser considered it useful because it as literature the Apostles were familiar with and made reference to and were influenced by.
He also had a different idea on Inspiration though where it was not God telling the human authors word for word what to write, and to some extent I agree with that, while God took ownership of scripture the vocabulary of the human writers was used.

As with most things many people have their opinion so I am reluctant to send you something that is opinion orientated, the academic papers have citations to support their conclusions. There is no doubt content on you tube as well.

 

[Jamdoc]

As with most things many people have their opinion so I am reluctant to send you something that is opinion orientated, the academic papers have citations to support their conclusions. There is no doubt content on you tube as well.

well I meant regarding those papers. They are somewhat lengthy to read (well 1 is about 100 pages at least) so I was hoping you had read them and could at least kinda point out the conclusions of each

 

[PIckleRelations]

It's where Jesus derived His title of 'Son of Man', and His source for answering the Sadducees in Matthew 22, concerning the woman who married seven brothers, after calling His source 'scripture' in verse 29.

Incidently, their question was derived from the Book of Tobit, not from some source we would currently define as 'biblical'. We've missed a lot out of willing ignorance.

 

[Jipsah]

If I Enoch was canon, it'd be the most Christ Centric book of the Old Testament​

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

You'll probably enjoy this thread OP :

The Book of Enoch?

Double post

www.christianforums.com

 

[Jamdoc]

If I Enoch was canon, it'd be the most Christ Centric book of the Old Testament​

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

How do you explain a book, written before Christ's birth, that has so many new testament doctrines that are only alluded to in the old testament?
If this were not in the dead sea scrolls it'd be easy to handwave away, like the gospel of Thomas, or most the rest of the "New Testament Apocrypha", you'd be able to say "oh it's consistent with these parts of revelation because it was written after Revelation.

But it wasn't.
There's problems and it's not inerrant, but, there's also things in it that line up too well to be coincidence.

 

[Andrewn]

How do you explain a book, written before Christ's birth, that has so many new testament doctrines that are only alluded to in the old testament? If this were not in the dead sea scrolls it'd be easy to handwave away,

The book of Enoch consists of 5 books + an addendum. The 6 sections are believed to belong to different authors and have different composition dates. According to websites linked in message #2, only the "Book of Parables" contains Christocentric references. That section/book is not in the Dead Sea Scroll or elsewhere except in the Ethiopic translation. IOW, it could have been written after Christ.

 

[Jamdoc]

The book of Enoch consists of 5 books + an addendum. The 6 sections are believed to belong to different authors and have different composition dates. According to websites linked in message #2, only the "Book of Parables" contains Christocentric references. That section/book is not in the Dead Sea Scroll or elsewhere except in the Ethiopic translation. IOW, it could have been written after Christ.

the book of the watchers has Christocentric references, and namely was the one I was talking about.

 

[Dkh587]

it presents Enoch as the Messiah, so it can never be accepted as “scripture”.

 

[Ceallaigh]

the book of the watchers has Christocentric references, and namely was the one I was talking about.

Could you cite what chapters and verses have Christocentric references please?

 

[Andrewn]

it presents Enoch as the Messiah, so it can never be accepted as “scripture”.

I finished reading the section called The Book of Parables, and it is pretty interesting. It doesn't present Enoch as the Messiah.

The Book of Enoch: The Parables: Chapter XXXVII

The Book of Enoch, by R.H. Charles, [1917], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

Which section of Enoch presents him as the Messiah?

 

[Jipsah]

There's problems and it's not inerrant, but, there's also things in it that line up too well to be coincidence.

Read the Book of the Heavenly Lumininaries. Rubbish from end to end. Anything that loaded with such a huge quantities out-and-out lies isn't from God, end of. A lot of people like it because if supports generally ridiculous doctrines they happen to embrace, and they're therefore willing to ignore the appalling amount of stuff in it that's obviously and observably not true.

 

[Jamdoc]

Could you cite what chapters and verses have Christocentric references please?

Well to be fair, it's not specifically Christ but the language speaks about the Lord walking on Earth, on His feet, in the first chapter, many canon prophecies regarding the second coming are in this chapter, including the one quoted in Jude, the destruction of the Earth, mountains melting like wax etc.
The first use of "elect one" is in the first book of parables. Are you saying that was not found in the dead sea scrolls?

 

[Jamdoc]

I finished reading the section called The Book of Parables, and it is pretty interesting. It doesn't present Enoch as the Messiah.

The Book of Enoch: The Parables: Chapter XXXVII

The Book of Enoch, by R.H. Charles, [1917], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

Which section of Enoch presents him as the Messiah?

No it presents Enoch as a scribe and preacher, but Enoch keeps talking about an "Elect one" and then refers to a bunch of new testament doctrines such as salvation by faith.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Well to be fair, it's not specifically Christ but the language speaks about the Lord walking on Earth, on His feet, in the first chapter, many canon prophecies regarding the second coming are in this chapter, including the one quoted in Jude, the destruction of the Earth, mountains melting like wax etc.
The first use of "elect one" is in the first book of parables. Are you saying that was not found in the dead sea scrolls?

No I wasn't saying anything in my question. I was just honestly curious about Christocentric references in Enoch.

When comes to the authenticity of Enoch, I'm inclined to go with the majority consensus of scholars over the centuries.