The 10 weeks of Enoch, inspired or not?

[yeshuasavedme]

.

Where in this list is the Book of Enoch?
It would appear as though the Jews didn't feel it was Authentic or Inspired either.....Oh except the Ethiopians, and the Esseens.
...
Well that's it for me, I won't be responding to anything in this thread from now on, believe it or not, your getting more ridiculous with ever new post.
Talk among yourselves, I'm sure you have a lot to say.

You are misinformed on when there was a "canon list" made by the Jews....Not until after the resurrection and ascension of the Christ denying Jews of Jesus' day did the rulers of the Jews decide to make a "canon" list. They only left out Enoch, which they all had and read, who were scholars and teachers, because it clearly teaches that the Son of Man in Encoh is the Messiah who was to come, whom they put to death.

Enoch was right there in the home of Joseph and Mary. Jesus and His womb brothers were raised on it, and made many references to things only written in Enoch, and that was along with the rest of the books deemed sacred by them....
It was right there in Saul/Paul's possession, along with the other books deemed sacred by him.. Paul learned about Jesus as the Son of Man revealed in Enoch, and wrote accordingly.
It was right there in the home of Barnabus, the brother to Mary and uncle to John Mark, who wrote of Enoch as Scripture; and it was in the possession of many early Jewish Believers in the Gospel of Christ who were converted to the Messiah . This is documented by their early writings.
No fallible men sitting in a council, pretending to be sitting in the seat of God, and that over three hundred years after the Church was founded, had the power to declare Enoch "not inspired". It already was believed inspired by the Jews and the Gentiles who had it in their possession.
I go with those who were the first Believers, not with those who were separated by centuries, miles, and culture, from the beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ!

 

[JoeP222w]

You may as well throw out the old testament because none of the apostles wrote those. They are also not accepted completely by mainstream Christianity. And they sure don't agree with the self proclaimed orthodoxy (literally 'Right opinion') of men who don't believe the law needs to be followed as handed down by Moses.

The Apostles acknowledged the Old Testament and the Jewish community agreed upon what was the Old Testament. You are really misconstruing my statements. I will expand that scripture was apostolic in that it was endorsed by the Apostles as being God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired scripture. I did not state it quite right previously.

 

[Vicomte13]

Is it inspired by the living God?

I have more questions, however i'll hold off asking them till after you respond to the above question.

Thank you kindly, Vicomte.

Interesting question.

If this were 450 AD, before the Council of Chalcedon, the Catholic Church would be united, and the Ethiopian church and the Latin Church were still one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in Rome they may or may not have used Enoch as Scripture. In Ethiopia, they did. The Council of Trent had not yet been held definitively fixing the Canon for the whole Church. So, one set of Catholics considered it Scripture, and another (larger) set of Catholics did not.

This was not a source of schism.

Therefore, the approach I take is to consider it inspired and canonical, on the one hand, and see what sort of religion results. Then I consider it not inspired and pseudepigraphical, and see what sort of religion results.

I end up the same place as far as the Law of Jesus goes - no difference at all. I could easily be in communion with the Ethiopian Orthodox if the heads of their church and mine agreed to come back into communion.

The difference Enoch makes has to do with beliefs about the origins of the world, which don't ultimately matter (to me) as long as getting the Law of God part is done right. Nevertheless, with Enoch out of the Scripture, I am able to see the history of the world and the truth of the Scriptures one way, and with Enoch in, IF I take Enoch as literally as the rest of Scripture, I have to see the history of the world a different way.

Either might be so. One way makes more sense to me, and is much easier on the rest of the Bible, and that's the way with Enoch not in the Scripture, which is the Catholic way since 451 AD at least. The other way, with Enoch in the Scripture, means that what I think about the history of the world is wrong OR what I think about Scripture is wrong (if the way I think of the history of the world is right).

So may answer is a firm "Maybe".

I don't like "Maybes" a lot, and would like to have the certitude of "The Church decided it so that's final", but I remember that the Church also burnt Joan of Arc, a messenger of God, to death before recanting that and making her a saint, so I cannot simply accept things that seem off without an asterisk. In the end, I decide these things, not the Pope, or the Church or other Christians. In the end, I am the final judge of everything I believe. As are you.

My answer is: I don't know - maybe so, maybe not. I think in both tenses and consider the different views of the history of the world as each being possible. But then I notice that the Law of Jesus is the same either way, and decide that it doesn't make any difference at all if Enoch is Scripture or not Scripture, or Genesis is history or an allegory. I'm not a Sola Scripturalist, so I don't have to agonize over the status of Enoch the way a Sola Scripturalist must.

There's my answer.

I PREFER to believe the modern Catholic version of the history of the world over the history of the world with the book of in it as literally true. But, if it is literally true, it doesn't change anything concrete that I have to DO, or not do, either way. And therefore it doesn't ultimately matter - to me.

Your mileage will vary.

 

[brinny]

Interesting question.

If this were 450 AD, before the Council of Chalcedon, the Catholic Church would be united, and the Ethiopian church and the Latin Church were still one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in Rome they may or may not have used Enoch as Scripture. In Ethiopia, they did. The Council of Trent had not yet been held definitively fixing the Canon for the whole Church. So, one set of Catholics considered it Scripture, and another (larger) set of Catholics did not.

This was not a source of schism.

Therefore, the approach I take is to consider it inspired and canonical, on the one hand, and see what sort of religion results. Then I consider it not inspired and pseudepigraphical, and see what sort of religion results.

I end up the same place as far as the Law of Jesus goes - no difference at all. I could easily be in communion with the Ethiopian Orthodox if the heads of their church and mine agreed to come back into communion.

The difference Enoch makes has to do with beliefs about the origins of the world, which don't ultimately matter (to me) as long as getting the Law of God part is done right. Nevertheless, with Enoch out of the Scripture, I am able to see the history of the world and the truth of the Scriptures one way, and with Enoch in, IF I take Enoch as literally as the rest of Scripture, I have to see the history of the world a different way.

Either might be so. One way makes more sense to me, and is much easier on the rest of the Bible, and that's the way with Enoch not in the Scripture, which is the Catholic way since 451 AD at least. The other way, with Enoch in the Scripture, means that what I think about the history of the world is wrong OR what I think about Scripture is wrong (if the way I think of the history of the world is right).

So may answer is a firm "Maybe".

I don't like "Maybes" a lot, and would like to have the certitude of "The Church decided it so that's final", but I remember that the Church also burnt Joan of Arc, a messenger of God, to death before recanting that and making her a saint, so I cannot simply accept things that seem off without an asterisk. In the end, I decide these things, not the Pope, or the Church or other Christians. In the end, I am the final judge of everything I believe. As are you.

My answer is: I don't know - maybe so, maybe not. I think in both tenses and consider the different views of the history of the world as each being possible. But then I notice that the Law of Jesus is the same either way, and decide that it doesn't make any difference at all if Enoch is Scripture or not Scripture, or Genesis is history or an allegory. I'm not a Sola Scripturalist, so I don't have to agonize over the status of Enoch the way a Sola Scripturalist must.

There's my answer.

I PREFER to believe the modern Catholic version of the history of the world over the history of the world with the book of in it as literally true. But, if it is literally true, it doesn't change anything concrete that I have to DO, or not do, either way. And therefore it doesn't ultimately matter - to me.

Your mileage will vary.

Thank you for that very generous reply. However i asked if it was inspired by the living God.

In addition, if it was inspired by the living God, the question is, did the man of God Enoch write it? (of the seventh generation from Adam)

 

[Vicomte13]

Thank you for that very generous reply. However i asked if it was inspired by the living God.

In addition, if it was inspired by the living God, the question is, did the man of God Enoch write it? (of the seventh generation from Adam)

I did answer that! I answered it MAYBE. MAYBE it's inspired by God, and maybe it was even written by Enoch, grandson of Adam.

Maybe it's inspired by God and was written by somebody else.

Maybe PART of it is inspired by God, and other stuff was added to it over time.

Maybe it was written by Enoch, of Adam, but was not inspired by God.

Maybe it was written by somebody else, and was not inspired by God.

I consider the outcome, to me, of all of those possibilities, and I end up in the same place. What Jesus said is what matters, because he's the one God told us to follow.

So in the end, maybe Enoch is inspired by God, maybe not, maybe Enoch wrote it, maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect what Jesus said to do either way.

Truth is, you could just cut away almost all of Scripture and focus on what Jesus said to Gentiles, and you would have everything in the Bible that REALLY matters, as far as I am concerned. The rest is interesting detail, but not really NECESSARY.

 

[brinny]

I did answer that! I answered it MAYBE. MAYBE it's inspired by God, and maybe it was even written by Enoch, grandson of Adam.

Maybe it's inspired by God and was written by somebody else.

Maybe PART of it is inspired by God, and other stuff was added to it over time.

Maybe it was written by Enoch, of Adam, but was not inspired by God.

Maybe it was written by somebody else, and was not inspired by God.

I consider the outcome, to me, of all of those possibilities, and I end up in the same place. What Jesus said is what matters, because he's the one God told us to follow.

So in the end, maybe Enoch is inspired by God, maybe not, maybe Enoch wrote it, maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect what Jesus said to do either way.

Truth is, you could just cut away almost all of Scripture and focus on what Jesus said to Gentiles, and you would have everything in the Bible that REALLY matters, as far as I am concerned. The rest is interesting detail, but not really NECESSARY.

If Enoch, of Adam wrote it, it would be inspired by God simply because Enoch walked with God to the extent that God "took" him. Therefore Enoch of Adam would have never lied, deceived, focused on anythinging but the glory of God, but mostly he would've been "obedient", based on a Godly "fear" of God. Nothing questionable would have proceeded from him.

Are you familiar with what "Enochian angels" are?

 

[Vicomte13]

If Enoch, of Adam wrote it, it would be inspired by God simply because Enoch walked with God to the extent that God "took" him. Therefore Enoch of Adam would have never lied, deceived, focused on anythinging but the glory of God, but mostly he would've been "obedient", based on a Godly "fear" of God. Nothing questionable would have proceeded from him.

Are you familiar with what "Enochian angels" are?

I don't see any particular reason for any of those things to necessarily follow, one from the other. God liked Enoch, so he "translated" him (whatever that means). That doesn't perforce mean that Enoch never did anything bad.

In any case, there's no way to know who wrote Enoch, so the book remains a cipher. Maybe. Maybe then requires thinking through the possibilities.

I am not familiar with the term "Enochian Angels" as such. By that do you mean the various (fallen) angels who are named in the Book of Enoch?

 

[brinny]

I don't see any particular reason for any of those things to necessarily follow, one from the other. God liked Enoch, so he "translated" him (whatever that means). That doesn't perforce mean that Enoch never did anything bad.

In any case, there's no way to know who wrote Enoch, so the book remains a cipher. Maybe. Maybe then requires thinking through the possibilities.

I am not familiar with the term "Enochian Angels" as such. By that do you mean the various (fallen) angels who are named in the Book of Enoch?

If Enoch "walked with God" it means that He was in unity with God, in God's presence, and therefore he had a Godly "fear" of God and was the epitome of this:

" He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" ~Micah 6:8

He was a man of God to the degree that God "took" him (he did not taste death). Same with Elijah. He did not taste death either.

Enochian angels are associated with Enochian magic. The occult.

 

[Vicomte13]

If Enoch "walked with God" it means that He was in unity with God, in God's presence, and therefore he had a Godly "fear" of God and was the epitome of this:

" He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" ~Micah 6:8

He was a man of God to the degree that God "took" him (he did not taste death). Same with Elijah. He did not taste death either.

Enochian angels are associated with Enochian magic. The occult.

Maybe. Abraham was imperfect, but God walked with him and favored him a great deal. His grandson was very imperfect, but God still favored him with great blessings.

God can choose people because he likes them, not because they're particularly praiseworthy in a moral sense.

In any case, Enoch lived and died - or didn't die - a long, long, long time ago (assuming he's not an allegorical figure). God didn't send Enoch to us to instruct us on how we should live our lives. He sent Jesus. So Enoch, and all of the history or myth surrounding him, is interesting and exciting, but it's not really important either way. Really, it's ancient entertainment, but not essential.

Maybe hangs all around it. Certainly it makes for a different history of the world, if it's true.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I thought the Ark of the Covenant was buried around Golgotha....

Just do internet search:

The Ark of the Covenant Found in Jerusalem? Buried in Golgotha Below Where Christ was Crucified?
The Ark of the Covenant Found in Jerusalem? Buried in Golgotha Below Where Christ was Crucified?

It's better to trust scripture then follow the wild goose chase false scholars send people on.

AMEN!
Carnal people still insist on looking for something to help their faith......

Jeremiah 3:16

It shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land, in those days," says YHWH, "they shall say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of YHWH.'
neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they miss it; neither shall it be made any more.

As an aside, the Jews really need to read Revelation:

Revel 11:19
And opened was the Sanctuary of God in the heaven,
and there was seen the ark of His covenant in His Sanctuary,

Forget about anyone being able to it until this event is passed:

Rev 15:
6 and come forth did the seven Messengers, having the seven blows, out of the Sanctuary,
8 and filled was the Sanctuary with smoke from the glory of God, and from His power,
and no one was able to enter into the Sanctuary till the seven blows of the seven Messengers may be finished.

 

[brinny]

Maybe. Abraham was imperfect, but God walked with him and favored him a great deal. His grandson was very imperfect, but God still favored him with great blessings.

God can choose people because he likes them, not because they're particularly praiseworthy in a moral sense.

In any case, Enoch lived and died - or didn't die - a long, long, long time ago (assuming he's not an allegorical figure). God didn't send Enoch to us to instruct us on how we should live our lives. He sent Jesus. So Enoch, and all of the history or myth surrounding him, is interesting and exciting, but it's not really important either way. Really, it's ancient entertainment, but not essential.

Maybe hangs all around it. Certainly it makes for a different history of the world, if it's true.

You are correct. Neither Enoch nor Elijah tasted death.

If you consider the inspired Word of God entertainment, then it perhaps does not matter if any of it is true, to you, or if there is Enochian magic, Enochian angels, ie: the occult, attributed to the man of God called Enoch, that God "took", and that there is a book attributed to this Enoch, and usurping his name.

Just seeking clarity, Vicomte 13.

Thank you kindly.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ugh...I almost believed Ron Wyatt but, unfortunately I could not...his findings were too shrouded in mystery.

Everything about the past is shrouded in mystery when it gets beyond the scriptures and other sources for historical events.

I found the travels and discoveries of Ron Wyatt very interesting and I believe he was a true man of God. He never used his finds to become famous or rich. Quite a remarkable guy.

 

[brinny]

Everything about the past is shrouded in mystery when it gets beyond the scriptures and other sources for historical events.

I found the travels and discoveries of Ron Wyatt very interesting and I believe he was a true man of God. He never used his finds to become famous or rich. Quite a remarkable guy.

Hasn't he been accused of being a con-man?

 

[Vicomte13]

If you consider the inspired Word of God entertainment, then it perhaps does not matter ...

Just seeking clarity, Vicomte 13.

Thank you kindly.

Well, I don't know whether Enoch is Scripture or not. If I were required to vote, I would say that it is not, because the Catholic Church has so declared it, and when the Catholic Church speaks on a matter of faith and morals, that is the voice of God.

So I guess that's actually the answer: Enoch is not Scripture because God said it isn't at the Council of Trent.

So all of that weird business in it is just that: entertainment, from an ancient novel. Nothing more.

There's clarity, I suppose. I don't know the answer myself, but the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and the Church has answered it - so there's the answer God revealed: not scripture.

Therefore, entertainment, nothing more.

 

[brinny]

Well, I don't know whether Enoch is Scripture or not. If I were required to vote, I would say that it is not, because the Catholic Church has so declared it, and when the Catholic Church speaks on a matter of faith and morals, that is the voice of God.

So I guess that's actually the answer: Enoch is not Scripture because God said it isn't at the Council of Trent.

So all of that weird business in it is just that: entertainment, from an ancient novel. Nothing more.

There's clarity, I suppose. I don't know the answer myself, but the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and the Church has answered it - so there's the answer God revealed: not scripture.

Therefore, entertainment, nothing more.

So all of that weird business in it

What weird business in it might you be referring to?

 

[JacksBratt]

If Enoch "walked with God" it means that He was in unity with God, in God's presence, and therefore he had a Godly "fear" of God and was the epitome of this:

" He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" ~Micah 6:8

He was a man of God to the degree that God "took" him (he did not taste death). Same with Elijah. He did not taste death either.

Enochian angels are associated with Enochian magic. The occult.

Can you tell me what part of the book of Enoch is associated with the occult? Also, can you tell me if the occult took these writings and used them for their own agenda....or... if Enoch, the man of God somehow founded the occult of which you are speaking. I hardly believe that the later is true.

I have read the Book of Enoch and have not found anything to be contradictory to the word of God that we call the Holy Bible.

 

[brinny]

Can you tell me what part of the book of Enoch is associated with the occult? Also, can you tell me if the occult took these writings and used them for their own agenda....or... if Enoch, the man of God somehow founded the occult of which you are speaking. I hardly believe that the later is true.

I have read the Book of Enoch and have not found anything to be contradictory to the word of God that we call the Holy Bible.

See my post above about Enoch, the man of God's name, being usurped.

 

[Vicomte13]

What weird business in it might you be referring to?

3750 foot tall giants, for starters. This seems unlikely.

 

[brinny]

3750 foot tall giants, for starters. This seems unlikely.

LOL!

 

[Vicomte13]

LOL!

Well, that's just it. One source for Enoch 7 has them at 3000 ells. That's between 3000 and 9000 feet. Another has it as 300 cubits...a more modest 500 feet. There's no record of any animal anywhere close to that. The tallest of all trees can't grow past about 390 feet because the water can't rise any higher by osmotic force.

Dinosaurs as nephilim is possible. 9000 foot tall giants? Nah.