The Book of Enoch

[JoeBradley]

What is this? Is it a fallacy?

 

[watchm@n]

It is a very dangerous book filled with false doctrine.

 

[JoeBradley]

Um... care to elaborate?

 

[trialbyfire]

Jude quotes it directly.
It is in the cannon of Scripture in Ethiopia.
Jesus referred to it in His teachings.
Peter also refers to it. (angels in prison)
It explains in great detail about the fallen angels mentioned in Genesis.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It is a very dangerous book filled with false doctrine.

Um... care to elaborate?

No. He cannot elaborate. But he can spread disinformation quite nicely!

 

[Just The Facts]

HI

The Book of enoch is referenced over 30 times in the NT and was considered Holy Scripture by the early Church Fathers............But when the Battle over doctrine broke out between the Gnostics and the orthodox in the early fourth century the Orthodox Sect had it banned and burned and all who possessed it would be put to death.

Now just so you are clear that is not the modern Orthodox basicly when the persecutions ended in 314AD there were two major sects of Christianity the orthodox sect as they called themselves Primarily in the Western Empire and the Gnostic sect primarily in the eastern Empire...........Constantine called the council of Nicea to unite the two doctrines into one Faith............the result was the gnostics lost and there books were banned and any scripture that supported their point of view was also banned Enoch was one of those books.

Now just so you are clear I am not saying the Gnostics were right and the Orthodox wrong or vise versa............Just giving you the historical facts.

The Orthodox Latter broke into two factions one became known as Catholics in the west and the eastern orthodox churches

 

[SummaScriptura]

There are a number of historical inaccuracies in your post which I will attempt to address below.

<snip>Now just so you are clear that is not the modern Orthodox basicly when the persecutions ended in 314AD there were two major sects of Christianity the orthodox sect as they called themselves Primarily in the Western Empire and the Gnostic sect primarily in the eastern Empire...........

Gnosticism was never a sect of Christianity. It was a spiritual perspective on the world which was ubiquitous throughout the Roman Empire, East and West; it occasionally expressed itself in cultic fashion. The closest analogy to that belief system's ubiquity I can cite is the modern idealogies which go under the umbrella "new age". "New Ageism" is not a sect of anything, it is a spiritual outlook on the world which is popular; it does express itself in cults on occasion.

Constantine called the council of Nicea to unite the two doctrines into one Faith............

There was never an attempt to unite Gnosticism with Orhtodoxy on the part of Constantine nor on the part of Orthodoxy. Gnostics did however, attempt to insinuate themselves into Christian communions but were mostly exposed, repudiated and ejected.

the result was the gnostics lost and there books were banned and any scripture that supported their point of view was also banned Enoch was one of those books.

The Book of Enoch was not rejected within Greek and Latin Christianity because it was thought to be Gnostic. It was rejected by Greek and Latin Ecclesiastics due to the tale of the carnality of angels which is put forth in its pages. Augustine in particular noted this as a reason for its rejection.

Ethiopic Christianity, arising as it did in the midst of Ethiopian Jewry never rejected the book since angelic canality was not viewed as a problem within Judaism in ancient times.

But since you have made the claim the Book of Enoch is Gnostic, the burden of proof is upon you to show where in the entire book is even one ounce of Gnosticism. Please cite chapter and verse. If you cannot, then admit you are merely repeating something you heard or read and for which you have no evidence. By the way, it is demonstrable the Book of Enoch was composed before Gnosticism came on the scene.

Now just so you are clear I am not saying the Gnostics were right and the Orthodox wrong or vise versa............Just giving you the historical facts.

The Orthodox Latter broke into two factions one became known as Catholics in the west and the eastern orthodox churches

Historical "facts" which no good history corroborates.

 

[Just The Facts]

HI

You have not correct historical inaccuracies...................Your claim the Gnostic belief was not a sect of Christianity is a bias statement made from the position of Orthodoxy. It is not historically accurate in any way shape or form. It is a documented fact that over 120 bishops signed Gnostic creeds. It was not a new age belief it was primarily a difference on one key point, Is Jesus of the same "substance" as God or of a difference Substance. While there were many sects that went to extremes such as to reject the OT the majority had but a few doctrinal differences with the Orthodox crowd.

The council of Nicea was called to by Constantine to come up with one doctrine that would be called orthodox which means correct thinking. Constantine was about as Christian as the mad hatter he just wanted a single religious belief that he could use to unite the empire. Constantine himself was Baptized by a Gnostic Bishop on his death bed over 10 years after Nicea.

I never said the Book of Enoch was Gnostic. I said it was used by the Gnostic to back up some of their beliefs, I am well aware of Augustine&#8217;s reasons for denying it. Augustine and his contemporaries are the Fathers of Amill doctrine..........Their concepts and Ideas were made orthodox and others were deemed Heretical and thousands were killed who taught and believed these concepts.

Nicean Christianity was not accepted by all Christianity it was forced on Christianity upon pain of death. Here are Constantine&#8217;s words on the mater

&#8220;I decree, that if any one shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall not instantly bringing it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offence shall be death; for immediately after conviction the criminal shall suffer capital punishment. May God preserve you!&#8221;

The Catholics like to claim this was a difference of one man hence they have called it the Arian controversy after Arius the priest who&#8217;s discussions brought this controversy to a head. However the very fact that after Constantine death wars were fought over which doctrine was to be made Orthodox show how inaccurate this position is.

The belief that angels took human wives was a doctrine taught by the Apostles and earliest Church Fathers but was abandoned by the Amills because it did not fit into their doctrine.

 

[Swordsmanoffaith]

Enoch is in the Bible. Jude quotes it directly as if we are supposed to know it.

 

[NJBeliever]

Enoch is in the Bible. Jude quotes it directly as if we are supposed to know it.

This is true. But unfortunately the version that we have today most likely wasn't written by Enoch. So it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

 

[SummaScriptura]

This is true. But unfortunately the version that we have today most likely wasn't written by Enoch. So it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

What is your reasoning for believing this?

In your opinion, is the "version" we have today, the version from which Jude quoted?

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi NJ

This is true but God does indeed work in myterious ways. One chunk of the book was recovered with the dead sea scrolls and it was the part that said Angels took human wives. This is the part of the book that was deemed made up by Jerome and Augustine hundereds of years later...........But the dead sea scrolls were buried in about 66AD and most likely represent an exact copy of the Book Jude is quoting from.................Scrolls where not everywhere copies where only with Rabbi at Synagogues or with people such as the the Essenes as at Qumran....It is very unlikely what was found was altered from what Jesus and the Apostles quote

 

[Swordsmanoffaith]

This is true. But unfortunately the version that we have today most likely wasn't written by Enoch. So it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

It is my understanding that Enoch was an oral tradition and then someone wrote it down.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It is my understanding that Enoch was an oral tradition and then someone wrote it down.

Not according to the Book of Enoch.

Enoch 92:1, "The book written by Enoch- Enoch indeed wrote this complete doctrine of wisdom, which is praised of all men and a judge of all the earth for all my children who shall dwell on the earth. And for the future generations who shall observe uprightness and peace."

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>unfortunately the version that we have today most likely wasn't written by Enoch. So it should be taken with a big grain of salt.

What is your reasoning for believing this?

In your opinion, is the "version" we have today, the version from which Jude quoted?

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently people prefer to cut and run on this subject. So very often, as with the poster above, they will drop thought-bombs and split and not be accountable for their posts.

 

[Xenon]

A few things that are at odds with the Bible canon:

Different origin of sin:
10:8-9 - And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.

"Holy" tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:
32:3, 6 - ...and the tree of knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat and know great wisdom...Then Raphael the holy angel, who was with me, answered me and said: "This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden."

Men created like the angels:
69:11 - For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them.

There's also Greek philosophy in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily make Greek philosophy true. It was used to illustrate the things of God (Death and Hades being cast into the fire, for instance). By the same token, the Bible writers could have used parts of this writing to illustrate points. Given what the book says as a whole, however, there's no way that I would consider it inspired. Not to say that it is Gnostic, but it really does have a Gnostic feel about it (hidden knowledge and things like that).

 

[SummaScriptura]

I appreciate this post. How different it is when someone thinks a bit, as you have, and posts their thoughts; the usual type of poster I see on Enoch threads is like someone who throws hand-greanades and runs, "Enoch is heresy! Don't read it!" and then the poster disappears. So thanks for taking the time for posting some thoughts (which I trust are yours due to your reading the book for yourself and not something you read that someone else posted.)

Here are my replies:

A few things that are at odds with the Bible canon:

Different origin of sin:
10:8-9 - And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.

True, the Book of Enoch does not spend a lot of time re-hashing the fall of Adam and Eve. However, the fall of Adam and Eve is assumed throughout the book. In fact, the passage you cite below, Enoch 32:6 (click Here) mentions the very Genesis account of the first sin of Adam & Eve; it says after eating of the forbidden tree they "were driven out of the garden". If that is not a recounting of the entrance of sin into the human race, I don't know what is.

However, the "origin of sin" as you put it does not even refer to the sin of Adam & Eve. It seems there was an earlier sin; the one who tempted Adam & Eve was already fallen at that time, right? The Book of Enoch assumes Satan as fallen even before the Watcher-angels descend inthe time of Jared. In Enoch 54:6 (Click here) it states the angels who co-habited with women became "subject to Satan" when they sinned; the earlier fall of Satan and the origin of sin is assumed throughout the Book of Enoch.

That Azazel among the angels is ascribed "all sin" is refering to that angel's role as a ring-leader of sorts. The fall of the Watcher-angels and their subjugation and demoralization of mankind is what is in perspective in the Book of Enoch, not the origin of sin.

"Holy" tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil:

32:3, 6 - ...and the tree of knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat and know great wisdom...Then Raphael the holy angel, who was with me, answered me and said: "This is the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden."

The Book of Genesis when describing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil never states the tree is unholy nor that the tree does not make one wise, thus being a tree of wisdom. What the Book of Genesis DOES say however, is "don't eat from it". I might point out, after God created all, He said, "it is good". Even the tree which was the catylyst of the fall of the human race was good. God could have pointed to a rock and said, "don't touch that!" for that matter. What matters in the Genesis account is God's prohibitive command. The Book of Enoch does not conflict with the message of Genesis.

Men created like the angels:

69:11 - For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them.

That mankind share many common traits with angels is deffinitley in view in the Book of Enoch, however, common traits do not mean men and angels are identical. This is a truism not only in the Book of Enoch but throughout Jewish literature of the time both in the Bible and outside the Bible; angels are viewed as "like" men not men.

Remember, there is the story of the two angels who visit Lot before removing him from Sodom. They take a meal with Lot and then prepare to go to bed; they exhibit behavior "like" men, though they are not children of Adam.

Let's examine the passage you cite from Enoch 69:11 (Click here) "For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me."

The understanding of the verse is found in itself in the phrase "to the intent that"; as it says, "men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that" men should have remained faithful to God and then they would not have experienced death at all, just as the angels do not experience death. The point of the passage is this, had mankind not fallen into sin, men and women would not experience mortality "exactly like the angels" do not experience mortality.

There's also Greek philosophy in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily make Greek philosophy true. It was used to illustrate the things of God (Death and Hades being cast into the fire, for instance). By the same token, the Bible writers could have used parts of this writing to illustrate points. Given what the book says as a whole, however, there's no way that I would consider it inspired. Not to say that it is Gnostic, but it really does have a Gnostic feel about it (hidden knowledge and things like that).

Just because John in the Apocalypse uses the Greek word "hades" to signify the Old Testament place referred to in the Old Testament as "sheol" does not mean John is bringing Greek philosphy into the Bible. The New Testament writers used Greek to communicate truth; to do so they used the lexicon of possibilities to which the Greek language limited them.

About the Book of Enoch. There is no Greek philosphy in it. Neither is it gnostic as you point out. The hidden knowledge in the Book of Enoch is not of the variety which we find in gnostic works. Gnosticism seeks to initiate one into a hidden truth which outsiders cannot apprehend. The mysteries in the Book of Enoch are communicated in the same fashion as we find in the New Testament, as something previously hidden but which is now revealed to any who wish to read and believe it.

 

[Xenon]

Nice response; thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! I would respond to what you wrote, but there's something else on my mind that I should ask. Why do you trust the book of Enoch? We could probably go for pages about specific issues in there, but I'd rather hear why you trust it.

 

[brinny]

What is this? Is it a fallacy?

No offense meant, however from what i've read, it's very "me" oriented. It seemed spiritually empty.

 

[Just The Facts]

So many things have been lost over the centuries as the Amill crowd introduced and then claimed their doctrine to be orthodox we find ourselves taught fables and fairy tales as fact. Snakes dont talk.