The book of Enoch.

[1gr8buildit]

The book of enoch is mentioned several times in the NT. Therefore since it is referenced as a source, why do we not see this as validation that it should be included in the canon. But wait, there is more. One of the reasons it was not was that it was originally thought to have been referencing Matthew over and over again. Thus setting a time frame not from antiquity. However, after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, we learned that it was actually Matthew who used wording from Enoch, over 100 times. Enoch was then accepted by scholars as from antiquity. So much of our NT is based off this book. Think of Paul when he referenced the 3rd heaven.... That is not an obvious reference to the book of Enoch, but, it is a reference to Enoch because this is where it was first written. And many other NT passages are the same. The book talks about the garden, the tree's in the garden, the Nephilim, etc. It could actually be the source of Genesis because it is much more complete of the same stories. So why don't we hear more about it? Because the Trinitarians don't like what it has to say concerning Jesus. Much of the coming NT expectation of the Messiah is based off of Enoch. It's very interesting, yet very "biblical" therefore don't expect it to be any different. Interesting in how it gives more info concerning the same sunday school lesson's we have all heard. I can't recall, but I think at about Enoch 67... They say a new writing style emerges, clear sign that it was added to so scholars don't consider it original past that approximate point. Check it out sometime if your bored

 

[Semi-Pro]

Subd

 

[oldfella1962]

Subd

what does "Subd" mean?

 

[Semi-Pro]

what does "Subd" mean?

Subscribed, save for later, watch thread etc. A lot of sites when you posting a thread it starts sending you alerts.

 

[NCHillbilly]

https://forum.gon.com/threads/enoch.1002997/

 

[Artfuldodger]

Maybe by excluding the book of Enoch, it shows that council at Nicea may have been more inspired by man than God.

As far as Enoch blaming sinful actions on fallen angels, why is this different than blaming Satan? Why not blame either and just blame man?

 

[CarolinaDawg]

The book of enoch is mentioned several times in the NT. Therefore since it is referenced as a source, why do we not see this as validation that it should be included in the canon. But wait, there is more. One of the reasons it was not was that it was originally thought to have been referencing Matthew over and over again. Thus setting a time frame not from antiquity. However, after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, we learned that it was actually Matthew who used wording from Enoch, over 100 times. Enoch was then accepted by scholars as from antiquity. So much of our NT is based off this book. Think of Paul when he referenced the 3rd heaven.... That is not an obvious reference to the book of Enoch, but, it is a reference to Enoch because this is where it was first written. And many other NT passages are the same. The book talks about the garden, the tree's in the garden, the Nephilim, etc. It could actually be the source of Genesis because it is much more complete of the same stories. So why don't we hear more about it? Because the Trinitarians don't like what it has to say concerning Jesus. Much of the coming NT expectation of the Messiah is based off of Enoch. It's very interesting, yet very "biblical" therefore don't expect it to be any different. Interesting in how it gives more info concerning the same sunday school lesson's we have all heard. I can't recall, but I think at about Enoch 67... They say a new writing style emerges, clear sign that it was added to so scholars don't consider it original past that approximate point. Check it out sometime if your bored

Sorry, but this is just false. There is no reference to the book of Enoch in the New Testament.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Sorry, but this is just false. There is no reference to the book of Enoch in the New Testament.

Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this poster. I don't know if this is joking sarcasm because of the hundreds of word references or the couple specific references. The word "Son of man". Where was it used first?

 

[Artfuldodger]

Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with this poster. I don't know if this is joking sarcasm because of the hundreds of word references or the couple specific references. The word "Son of man". Where was it used first?

Maybe what he means is Enoch is mentioned but not the "book" of Enoch.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Enoch 1-9 and Jude 1-14 are almost word for word. Enoch came first. This is a direct reference to the book of Enoch, not just to Enoch

 

[1gr8buildit]

A quick google search, LOL, eating crow here, showed that "Son of Man" was used 81 times in the NT. This is a direct reference to the wording of Enoch

 

[1gr8buildit]

I just found my copy of Enoch. It's been 15 years since I have studied it. I started skimming through what I had underlined. There are massive amounts of wording used in the NT. I think it's time to reread this

 

[buckpasser]

I just found my copy of Enoch. It's been 15 years since I have studied it. I started skimming through what I had underlined. There are massive amounts of wording used in the NT. I think it's time to reread this

The book of Enoch referencing or mirroring the NT is quite different than the converse. I’ll be studying up, but I don’t recall personally reading any direct reference to the book of Enoch in the NT in my reading. Where is it directly referenced? Thanks!

 

[1gr8buildit]

What happens with the book of Enoch is that instead of readers using it to reevaluate their own theology, they read it looking for anything that is contrary to their current beliefs, so they can write it off as uninspired.

 

[1gr8buildit]

The book sets an expectation unlike any other OT book , times 5, regarding the coming expectation of [Jesus] as the "elect" one. Which the NT translates as "chosen". If you think about it, The OT mentions the Messiah context but it does very little to set that expectation that we see in the gospels. In the gospels, they did not know much about this coming messiah, but they fully expected he was coming. I just don't think the OT we know did much to set that expectation. Sure, it's there, but among so many words..... it's vague. We now see it in reverse, so hindsight of the story is clear. However, this domineering context may have come from somewhere else.... like the book of Enoch. Which drives that narrative over and over.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Interesting how the "watchers" in the book of Enoch are angels. This would apply better to the book of Job. Better way of looking at it, Because it's strange that satan is reporting to God about Job.

 

[1gr8buildit]

Here is another reason modern day does not accept Enoch. Where in the OT is any reference to any expectation of a he11? None. It's not there. But.... Enoch says in 56;8, "In those days he11[shoal] shall open it's Jaws, and they shall be swallowed up. Their destruction shall be final.
Here is what will happen when a contrary belief arises.... It's trash, not worthy of reading, should be burned, etc. But, know that if it was seen as worth referencing by Peter, Jude.... then why now is it not worth knowing?

 

[1gr8buildit]

Enoch has very much to say about the fallen angels, read chapter 16, but specifically says this: in 16;8. "And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits, and from the flesh, shall be called evil spirits on the earth. " Their bodies destroyed in the flood, their spirits, because of the mixing immortal with mortal, are now left to wonder and cause havov until the great judgement. Hmmm, where have we seen this before?

 

[1gr8buildit]

Apparently when I previously studied Enoch, I was lesser in my knowledge, [not my own], , because I am seeing things I glossed over before.

 

[1gr8buildit]

So, I can easily see how the book of Enoch was later seen as uninspired. It reads as if it was written after the NT as a summary of the entire NT leaving one to think it's a mere paraphrase of the NT. Nothing malice here in that it was suppressed. However, since the dead sea scrolls were discovered, we learn quite the contrary, that this book was prior to all of the NT, therefore all of that which seemingly looked like plagiarism, paraphrase, whatever you want to call it, is reversed. One should now realize that the entire NT is an actual event recorded or referenced of all that is written in this book of Enoch.
I had always thought the reference to the Nephilim was to vague. Who [Genisis] mentions something like this without more info? Now I realize, the writer assumed the reader already knew. Interesting.