Zone1 The Book of Enoch...How should Christians think about it, and why does it matter?

Big Enoch fan . He was only kicked out of Bible inclusion because it upset political considerations at the time . Was it Nicea around 325 AD , or , one of the other Butchery Convenience Councils around the same period ?
A lot happened during that time and it was caused by the COUNTERFEIT ROMAN Church.

They were feeling their political power and they used it to REPLACE Passover with Easter. The SABBATH with Sunday. And they instituted many other pagan doctrines such as worshipping statues and so much more. And even today they try to tell you they are the "one true church"
 
A lot happened during that time and it was caused by the COUNTERFEIT ROMAN Church.

They were feeling their political power and they used it to REPLACE Passover with Easter. The SABBATH with Sunday. And they instituted many other pagan doctrines such as worshipping statues and so much more. And even today they try to tell you they are the "one true church"
Nah, we are too busy to bother about "one true church" when there is so much more of your digs....come to think of it, those aren't worth responding to, either. Time to laugh and move on.
 
It was the act of GOING AGAINST GOD'S CLEAR COMMANDS.

Oh I know...but it may have been a little easier on them if they had owned it rather than pointing the finger. (just like king david).

Especially Adam who replied "It was the woman THAT YOU GAVE ME...who gave me the apple". Implying God was at fault (without actually saying it).

I'm just saying they might have handled it better when they got caught with their fig leaf down.
 
A lot happened during that time and it was caused by the COUNTERFEIT ROMAN Church.

They were feeling their political power and they used it to REPLACE Passover with Easter. The SABBATH with Sunday. And they instituted many other pagan doctrines such as worshipping statues and so much more. And even today they try to tell you they are the "one true church"

Christians worship on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.
 
The Book of Enoch is somewhat controversial. Obviously there are different ideas among Christians about the book of Enoch.

I'm going to share a video that's an excellent presentation on the Book of Enoch. But for those who don't want to watch an hour-long video, I'll post a few points that are brought up in this video.

What Christians think about the Book of Enoch can be summed up into 3 basic views...
  1. There is the view that the entire Book of Enoch is pseudepigrapha, in other words not actually written by Enoch, and therefore not trustworthy.

  2. There is a second view, on the other extreme, that all of it is actually from Enoch, and therefore authoritative and trustworthy.

  3. And the third view is that some of it (at least the first 19 chapters) is authoritative, because the Bible itself attests to it, and many early church fathers also attest to it.

I personally think the best and safest view is the third view, that some of it, namely the first 19 chapters, IS authentic and therefore authoritative.

Why should any Christian hold that view, if this book was not included in the Canon?

Well, for one thing, many Christians hold an outdated view that the entire book of Enoch is pseudepigrapha, because before 1976, that was the near-consensus position.

However, ever since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that changed. Why? Because before 1976, the Book of Enoch was thought to be newer than the New Testament. But then in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a manuscript was found that predated the entire New Testament, so that showed that the previous position was exactly backwards.

The Epistle of Jude, which previously was thought to be the basis for 1 Enoch is now best understood as a clear testimony for the authenticity of the Book of Enoch.

Also, many of the early church fathers attested to the authenticity of the stories in the Book of Enoch, such as the position that Genesis 6 refers to the angels who sinned and mated with human women, which created the Nephilim (giants.) In their writings, these church fathers treated the Book of Enoch as authoritative.

In fact, although in today's world many Christians hold the view that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to the line of Seth, the view that the Sons of God were angels (who fell from grace) is the view of antiquity, it was the near-unanimous consensus prior to the 5th century, when the Sethite view started. You can read more about that in this article.

There's much more that can be said here, but for anyone who is interested in this topic, I highly recommend watching the video I'm going to post below.

Why does this even matter? Well, the book of Enoch talks about a number of very interesting things, including the Nephilim, and the origin of many practices that people (including Christians) partake in every day, without even knowing the origin of those practices. So, if we hold the position that the book of Enoch is at least partially authentic, which is the most logical position for Christians to hold, since Jude and Jesus Himself attest to it, then I believe Christians should not reject it, or avoid looking into it because they don't know what to think about it.

I don't want to do it now but later I want to bring up something that is referenced in the Book of Enoch that is very important because it has to do with something people do everyday. I'm actually putting together a video on that, so when it's done I'll share it here for anyone who is interested.

I don't expect the non-believers here to believe the Book of Enoch, but for the Christians here... what are your thoughts on the Book of Enoch? Again, I really hope you take the time to watch this video, as Craig goes into it in much more depth, and in a very clear, methodical way.

(The first few minutes is just announcements and stuff, and also waiting for the livestream to start, so I'm going to skip that part and embed this video starting a few minutes into the video)




I can't get the volume to work at all.

 
Nah, we are too busy to bother about "one true church" when there is so much more of your digs....come to think of it, those aren't worth responding to, either. Time to laugh and move on.
Oh I wish there were such a heart in them, that they would love me and keep my commandments (not alter them)
 
Christians worship on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.
Millions of Christians don't. The Catholic Church was NOT given power to alter the COMMANDMENTS. They did it to bring in pagans on their own terms. God requires TOTAL surrender -- not mixing your beliefs with the Way

This isn't the specific topic of the thread though, so I won't go further into it here.
 
Millions of Christians don't. The Catholic Church was NOT given power to alter the COMMANDMENTS. They did it to bring in pagans on their own terms. God requires TOTAL surrender -- not mixing your beliefs with the Way

This isn't the specific topic of the thread though, so I won't go further into it here.

Do you follow the Old Testament exclusively?
 
The people who love the Book of Enoch in this thread do so because they have made veganism an idol. There is no other way to put it. They choose it; that's fine. But they want to make choosing it a virtue of Christianity. Which it just is not.

Please don't speak for others, that is not cool at all. I was interested in the Book of Enoch years before I went vegan. The reason I found it interesting was because it talks about the Nephilim, and that was a topic that I was really into (I still am, but I'm talking about what first caused me to look into the Book of Enoch.)
 
They choose it; that's fine. But they want to make choosing it a virtue of Christianity. Which it just is not.

I really didn't want to get into an argument on veganism, but your statement above is so incredibly wrong, I feel like I have to respond to it. You might want to read the very first page of the Bible, where God gave mankind our diet, and that was God's intent for all creation - not violence and bloodshed, but peace and harmony between humans and animals, and a healthy, natural plantbased diet. That's how it was in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 1:29-30) and that same world of peace and nonviolence is again clearly stated in the prophetic scriptures, like Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25.

So both the beginning and the end are perfectly clear. Peace and harmony among humans and animals. And in between, in the here and now? Does God want selfish exploitation, cruelty and needless brutal killing? No, absolutely not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is woefully mistaken. There are tons and tons of verses that tell us how God wants us to live...to do ALL things in love (1 Cor 16:14) to be MERCIFUL, (Luke 6:36) peace and gentleness (Gal 5:22-23) as opposed to needless violence, selflessness (1 Cor 10:24) and living by the Golden Rule. That is how God wants us to live in the meantime, in this fallen world. Not to embrace the callous violent temporary practices of this fallen world that were never part of His true intent for all creation.

I think where you go wrong is that you seem to think of veganism as only a diet. But it's not a diet, it's a choice to not harm animals unnecessarily. From a Christian standpoint it simply boils down to choosing MERCY. So to say that mercy is not a virtue of Christianity is as upside-down and backwards as it gets. Mercy absolutely IS a virtue of Christianity, that should go without saying.
 
I really didn't want to get into an argument on veganism, but your statement above is so incredibly wrong, I feel like I have to respond to it. You might want to read the very first page of the Bible, where God gave mankind our diet, and that was God's intent for all creation - not violence and bloodshed, but peace and harmony between humans and animals, and a healthy, natural plantbased diet. That's how it was in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 1:29-30) and that same world of peace and nonviolence is again clearly stated in the prophetic scriptures, like Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25.

So both the beginning and the end are perfectly clear. Peace and harmony among humans and animals. And in between, in the here and now? Does God want selfish exploitation, cruelty and needless brutal killing? No, absolutely not, and anyone who thinks otherwise is woefully mistaken. There are tons and tons of verses that tell us how God wants us to live...to do ALL things in love (1 Cor 16:14) to be MERCIFUL, (Luke 6:36) peace and gentleness (Gal 5:22-23) as opposed to needless violence, selflessness (1 Cor 10:24) and living by the Golden Rule. That is how God wants us to live in the meantime, in this fallen world. Not to embrace the callous violent temporary practices of this fallen world that were never part of His true intent for all creation.

I think where you go wrong is that you seem to think of veganism as only a diet. But it's not a diet, it's a choice to not harm animals unnecessarily. From a Christian standpoint it simply boils down to choosing MERCY. So to say that mercy is not a virtue of Christianity is as upside-down and backwards as it gets. Mercy absolutely IS a virtue of Christianity, that should go without saying.

Adam and Eve in the Garden were also without clothes and felt no shame. Is that how we should live now?
 
Adam and Eve in the Garden were also without clothes and felt no shame. Is that how we should live now?
Why do you FIGHT the Word of God and still tell me you're Christian.

God TOLD you what is will is for Man. Both in the Garden, and in the coming Kingdom.

Why CHOOSE to go against what you KNOW is God's Will?

"There are no slaughterhouses in heaven"
"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"
 
Last edited:
Adam and Eve in the Garden were also without clothes and felt no shame. Is that how we should live now?

Completely false equivalence. Come on Sue, you're smarter than that. First of all, that was in the very, very, very beginning, before the world was populated, when it was pretty much just them. Obviously because the way the world is now, clothes are necessary. Also, the Bible tells us to be modest. So clearly God wants us to be modest and not walk around naked in public.

You can't use that "we can't do that now" excuse when it comes to eating animals. There is absolutely no need to eat animals or use animals in the exploitative ways we have been in the world today. People do it out of habit, tradition, or simply because they want to. The overwhelming majority of the world (especially in Western first world countries like the US) has zero need to continue to consume or use animals.

Furthermore, as I already posted, there are tons and tons and tons of verses that tell us to live with love, mercy, kindness, compassion, selflessness, etc. So the "but they were naked" line is a non-argument, sorry.
 
Why do you FIGHT the Word of God and still tell me you're Christian.

God TOLD you what is will is for Man. Both in the Garden, and in the coming Kingdom.

Why CHOOSE to go against what you KNOW is God's Will?

"There are no slaughterhouses in heaven"
"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"

Yep, you're the guy who doesn't go to church, don't need to. You have it all figured out, single-handedly. Right.
 
Completely false equivalence. Come on Sue, you're smarter than that. First of all, that was in the very, very, very beginning, before the world was populated, when it was pretty much just them. Obviously because the way the world is now, clothes are necessary. Also, the Bible tells us to be modest. So clearly God wants us to be modest and not walk around naked in public.

You can't use that "we can't do that now" excuse when it comes to eating animals. There is absolutely no need to eat animals or use animals in the exploitative ways we have been in the world today. People do it out of habit, tradition, or simply because they want to. The overwhelming majority of the world (especially in Western first world countries like the US) has zero need to continue to consume or use animals.

Furthermore, as I already posted, there are tons and tons and tons of verses that tell us to live with love, mercy, kindness, compassion, selflessness, etc. So the "but they were naked" line is a non-argument, sorry.

As I have said so many times, you have the freedom to be vegan and not eat animals if you feel that's best for YOU.

You don't have the freedom to tell ME this is the best way to live as a Christian. It's almost unbelievable to me that this is even an argument when God Himself instituted the practice of animal sacrifice--and these animals were not even for eating.

Really. There's nothing else that can be said. You do you, as you are free to do. The rest of us are also free to follow our consciences, as the Bible states over and over.
 
Why do you FIGHT the Word of God and still tell me you're Christian.

God TOLD you what is will is for Man. Both in the Garden, and in the coming Kingdom.

Why CHOOSE to go against what you KNOW is God's Will?

"There are no slaughterhouses in heaven"
"Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"

Who will be cooking in heaven?
 
It contains partial truth, but more critically it's not a true eyewitnessing account. The Bible doesn't pursue the detailed description of the physical hell/sheol/Hades. In NT, Paul is the only Apostle who is supernaturally called. However, the Third Heaven experience is only mentioned briefly and with a wording of "no one is permitted to tell".

God established the Bible Canon like this,
An overwhelmingly described hell/sheol/Hades is disallowed, as it can't be a valid eyewitness account. This is physically enforced through the fact that the OT Canon enforcers are the Pharisees however they are subject to the authority of the Great Sanhedrin. They need endorsement from the Sadducees in order to include any book to the Bible Canon. However, the Sadducees who only embrace the 5 books of Law will disallow the adding of book full of hell descriptions. Sadducees are disbelievers of hell, angels, afterlife, etc., though the Pharisaic concepts dominates the Jews.

There's almost no chance that the book of Enoch can pass the censorship of the Great Sanhedrin to be part of the OT Canon.

NT then, is to preach a good news (but not hell). Even Paul who is a elite Pharisee seldom mention the concept as it's not the focus. Only Jesus mentioned it as He is the one faced the Jews and Pharisees who upheld such a Pharisaic concept firmly. Since preaching the gospel is the goal and focus, hell is rather a distraction or even a stumbling block to the spreading of Christianity.

There's almost no chance that the book of Enoch can pass the canonization process of NT to be included into the Canon. So by God's will, it shouldn't be included.

However, the Jewish concept of demon could possibly developed from this book it may still hold some truth about what demons are, and etc.
 

Forum List

Back
Top