The Book of Enoch

[Breathe]

-- Mod Post --

Moved to Scriptural Debates.

-- End of Mod Post --
​

 

[Humanistheart]

Maybe now that this thread has been moved we'll get an answer to the question in the OP. Why was Jude included in the bible but the book it's based on, Enoch, was not? (Minus the ethopian church of course).

 

[Gary Ingram]

The apostles were several thousand years yet to be when Enoch lived. He walked with God and the angels and got his information first hand as it were. The book could not be used in the biblical canon as a teaching tool, because it showed God to be hardhearted against all he created. It also explains how we humans owe our intelligence, knowledge and honor to those fallen angels. They were our teachers not God.

 

[FreeThinker619]

going to have to come back to this thread. my teacher was speaking on this yesterday.

 

[Pegg]

The apostles were several thousand years yet to be when Enoch lived. He walked with God and the angels and got his information first hand as it were. The book could not be used in the biblical canon as a teaching tool, because it showed God to be hardhearted against all he created. It also explains how we humans owe our intelligence, knowledge and honor to those fallen angels. They were our teachers not God.

the book didnt exist until the 2nd century bce...

so i dont it was really written by Enoch, do you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

the book didnt exist until the 2nd century bce...

so i dont it was really written by Enoch, do you?

Since tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC, they really couldn't have been written by Moses who lived well before that time, don't you think?

Personally I think the oral tradition is not to be discounted as the way ancient knowledge was passed down...it was put in writing later than the actual historical events. This is also true for the Gospels...

 

[Shiranui117]

Since tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC, they really couldn't have been written by Moses who lived well before that time, don't you think?

Personally I think the oral tradition is not to be discounted as the way ancient knowledge was passed down...it was put in writing later than the actual historical events. This is also true for the Gospels...

 

[Pegg]

Since tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC, they really couldn't have been written by Moses who lived well before that time, don't you think?

Personally I think the oral tradition is not to be discounted as the way ancient knowledge was passed down...it was put in writing later than the actual historical events. This is also true for the Gospels...

I found a book in my basement too.... i was a book written by Cain and explains how he was really the good guy trying to save his brother and then God lied and made out that Cain murdered him.

The book in my basement really is written by Cain. We should include it in the bible because Cain is mentioned in the bible. Hmmm.

Book of Enoch? Book of Cain? Same diff.

 

[Shiranui117]

I found a book in my basement too.... i was a book written by Cain and explains how he was really the good guy trying to save his brother and then God lied and made out that Cain murdered him.

The book in my basement really is written by Cain. We should include it in the bible because Cain is mentioned in the bible. Hmmm.

Book of Enoch? Book of Cain? Same diff.

There's a difference between some schmuck claiming to have a random book from some long-lost person, and having an oral tradition reaching back centuries that can be cross-examined for its authenticity of transmission.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

There's a difference between some schmuck claiming to have a random book from some long-lost person, and having an oral tradition reaching back centuries that can be cross-examined for its authenticity of transmission.

Only if you believe in oral tradition as being valid...

 

[Shiranui117]

Only if you believe in oral tradition as being valid...

Of course it is. It's a lot easier to verify than the anonymous written word that is easily falsified.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Of course it is. It's a lot easier to verify than the anonymous written word that is easily falsified.

Supposing someone believes the only valid scripture is divinely dictated, neither would hold much weight.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The Book of Enoch was certainly read by Jesus, as it's the source of the expression "Son of Man" (Book of Parables). As far as Jewish books were concerned, the early church used the Septuagint and that was probably compiled before the Book of Parables was written.

As for Jude, there was a certain amount of controversy about putting it in the canon, but the apostolic name attached carried the day, just as with Revelation.

 

[gnostic]

If we believe that Holy Scripture was "canonized" at the very moment it was scrolled, and we believe therefore, that the "Canon of Scripture" is "closed" ... Then we must also believe that all other writings may have been tried & did not measure up to this Divine standard & therefore were not included.

No current canonical NT books were canonised the moment they were written, because A) there were no such thing as the "New Testament" in the 1st century CE (in fact, there were no such thing as "Old Testament" too), and B) and none of NT gospels, epistles, etc, were collected together until 2nd century, C) and by the time, they were collected, there were actually more books than there are now, and D) the canonisation weren't made by any apostle that were alive in the 1st century, or anyone else who were contemporaries to Jesus.

Even then, in the 2nd century CE, the early Christian leaders and elders, were still disagreeing upon which books were to be accepted, as "canonical".

Even by the time of St Jerome, he still included the very same non-canonical OT books of the Apocrypha that are found in the Greek Septuagint bible. This tells me the issue of canonicals and non-canonicals were far from being settled.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No current canonical NT books were canonised the moment they were written, because A) there were no such thing as the "New Testament" in the 1st century CE (in fact, there were no such thing as "Old Testament" too), and B) and none of NT gospels, epistles, etc, were collected together until 2nd century, C) and by the time, they were collected, there were actually more books than there are now, and D) the canonisation weren't made by any apostle that were alive in the 1st century, or anyone else who were contemporaries to Jesus.

Even then, in the 2nd century CE, the early Christian leaders and elders, were still disagreeing upon which books were to be accepted, as "canonical".

Even by the time of St Jerome, he still included the very same non-canonical OT books of the Apocrypha that are found in the Greek Septuagint bible. This tells me the issue of canonicals and non-canonicals were far from being settled.

Not only that, but consider Clement 1, that was actually part of NT for centuries, was taken out later. Do you know why?

 

[gnostic]

Not only that, but consider Clement 1, that was actually part of NT for centuries, was taken out later. Do you know why?

I can't answer that. I only know of Clement, but I've not read anything regarding to Clement. Sorry.

 

[Abdul Halim Khaddam]

interesting

 

[Shiranui117]

Not only that, but consider Clement 1, that was actually part of NT for centuries, was taken out later. Do you know why?

You mean the NT that didn't formally exist for centuries and varied from region to region, with Alexandria's NT having over 30 books, and Antioch's NT having only 22?

 

[Shiranui117]

No current canonical NT books were canonised the moment they were written, because A) there were no such thing as the "New Testament" in the 1st century CE (in fact, there were no such thing as "Old Testament" too), and B) and none of NT gospels, epistles, etc, were collected together until 2nd century, C) and by the time, they were collected, there were actually more books than there are now, and D) the canonisation weren't made by any apostle that were alive in the 1st century, or anyone else who were contemporaries to Jesus.

Even then, in the 2nd century CE, the early Christian leaders and elders, were still disagreeing upon which books were to be accepted, as "canonical".

Even by the time of St Jerome, he still included the very same non-canonical OT books of the Apocrypha that are found in the Greek Septuagint bible. This tells me the issue of canonicals and non-canonicals were far from being settled.

They're neither non-canonical nor apocrypha. Those are words used by Protestant authors who mistakenly followed the later Jewish canon that post-dates the Septuagint.