Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Come, let us reason of Enoch of old
#1
The book of Enoch is super intriguing to me. As soon as Im done typing this, Im going to go to the library and check it out. If theres one thing peshitta.org/forum has done for me, it has helped me conquer my fear of text-digging and provided me with a sledgehammer to break down the walls of church-established doctrine. This definitely includes the holy canon, and what should and should not belong.

We all know Jude quotes it. We all know it was discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. And although I havent yet read it all except for certain passages on particular sites, the things it talks about sum up what we all believe happened in Genesis at the time anyway. (Angels with women producing giants, Enoch going up to heaven and seeing what its all about, and I guess it evidently describes Messiah VERY well which is why Rabbis didnt want to accept it?)

I always thought the book of Enoch was considered a fraud because of late dating, post Messianic era. The DSS shows us that this isnt so. So at the very WORST, we just dont know WHEN Enoch was written, and just simply DONT KNOW if its a true account.

But for us to all accept Jude and reject Enoch is foolishness and hypocrisy, and Im calling myself out on that one too. But then again, we can all just listen to what the Eastern church has been saying alll along and throw Jude out..but the problem is we'd also have to throw out Revelation, in which we are warned in that very book is NOT a good idea.

I was always frustrated with how different Messiah seemed compared to the Torah, and with months and months of research and elbow grease, found Messianic Judaism. Also, I didnt like the Greek NT and its vague "kurious" in reference to Christ, and prayed, and found the Peshitta after great patience. Now I wish to move on to Enoch and conquer it.

Come all, let us reason about this book, yea, even Enoch of old...
Reply
#2
OH WOW.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.theassemblyofyahowahtheeternal.com/printerversion/tidbits/Is%20the%20Book%20of%20Enoch%20Inspired.pdf">http://www.theassemblyofyahowahtheetern ... spired.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Skim those 60 pages first, then read them thoroughly when you have time. There are many side by side prophecies in Enoch matching up with what a lot of the NT writers wrote (NOT just the Jude quotation), that we simply thought were unique to the NT writers.

Oh wow. And you always wondered why scripture was so quiet about the nephillim and Enoch's walk with God and the history of the fallen angels.

Oh wow. Im not declaring anything officially yet, but this is just too much to turn away from.
Reply
#3
Can you please fill me in on what all the fuss is about?
Reply
#4
He is considering that enoch is not just a true book, but an inspired one. i guess he was previously believing in the 66-Book canon. If you grew up with that (like i did) and put all your faith in it, it can bea quite interesting experience to find out there are other books like it.

My take is, enoch (and a lot of other apocryphical writings) might be true, but that doesn't make them inspired. The Bible is not the Bible because it is factually correct and contains words from true prophets, but because it is a perfect harmony.
Reply
#5
Hi, some parts of the book of enoch are good. I do not believe the angels came down and sleep with the women, it is not biologically possible, as angels do not reproduce. Only men and women can have children, that's probably why it is not considered scripture.
The book of jasper is good, I hope I spelt that right.
Reply
#6
It's the book of Yashar (Jasher), or more properly the book of the upright; it appears that promoting it to a proper name started with the King James text.
Reply
#7
sean Wrote:Hi, some parts of the book of enoch are good. I do not believe the angels came down and sleep with the women, it is not biologically possible, as angels do not reproduce.

They did not really reproduce but produce infertile bastards.

If you don't believe that angels can 'materialize' (ie transpose them to a body of dust and blood), they you better not believe that Yeshu got a resurrection and showed himself to Toma, for instance.

You better not believe that Abraham had a diner with 3 of them, after wich 2 of them destroyed Sodom and Gomorra. It's all impossible right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#8
Why then did the Nephilim exist before and after the flood (or does ACoE believe in a local flood (which also has some substance)?)? And about angels and flesh, it is quite natural that angels can materialize and exist in more than one realm, as even humans exist in more than one realm. Whether or not those materialisations can reproduce is another story though. i think they can, as the Bible implies this in Genesis. i don't really think too much of the Book of Enoch though, but i guess it could be true.
Reply
#9
Andrej Wrote:Why then did the Nephilim exist before and after the flood .

I've always learned differently about this.

The Nephilim, were not the same guys as the rephaites, who were 'just' having 6 fingers per hand, and 6 tones per foot (mutants?).

The rephaites were big and 'called' nephilim, but they were not the result of angels who lived on earth.

Genesis 6 is quite clear about the -when- the nephilim really were born. (not after the flood)
Reply
#10
Had anybody clicked on the provided link and checked out the easily structured parallels of particular Enoch verses with NT verses, they would be further convinced that Enoch is not just PROBABLY true, but likely true. I know it seems like a lot of reading (though interesting), but you can always scroll down to just the parallels and see for yourself.

Didnt Jude AND PETER talk about angels who LEFT THEIR PROPER DOMAIN and sinned, which resulted in them being reserved in everlasting chains awaiting the final judgement? Um....what do you think the book of Enoch has been telling us? If you dont believe Enoch, then dont believe Jude or Peter. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, in this case, especially when the paralells are ridiculously similar. And thats only ONE that you guys know of...click the link and you'll see many more.

As far as my understanding goes, Nephellim means FALLEN ONES, not giants. The Septugiant rendered it giants though, because maybe they were known at the time to be very mighty men, but it does mean literally mean fallen ones, or "those who were cast out".

If Enoch was dated very late, post Yeshua, we'd all have a reason to think that it was a fairy tale that borrowed from Genesis and the NT. But it was found in the dead sea scrolls, along with Isaiah and all those other scriptural books that nobody denies as being originally penned very early (Even before the 100BC date given to all of the DSS manuscripts). If anything, Enoch is just as old or OLDER than Genesis and all the other books.

And once again, Jude quotes it directly!!!!!!!!...how much more evidence do you need? Just because the Western canon that we've all grown up with has a particular number of books, doesnt mean a thing. What makes your canon superior to those of the Ethiopians, who are an older church and located much closer to Israel and whose people are actually mentioned in scripture? "Well, if God didnt want us to have our 66 book canon, then it wouldnt be so" obviously doesnt work because theres no reason for God to love us more than other churches in other parts of the world. You gotta do your own digging, unfortunately, but I personally think our God who is no respector of persons would appreciate just a little bit the things that one does who truly seeks Him and his word.

Just give this link a try, guys, please. Ive found the real book that the website takes from called "The Forbidden Mysteries of Enoch: The Untold story of Men and Angels" by Elizabeth Clare Prophet here in the San francisco Main Library. The librarians wont let me check it out and take it home because its the only copy on record and the author is not only dead, but the book was made in 83. It evidently has a reputation for being stolen if checked out.
Reply
#11
rungold315 Wrote:Had anybody clicked on the provided link and checked out the easily structured parallels of particular Enoch verses with NT verses, they would be further convinced that Enoch is not just PROBABLY true, but likely true. I know it seems like a lot of reading (though interesting), but you can always scroll down to just the parallels and see for yourself.

Yes.
Thank you so much.
Reply
#12
Jude isn't part of Peshitta anyway. And the person who wrote the Epistle of Jude isn't one of the Twelve Apostles.
Reply
#13
konway87 Wrote:Jude isn't part of Peshitta anyway. And the person who wrote the Epistle of Jude isn't one of the Twelve Apostles.

Luqa was not an apostle either <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#14
rungold315, i hope you did not think i implied that your approach was wrong? And, you are aware that most people here don't believe in a western 66 Book canon?
About the canon, i do currently use the 66-book canon, but if i see reason to change that, i easily would. The problem is, if you break open the canon you will have to deal with thousandfold more than just the book of enoch.

About the prophecies: Such similarities can be found in many places, and are not only an expression of the divine, but also of the underlying culture (people expressed themselves in similar ways in that time). A lot of end time prophecies are mirrored in many cultures on earth, some of which you may consider evil and satanic (even islam has a lot of NT prophecies, though with their own twist). i hope that we don't have to add the Quran to our canon though. The Tao te king has a lot of parallels and near-quotes from Song of Solomon, and yet no one ever thought about including it into our canon.

Establishing rules for a canon is very hard. The OT canon we use is more based on traditional / historical aspects than someone categorizing books as canon/non-canon. Most people like to back it up by saying that Jesus quoted from almost all of the 39 Books of the OT canon (but apparently not from the OT apocryphical writings) and by the fact that it was preserved widely and seperately by both jews and christians.

If you have any idea what the proper method of establishing a canon is, let me know. Jude quoting from enoch alone cannot make it canon. If enoch was a true account, it would be irrelevant if it was canon or not, there would be no reason why he could not quote from it.

i am not against enoch in any way, but i am not sure it really harmonizes with the Bible. The same story with the Shepherd of Hermas, which is a very interesting book.
Reply
#15
I'm somewhat with Rafa here, sans the snark about Protestants. A good link on canonicity (from our perspective, anyway) is <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture">http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture</a><!-- m -->. The Book of Enoch fails the test of canonicity, as would any of the extracanonical epistles of St Paul, should they be discovered.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)