The Book of Enoch

[Humanistheart]

The book of Enoch was not included in the bible following the Nicene Creed. The only ones who include it in their biblical cannon now are the Ethiopian church. There were good reasons for it not to be, but Jude, a book which references the material of the Book of Enoch is in the commonly used versions of the christian Bible. Does anyone know why Jude was included? It seems to me that if the book of enoch wasn't, and the book of Jude draws on it, that it too should not be included. So does anyone know the official reasoning behind keeping the book of Jude?

 

[Humanistheart]

Hmm looks like this posted in another section too... weird.

 

[Gracious]

The book of Enoch was not included in the bible following the Nicene Creed. The only ones who include it in their biblical cannon now are the Ethiopian church. There were good reasons for it not to be, but Jude, a book which references the material of the Book of Enoch is in the commonly used versions of the christian Bible. Does anyone know why Jude was included? It seems to me that if the book of enoch wasn't, and the book of Jude draws on it, that it too should not be included. So does anyone know the official reasoning behind keeping the book of Jude?

Hi Humanisheart,

My answer to you would be ...

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.

Great question! And I would like to read the thread (discussion) on this topic. Please let is know where it is.

God bless

 

[Humanistheart]

Hi Humanisheart,

My answer to you would be ...

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.

Great question! And I would like to read the thread (discussion) on this topic. Please let is know where it is.

God bless

Thanks but this is it. It posted in another section too but no one responded to it. Perhaps it was in the wrong section or not interesting enough. Maybe it's just because most don't know what the book of Enoch is let alone posses a detailed enough knowledge on the cannonization process and thoughts on Jude to comment.

How do you mean cannonized the instant it was scrolled? Is this said in a spiritual sence since you said 'divine standard'?

 

[Clear]

Humanist Heart - I have interest in ancient scriptures that did not make it into some of the modern canons. Someone asked in the comparative religions thread regarding why the Book of Enoch fell out of favor with evolving Christianity (when it was so very popular with early Christianity) so that it was removed from the evolving canon.

I think that as the original christianity and it's doctrines evolved, the earlier and more ancient Christian doctrines found in Enoch(s) made the later Christianities uncomfortable.
The thread in the comparison section is : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/72832-book-enoch.html ([post #4 on]

I hope this is helpful if you have interest in ancient Christianity and early scriptures.

Clear
vifuouvi

 

[S-word]

The book of Enoch was not included in the bible following the Nicene Creed. The only ones who include it in their biblical cannon now are the Ethiopian church. There were good reasons for it not to be, but Jude, a book which references the material of the Book of Enoch is in the commonly used versions of the christian Bible. Does anyone know why Jude was included? It seems to me that if the book of enoch wasn't, and the book of Jude draws on it, that it too should not be included. So does anyone know the official reasoning behind keeping the book of Jude?

Jude, or Thomas Didymus Jude, was the half brother to Jesus and to James the younger of Mary’s three biological sons, and he quoted verbatim from the book of Enoch. There is also ample evidence that it was from the book of Enoch that Jesus drew much of the material that he taught privately to his disciples, such as the end of this cycle of universal activity as spoken by Peter the simple fisherman; when the universe will roll up as a scroll with a great hissing noise and the universal elements becoming so excited will burn up and fall as fire into the great abyss as described in the Book of Enoch. Jesus the Hellenistic Jew, like Isaac who was also born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, himself was also born of parents who were both sired by the one father.

Mary the mother of Jesus her first born son, is the daughter of Heli, and Heli is the Greek adaptation of Eli the high priest, and according to Luke 3: 23; Jesus is the biological son of Joseph the son of Heli, and Heli is a descendant of Nathan the priest who was the biological son of Uriah who became a Levite by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel the son of Obed-Edom who is a descendant of Moses through his second wife who was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite. Joseph the biological father of Jesus and himself the Son of the Levite Heli, should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob who is a descendant of Solomon the half brother to Nathan who married David's daughter, the other Joseph who is recorded in Matthew, did not have any sexual intercourse with Mary until after she had birthed Jesus the biological son Of Joseph the son of Heli.

In the first few centuries of the evolving Christian church, the book of Enoch was cherished by the early Christians and many of the church fathers held the books in great reverence, Christian leaders such as Origin, Tertullian and Irenaeus. Even Jerome although disproving of the works of Enoch, believed him to be one of the two witnesses in revelation, who ascended up to heaven in a cloud.

Eventually, in the fourth century A.D., it passed out of circulation and was thought to be lost for Millennia, having been banned by dogmatic Christian authorities such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, and the book of Enoch remains one of the earliest extant mystical documents. It’s referred to in the Hebrew Zobar, and as you have stated, the Epistle of Jude, and is considered by some as an early draft of-or at least, a critical influence on the New Testament.

Enoch who is the foundation of all scripture, was rejected by the builders of the universal church, and the stone that the builders rejected, turns out to be the most important of all.

Enoch the Prophet who, at the age of 365 was carried to heaven and stripped of his earthly garment and anointed with the sweet smelling ointment of God that shone with the brilliance of the sun and behold he was as one with the glorious ones, “Christ”...’The anointed one.’

From The Book of Enoch the Prophet, chapter 108: 2; And now I will summons the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of the Light and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh, were not recompensed with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shinning light those who have loved my Holy Name (Who I Am) and I will seat each one on the throne of his honour. And they shall be resplendent for times without number.”
,

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO - WHY JUDE (OR ENOCH - OR ANY SIMILAR BOOK WAS LEFT OUT OF THE MODERN WESTERN CANON)

Eventually, in the fourth century A.D., it passed out of circulation and was thought to be lost for Millennia, having been banned by dogmatic Christian authorities such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, and the book of Enoch remains one of the earliest extant mystical documents. It

’s referred to in the Hebrew Zobar, and as you have stated, the Epistle of Jude, and is considered by some as an early draft of-or at least, a critical influence on the New Testament.

Enoch who is the foundation of all scripture, was rejected by the builders of the universal church, and the stone that the builders rejected, turns out to be the most important of all.

From The Book of Enoch the Prophet, chapter 108: 2; And now I will summons the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of the Light and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh, were not recompensed with such honour as their faithfulness deserved. And I will bring forth in shinning light those who have loved my Holy Name (Who I Am) and I will seat each one on the throne of his honour. And they shall be resplendent for times without number."

S-word ;

You have an interesting take on the First book of Enoch (the source of your quote). I very much agree with you that this composite document has vast repercussions and Enoch’s earliest writings profoundly influenced almost all subsequent writings (including the Old Testament and New Testament). He was aptly named "Enoch the Scribe".

Though E. Isaac (1 Enoch's translator in Charlesworth..) feels that Enoch is dependent upon the Old Testament, I think his logic is backwards since any authentic earliest Enoch versions were written before ANY Old Testament was collated (since Enoch lived before the time of the flood and the ark of Noah). That means that Isaiah is quoting Enoch (who lived before Isaiah) rather than Enoch quoting Isaiah. It is only the later composite (and exant) versions that have multiple later influences.

Regarding the OP’s theme as to why a book (JUDE) or in this case, the Book of Enoch (i.e. source material for Jude), should be either included or left out of a canon - I think it was simply that scriptures that did not support the bias of the most influential individuals were left out, and those scriptures that supported prior biases were included. We all see repeated and constant reminders of this phenomenon throughout this forum. Debaters use the "set" of scriptures that proves their point in discussions, and abandons the usage of those that do not.

THIS was the context in which I made my comment regarding Enoch.

The earliest texts did not support the evolving Christian doctrines (nor the current Jewish ones) regarding the nature of the ancient Trinity as individuals, these scriptures did not support the "immaterial" creation out of "nothing". These scriptures did not support an immaterial Heaven as the later theists desired. I think this was the reason some influential theists abandoned their usage and, later, discouraged their usage, and then excluded their usage in the canon they were influential in developing.

It is in this context I said :

I wish the Enoch literature had been better preserved and more widely available for study.

I have also considered why it was removed from the western canon while it still remains in the eastern canon (ethiopic canon). It certainly is literature that was well known and used by the New Testament writers. James Bruce, the Great apocrypologist finds more than a hundred references and quotes by the New Testament writers from the Enoch literature (such as Jude vs 14). Barnabus, (which still remains in the eastern canon), also references the various Enochs. Several books of the Enoch literature have been discovered including an Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). This is important since, if the DSS copper / treasure scroll is genuine, then it places the DSS literature (with enoch) directly into the middle of Jewish Temple Orthodoxy.

I have wondered also, what it was that kept sacred literature, (which the New Testament writers quoted) from being retained into the western canon. I have wondered if the Enochs contained doctrines and references that might have been early orthodox, but which became unpopular with later Christianities who were deciding which books they would include in their canons for discussion, debate, and for instruction.

For examples In Enoch 1:
1) The three that make up the Christian "Godhead" are referenced as individuals.
2) The nature of some angels as material beings of a similar (or same) species as men on earth, possessing (and abusing) their freewill.
3) The material nature of the descriptions of heaven; it’s inhabitants, and their activities.


REGARDING THE TRINITY
1 Enoch (ethiopic) often references the trinity as three separate individuals with different roles so that The Father (often referred to as :"The Most High"; "the Lord of Spirits"; "the Ancient of Days"); and the Son of God (often referred to in 1Enoch as "the Son of Man"; "the Elect[ed] one") and the spirit are described with Greater clarity in their various interactions so as to conflict with the popular doctrine of a "triune" or "three is One" God.

For example, in Chap 46 Enoch describes the Father and his Son as separate individuals with separate roles saying:

There I beheld the Ancient of Days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace....Then I inquired of one of the angels...concerning this Son of Man; who he was, whence he was; and why he accompanied the Ancient of Days. He answered and said unto me: This is the Son of Man to whom righteousness belongs....for the Lord of Spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all....." (bold and underline are mine)

The angel then continues on to describe the portion of the Father's great power which has been delegated to this "Son of Man". Thus, in Enochs version, The Father initiates and supervises and delegates all activities related to the salvation of man, and to the Son is delegated his various roles and powers by his Father. Though such clarity might have settled ongoing debates among various christianities as to the relationship between God Father and his Son, the Messiah, still, such descriptions would have been uncomfortable to Christianities that held to other versions of the relationship between God the Father, and His Son.


REGARDING ANGELS AND THEIR SIMILARITIES TO AND RELATIONSHIP TO MANKIND
I have wondered if the later Christians simply did not know what to make of Enoch’s description of Angels and the story of pre-Noah era angels who exercised free will and choice CONTRARY to God the Father’s wishes. These Angels contributed to a quantity and a perverse quality of evil among mankind that eventually required the Father to cause the flood to wipe out the evil generation and save only Noah and his family. What does a later christianity do with early descriptions of interaction between Angels who lust after women; abandon their "posts" as spiritual helpers of mankind, and, with real material bodies just as other men possess, both "marry" women upon the earth and, (with fully functioning bodies like mankind has), have intercourse and children as a result?

The Christianity that believes angels are incapable of choice; or the Christianity that does not believe any angels have bodies as men do will have difficulty with such descriptions. For such christianities, I have to wonder if they felt better off with the fewer facts and vague descriptions offered in the Genesis version of such stories.

end of post one of two

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO - WHY JUDE (OR ENOCH - OR ANY SIMILAR BOOK WAS LEFT OUT OF THE MODERN WESTERN CANON - CONTINUED)

REGARDING THE ENOCH’S DESCRIPTION OF HEAVEN; OF IT’S INHABITANTS; AND OF THEIR ACTIVITIES:

I have wondered if Enoch’s clear descriptions of these things, differed from and were disorienting to the later Christianities doctrinal preferences.

For example: The clear references of Enoch speaking to the pre-mortal Messiah such as : "I spoke and conversed with him", the "God of the World" who will "hereafter tread upon Mount Sinai" starts in the third verse of the first chapter and repeat themselves with an uncomfortable clarity (if such doctrines were uncomfortable). References such as "the Lord, with his own mouth called me, saying: 'approach hither', Enoch..." (ch 14) are uncomfortable to a Christianity that increasingly doubts that God "conversed" with men in this manner and, the consistent repetition and clarity make it difficult for one to assume Enoch's references were complete allegory.

In the same manner, I have to wonder if the various clear descriptions of conversing with God and the descriptions of the various "comings" and "goings" of The Father; the son; and the angels which spiritually fed earlier Jews and Christians simply became too "material"; too "substantial" and too "down to earth" for the later Christianities to deal with. For example: Enoch describes the PLACE where the Father and the son and the angels live as a "habitation "from which" the Messiah "will go forth". The concept of the Father and/ or his Son "going" to a specific place and "returning" to a specific place; or of angels being "sent" and "returning" to a specific place is uncomfortable to the doctrine that the Father; his Son; and the angels do not reside in a "place". As in the prior description where the Lord calls Enoch to "approach" him, there is no need for Enoch to "approach" a God who is not in a "place".

The same principle of "place" is involved when Enoch describes the place "where the spirits, the souls of the dead, will be collected;" and "These places, in which they dwell, shall they occupy until the day of judgment". (That is BEFORE the resurrection) It is not only the concept of spirits having a "place" where they come from and go to, but the continued communication by these living spirits who have left their dead bodies (but retained prior knowledge and personalities) might have discomforted those who did not believe in that the spirits within the bodies of men still live after the bodies die, or who did not believe the spirits go to a "place".

Not only is there a sense of "PLACE" in Enoch’s description of the "Spiritual World", but also a clear sense of "PURPOSE" to such "habitations". For example, Enoch 1 offers clear descriptions of the "separations" that have "been made between the spirits of the dead". He relates "and thus have the spirits of the righteous been separated" by a "chasm" (From the spirits of the unrighteous). Thus, Enoch claims that even before the final Judgment, they become separated by levels of righteousness for some purpose.

I have to wonder if so much of the concept of the Father, and his Son, and the angels and spirits having "places" to live was discomforting to the later doctrine of "immaterial" spirits; "immaterial" angels; and an "immaterial" God.

Regardless of the reasons the various Enoch literature (there are many Enochs) have not been included in the western Canon, though there is some corruption, there is also, so much within the Enoch literature that is good and wonderful. Like Enoch, other Books which were scripture and used by old testament prophets (but are now excluded from the western Canon) have much that is illuminating and very fine. For example, the book of Jasher (referenced in Joshua 10 and Samuel 1 of present O.T.) provides greater detail to events which are only partly described in current accounts. For example: Jasher provides one of the most complete descriptions of the story of Joseph and makes better sense of the disjointed and portioned narrations found in current O.T. and modern Quranic Accounts.

Clear
sefuoufu

 

[S-word]

You have written so much and in a language that the few who would even perhaps attempt to read such a long post and who are not conversant with the writings of Enoch/Imhotep, would too soon weary of it all and exit. I do realise that when speaking to someone you find that holds the same interest as yourself, we sometime wish to express as much information on the subject in question as possible, in order to cover every possible argument that might be forth coming, I have been guilty of doing the same thing myself; but where do I being to respond to your post?

Let’s break it down and discuss it in smaller portions. In the Book of the Last Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the words of Enoch the righteous are referred to, but all of the Patriarchs died in Egypt, meaning that they had access to his writing even back as far as 1700 B.C.

The Testament of Benjamin, to his children, chapter 9: verse 1; “ And I believe that there will be evil doings among you, from the words of Enoch the righteous: that you will commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom etc.” Add to this the fact that Moses who was brought up in the house of Pharaoh, would have been educated by the greatest teachers of Egypt, brought those teachings with him and after removing the leaven that had been added over time, he gave to the Israelites, “The unleavened bread of God, or the spiritual food for the growth of the spirit/mind.

It was Moses who gave to Aaron the regulations that he was to perform, and one of those regulations was to choose a scapegoat and by laying his hands upon the head of that goat, he symbolically transferred the sins of Israel to the goat which was then sent out into the wilderness to Azazel, and as you will be well aware, Azazel was that son of God who descended in the days of Enoch’s Father “Jared,” which name means descending; whether descending from space or through time will be discussed at a later date.

Azazel was the one who taught mankind all about metallurgy and the making of swords, knives, shields and breastplates, and bracelets and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures Etc. Tubal-Cain, the seventh and last recorded descendant of Cain, was an artificer in copper and iron; the master of all coppersmiths and blacksmiths. Those angels who had come from heaven had to return to heaven, but they would have no peace, and they first had to be bound in the valley of earth till seventy generations had passed, (Jesus is seventy generations from Enoch, See Luke 3; 23-38.) While Azazel was punished separate from the rest, he was taken out to a place in the wilderness called ‘Dudael’ where he was cast into a pit and covered with rough and jagged stones, and all sin was to be ascribed to him. As there is no known source for the story of Azazel other than the Book of Enoch the Prophet, I think that we can safely assume that the Egyptians had access to the writings of Enoch/Imhotep.

Imhotep: “Father of medicine” 2980 B.C. Imhotep, called “God of Medicine,” “Prince of peace,” and a “Type of Christ.” Imhoep was worshipped as a god and healer from approximately 2850 B.C. to 525 B.C., and as a full deity from 525 B.C., to 550 A.D. Imhotep was a known scribe, chief lector, priest, architect, astronomer and a creator of drugs and medicines from plants. For 3 thousand years he was worshipped as a god in Greece and Rome. Early Christians worshipped him as the “Prince of Peace.” A poet and philosopher, Imhotep coined the saying, “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

Enoch at the age of 365 was carried to heaven. The Book of Jubilees 4: 23, concerning Enoch, “And he was taken from amongst the children of men and we (The Angels) conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour, and behold there he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men. And on account of it (God whose name was ‘Hide thyself&#8217 bought the waters of the flood upon all the land of Eden, etc. Eden = Egypt.

 

[Green Kepi]

Humanistheart....



Many of the Aramaic speaking Mid-Eastern churches did not accept the book of Jude as being allowed in Scripture. Jude was rejected on the grounds that it quoted the book of Enoch in Jude 1:4-5 (which matches Enoch 1:9 word-for-word) and they felt like giving approval to Jude meant they had to accept the book of Enoch as canon as well as Jude.

Jude also quotes from a book called "The Assumption of Moses" which is also called the Testament of Moses in Jude 1:9, which says "even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!".

Books referenced by the Bible, but not included in the Bible, are...

Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7)
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14)
Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)
The Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25);
Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Samuel 10:25, 1 Chr 29:29)
Book of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chr 9:29)
Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chr 12:15)
The Book of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr. 9:29)
Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29);
Acts of Abijah/Story of Prophet Iddo (2 Chr 13:22)
The Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22);
Book of Jehu (2 Chr 20:34)
Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22);
Sayings of the Seers (?) (2 Chr 33:19)
Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14)

Eventually, this list helped bring acceptance to the book of Jude. In the end, most parts of the world accepted all 27 books of the NT based on authorship - anything authored by the first 12 apostles, or under their authority was accepted. Anything not was rejected.

 

[Clear]

Green Kepi

I have to give you Frubals to you for the direct points you make. I am unknowledgeable regarding specific arguments over the book of Jude being included or excluded in any age, but I am aware of some arguments regarding the Canon that took place during the reformation. I do not see any reason why the patterns of arguments were any different for Jude than for other books.

For example Castellio did not think Song of Songs had a place in the canon (I agree with him that many other books had greater worth than Song of Songs). Calvin records in Cal. Op. XI, 674-6 (corpus Reformatorum) that Castellio described “Song of Songs” as “a lascivious and obscene poem in which Solomon described his indecent amours.” . Calvin reports they denied Castellio’s ordination to the ministry on the ground (among others), that he rejected the inspiration of “Song of Songs”.

Calvin records, “it would be dangerous and would set a bad example if he were admitted to the ministry...” since “To begin with, good people would be not a little offended if they heard that we had ordained a minister who openly rejected and condemned a book accepted as Scripture by all the churches.” I do not think Calvin and the others had any great regard for Songs either, but it was a step that their traditional bias (rather than any intrinsic value in “Song of songs&#8221 that motivated them in this specific decision. Calvin further explained “Further the door would be open to adversaries and detractors who seek to defame the Gospel and disrupt this church. Finally, we should be without an answer for the future to any one who wanted to repudiate Ecclesiastes or any other book, unless we wanted to debate whether or no the book were worthy of the Holy Spirit.”

I do not believe that Calvin necessarily disagreed with Castellio’s point, but he was concerned of the consequences if one admitted that Castellio was correct and if they had "shown Castellio support" by admitting Castillio to the ministry. My point is in support of your logic, that the actual motives for what we accept or reject are often based on imperfect logic or simple tradition based bias due to lack of better reasons.



Humanist Heart

If S-Word is correct that my simple point was lost in sheer size of my post (I wanted to supply supporting data for my reasoning...), the point I wanted to make is that, though Enoch reflects early Judao-Christian doctrines that early Christians may have been very comfortable with, (and thus the books of Enoch were obviously popular as their usage of Old and New Testament attests), the doctrine in the early texts were antagonistic to the evolving doctrines of the later Christians.

The examples I used were :
1) The obvious individuality of God the Father and his son in Enoch texts would have been uncomfortable for later chistians who wanted to believe that God the Father and his son were the same individual. Enoch and such earlier texts did not support adopting this doctrine.
2) The early teachings of Enoch texts that describe some angels as material beings of a similar (or same) species as men on earth, possessing (and abusing) their freewill would also have been uncomfortable doctrines for later christians who wanted to abandon the early doctrines.
Lastly:
3) The early texts such as Enoch that described the material nature of the descriptions of heaven; it’s inhabitants, and their activities have been uncomfortable for later christians wanting to adopt creation from “nothing” and who were trying to move away from a material heaven, material beings, etc.

I apologize Humanist if my point might have been lost in the length of the post.

As an aside regarding authorship, it is still unknown who the author of Hebrews was.

I enjoyed your post Green Kepi.


Clear

nevitr

 

[Green Kepi]

Thanks, Clear...something else I like about Enoch - he mentions that the "Sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6:2 were fallen angels (so did the Book of Jubilees) and just to throw in another, so did the Jewish historian, Josephus. He recorded that the "Sons of God" mentioned were fallen angels. That's another reason the "so-called" main streamed church rejected his book. They couldn't handle this belief. They believe, in whole, that these sons of God referred to the "godly" line of Seth. The church where I attend...gets all upset when someone such as myself, mentions belief in these being fallen angels. Oh...well....

These Nephilim, in Hebrews, does not mean 'giants'. The word comes from the root word "naphal" meaning fallen ones. If these were sons of Seth, why wouldn't the writer just say so...anyway...there is so much to be said. So...I'll just say...I like the Book of Enoch. Any one who reportedly (Gen. 5:24) is taken away by God directly...must be reliable in my book...! I want to read his writings!

 

[S-word]

Thanks, Clear...something else I like about Enoch - he mentions that the "Sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6:2 were fallen angels (so did the Book of Jubilees) and just to throw in another, so did the Jewish historian, Josephus. He recorded that the "Sons of God" mentioned were fallen angels. That's another reason the "so-called" main streamed church rejected his book. They couldn't handle this belief. They believe, in whole, that these sons of God referred to the "godly" line of Seth. The church where I attend...gets all upset when someone such as myself, mentions belief in these being fallen angels. Oh...well....

These Nephilim, in Hebrews, does not mean 'giants'. The word comes from the root word "naphal" meaning fallen ones. If these were sons of Seth, why wouldn't the writer just say so...anyway...there is so much to be said. So...I'll just say...I like the Book of Enoch. Any one who reportedly (Gen. 5:24) is taken away by God directly...must be reliable in my book...! I want to read his writings!

Nephilim in Hebrew may mean ‘Fallen ones,’ but the descendants of the Fallen ones were, giants and also called Nephilim.

Genesis 6, simply shows that the Sons of God took the daughters of men to wife and children were born to them, And the Nephilim, were in the earth in those days (Before the flood) and afterwards, and they were the heroes and great men of renown.
Numbers 13: 32-33; “All the people we saw there were of Great size (Giants). We saw the Nephilim there the descendants of Anak who come from the Nephilim. We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eye, and we looked the same to them;” this reveals that the Nephilim came through the flood, genetic throw backs whose genes were carried in the body of the giant Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives who were all descendants, through the six sons of Enoch the giant who was born after the sons of God had descended in the days of the physical father of Enoch whose name Jared, means “Descending.”

It was in the days of Jared/descending that the Sons of God, abandoned their own habitat and defiled themselves with the daughters of man, they would possess the bodies of the men while they were with their wives and from there, were able to pass on their issue.

From the ‘Book of Enoch the Prophet’ CVI: 1-6, “Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son (and Lamech was the physical Father to Noah the giant) And his body was as white as snow and as red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair on his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright. And thereupon he arose in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth, and conversed with the Lord of righteousness. And his father Lamech was afraid of him, (Just as Eve was terrified when she first saw Cain the shinning one and thought to kill him) and Lamech fled and ran to his father Methuselah. And he said to him: “I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different, and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. And it seems that he is not sprung from me, but from the angels. And I fear that in his days, a wonder may be wrought on the earth.

 

[Clear]

“he [enoch] mentions that the "Sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6:2 were fallen angels (so did the Book of Jubilees) and just to throw in another, so did the Jewish historian, Josephus. He recorded that the "Sons of God" mentioned were fallen angels. That's another reason the "so-called" main streamed church rejected his book. They couldn't handle this belief. They believe, in whole, that these sons of God referred to the "godly" line of Seth.“

”These Nephilim, in Hebrews, does not mean 'giants'. The word comes from the root word "naphal" meaning fallen ones. If these were sons of Seth, why wouldn't the writer just say so...anyway...there is so much to be said. So...I'll just say...I like the Book of Enoch. Any one who reportedly (Gen. 5:24) is taken away by God directly...must be reliable in my book...! I want to read his writings!“

Both of these points you made Kepi are wonderful and IMPORTANT points. The misconceptions caused by mistranslations (or correct translations of corrupted texts or elaborations...etc) cause great difficulty in understanding and believing authentic history. This has significant doctrinal effects.

This is why I think your example regarding the error of belief in “giants” (i.e. men as big as tall building) is so important. Such misconceptions bestow true history with the taint of a fairy tale (e.g. “Gulliver’s travels) and contributes to the motive for logical individuals to dismiss good and authentic history which has simply become tainted with misconception. The software prevented me from giving you more frubals for your profound post, but I feel that you again deserve them Kepi.

Clear

 

[Humanistheart]

Humanistheart....



Many of the Aramaic speaking Mid-Eastern churches did not accept the book of Jude as being allowed in Scripture. Jude was rejected on the grounds that it quoted the book of Enoch in Jude 1:4-5 (which matches Enoch 1:9 word-for-word) and they felt like giving approval to Jude meant they had to accept the book of Enoch as canon as well as Jude.

Jude also quotes from a book called "The Assumption of Moses" which is also called the Testament of Moses in Jude 1:9, which says "even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!".

Books referenced by the Bible, but not included in the Bible, are...

Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7)
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14)
Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)
The Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25);
Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Samuel 10:25, 1 Chr 29:29)
Book of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chr 9:29)
Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
The Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chr 12:15)
The Book of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chr. 9:29)
Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29);
Acts of Abijah/Story of Prophet Iddo (2 Chr 13:22)
The Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22);
Book of Jehu (2 Chr 20:34)
Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22);
Sayings of the Seers (?) (2 Chr 33:19)
Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14)

Eventually, this list helped bring acceptance to the book of Jude. In the end, most parts of the world accepted all 27 books of the NT based on authorship - anything authored by the first 12 apostles, or under their authority was accepted. Anything not was rejected.

Wow, I'm learning a lot from this thread The list of referenced none cannon books is very interesting! Although I find that last statment curious as none of the biblical books were authored by a disciple of 'apostle' of jesus.

 

[Humanistheart]

You know when I read the first book of enoch (i'm hoping it was a good translation) I remmember reading that one of the reasons god was angry with the angels for taking human wives is that angels were imortal, and not meant to reproduce in such a fashion. But if this was the case why did god create the angels with functional and verile genitals? If he didn't want them reproducing why create them with that ability? Of course I'm only assuming conception was through sex and not some alternative angelic means. I soppose it's the same question as why give humans free will then punish them for using it, but angels are said to have been created with a different purpose than humans so I feel it's somehow different.

 

[Humanistheart]

As there is no known source for the story of Azazel other than the Book of Enoch the Prophet, I think that we can safely assume that the Egyptians had access to the writings of Enoch/Imhotep.

.

S Word, can you ellaborate on your statment here? What is your bases for the assumption that the egyptions had access to Enoch and how does Imhotep factor in here?

-thanks

 

[Clear]

Humanist;

I think that the ancient pseudographa are wonderful histories. However, there is some degree of corruption in all ancient texts that I am aware of (including the Old and New Testaments). Even the fairly intact records must be interpreted by someone who may not understand the original intent and it will affect the results of their interpretation. Even if the original doctrine was written before the Flood of Noah’s (Noe) time period, the various current versions of Enoch are “composite” documents, with various portions translated and written down at different times by different individuals. This affects the document. For example: If the early Christians were correct that it was Christianity that was taught in the beginning to Adam and by the early prophets and among the Jews, then they (I include myself in this tendency) will see in their readings, a form of Christianity.

We all have our bias which affects our interpretation as to what is going on in these documents. Whereas I see Enoch as a “Christian” document that is consistent with early christianity, A Jew will read it differently. To see a Christian application of Enoch, you can go to this link in the LDS Atonement thread

and read , posts 324, 325, 326, 330, and 331.

Just as I believe Enoch was excluded from the western canon (Enoch remains IN the eastern Old Testament) because it taught early orthodoxy which became uncomfortable for Judaism and Christianity as their doctrines shifted away from the earliest doctrines, I have to believe a similar mechanism excluded other books from the canon. For example: Later Christianity could not keep early texts that are explicit that the three (God the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit) are separate individuals, if Christianity wanted to adopt a doctrine where the three become “one”.




REGARDING WHY GOD WAS ANGRY AT THE FALLEN ANGELS

“You know when I read the first book of enoch (i'm hoping it was a good translation) I remmember reading that one of the reasons god was angry with the angels for taking human wives is that angels were imortal, and not meant to reproduce in such a fashion.”

I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the Enoch texts specifically teach that it was wrong for angels having bodies to reproduce sexually simply because they “were immortal”. Adam and Eve initially were “immortal” and sexual relations was the manner by which they were to “fill the earth” (with offspring).

I believe that the major evil influence caused by the fallen angels was not “leaving their posts” and marriage to and sexual relations with women on the earth, but rather the tremendous moral havoc wreaked by their wicked teachings and influence of mankind. They taught men terrible corruptions such as war, lust adultery, cannibalism (i.e. “And their flesh was devoured the one by the other, and they drank blood&#8221. I think it is chapters 7-13 of 1 Enoch that describe many of theses terrible conditions that were caused by these wicked angels.. 1 En 8:1 he teaches them warfare: “ And Azaz’el taught the people (the art of) making swords and knives, and shields...” 1 En 9:6 “You see what Azaz’el has don: how he has taught all (forms of oppression upon the earth.” In chap 13, enoch relates to Azaz’el that he is punished “because you have taught injustice and because you have shown to the people deeds of shame, injustice, and sin.” The angel has caused men to commit a much greater level of sin that had existed previously.

The angels Michael, Surafel, and Gabriel (in Kebran 9|II ethiopic) complain to the Lord God (ch 9) about “what Azaz’el has done; how he has taught all (forms of) oppression upon the earth... revealed to them every (kind of sin)......the whole earth was filled with blood and oppression. “And the whole earth has been corrupted by Azaz’el’s teaching of his (own) actions;....

Had the angels simply abandoned their other duties and married women and lived “normal” lives, the damage would not have been as severe nor widespread.



REGARDING AZAZ’EL - OTHER HISTORIES

“As there is no known source for the story of Azazel other than the Book of Enoch the Prophet, I think that we can safely assume that the Egyptians had access to the writings of Enoch/Imhotep.

There are other histories that describe Azaz’el as evil. For example, In the Apocalypse of Abraham, (ch 13) it is Azaz’el who tries to trick Abraham into abandoning the angel who is about to accompany him into heaven (in his ascension). The Angel is angry with Azaz’el for attempting to fool Abraham : “Shame on you Azazel! For Abrahams portion is in heaven and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your filth....Depart from this man...For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him... (I’m skipping portions, it’s a longer discussion they have...)

In chapt 22, when Abraham is given his vision of the spirits of men who waiting in heaven to come to earth during the various ages, Abraham asks about two groups (one on the right and another on the left). It is the “eternal, Mighty One” who explains to abraham “Those who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes....Those on the right side...are the people set apart for me of the people with Azazel; ....these (the others) are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people.

In chapt 23, during Abraham’s vision of Eden, he see’s Adan and Eve and “he who is between them is the impiety of their deed unto perdition, Azazel himself”.

Thus, whether the traditions concerning Azazel are read from Enoch histories, or from Abrahamic Histories, Azazel is perdition and, attempts to influence mankind into committing many types of evils.

In the context of how history becomes corrupted by our own private bias, I will be interested as to how S-Word will answer your quiry as to the relationship of the ante-deluvian “Enoch the Scribe” with the very, very POST deluvian IMHOTEP (who, among many things, was a scribe as well).


In any cast Humanist, good luck in figuring these things out for yourself.


Clear
eisetwou

 

[Oberon]

The book of Enoch was not included in the bible following the Nicene Creed.

I hate divert the current discussion, but what exactly do you mean by the above? Do you mean that the book was excluded sometime after the nicene creed but unrelated, or after but because of the creed, or that the council of Nicaea excluded the book?

 

[Green Kepi]

Another fact that I find supportive is the 1947 find of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and a copy of Genesis from the 2nd century told of celestial beings from the skies landing on earth and mating with women to produced giants. The Jewish Torah reads: Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings cohabited with the women.

It's interesting that the designation "Sons of God" in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 all refer to angels...so why in Genesis 6:2 is the same word used to refer to earthly men. That word is bene Elohim and is never used for humans.

1 Cor. 11:10 says "because of the angels..."...there are Jewish writings which alleges that it was the beauty of the womens' long hair that attracted and tempted the angels. Additionally, 2 Peter 2:4 tells us what God did to them. There are two categories of fallen angels: Those cast out of Heaven with Lucifer and who are still free (it appears) to roam the earth and those who fell the 2nd time in Genesis 6 and are chained in the "nether" regions. I find all this...so interesting! However, I know its all opinions and speculations....