It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Book of Enoch Yay or Nay

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:20 PM

Very glad you clicked with interest. This thread is third in a series
of polls that simply ask the reader to vote Yay or Nay to a question
of the authors choosing. I believe there was some sort of conspiracy
at the council of Nicea to keep The Book of Enoch
out of The Bible councel approved. Admittedly I can't quite identify
my suspicions properly, so I won't make such an attempt. But here's
an example and a link to help the reader, understand the reasons
that were used.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.


And the reason I believe conspiracy is at play may seem weak
to some of you, because it is so simple. But if we just look at the
sharp contrast, whereby I believe it is scripture, worthy of the
canon. As Jesus Christ himself and then the apostles, also quoted
from this ancient text. As you can see here.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Mat 5:5) The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 [6:9])

the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son (John 5:22). the principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man. (Enoch 69:27 [68:39])

shall inherit everlasting life (Mat. 19:29) those who will inherit eternal life (Enoch 40:9 [40:9])

"Wo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24) Woe to you who are rich, for in your riches have you trusted; but from your riches you shall be removed. (Enoch 94:8 [93:7]).

Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Mat. 19:28) I will place each of them on a throne of glory (Enoch 108:12 [105:26])

Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mat. 26:24) Where will the habitation of sinners be . . . who have rejected the Lord of spirits. It would have been better for them, had they never been born. (Enoch 38:2 [38:2])

between us and you there is a great gulf fixed. (Luke 16:26) by a chasm . . . [are] their souls are separated (Enoch 22: 9,11[22:10,12])

In my Father's house are many mansions (John 14:2) In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory, and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations. (Enoch 45:3 [45:3])

that ye may be called the children of light (John 12:36) the good from the generation of light (Enoch 108:11 [105: 25])

the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:14) all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy. (Enoch 48:1 [48:1])


And so the heading of which I am the first yay. Because the
Jesus I know would not quote from a book of any lies or missed
marks for that matter..

Is the Book of Enoch worthy of the canon?

Yay 1


Nay 0

So give some reasons why and fire away!

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:25 PM
I would vote yay.

Another reason for you? THe Calendar

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:25 PM

This sums up some of the issues that I know of ... Some of the theological problems with Enoch

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:34 PM
I will have to say no ..The reason being The Septuagint ..

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:48 PM
if translated properly I vote yay
not "gods" though....substitute the line of aryan/ orion "goths" that re-civilized various civilizations
after the babylonian flood myth
( which ever flood that was- there were several. )

edit on Wedpm5b20145America/Chicago58 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:15 PM
Do you know who was the last person to take the trip to the heavenly Planet in physical body like Enoch did? His name was Michel Desmarquet. Once you read the Thiaoouba Prophecy you will be able to say I KNOW.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: Thiaoouba Prophecy

Now that's interesting. Any links?

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Your post has a lot of cool '70's Rock Album Covers! What bands are they from?

Book of Enoch? Well, if that's what you're into, that's cool...but it's not my thing.
I never finished it...did he ever go back to earth? Or did he just hang out counting things.

Would like to know what album covers those are...

edit on 14-5-2014 by the owlbear because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:47 PM

Although there are problems with dating the book of enoch and it certainly can't be dated to the time Enoch is said to have lived (the oldest portions of the text we have are thought to be from around 100-300 bc), that doesn't mean that the documents we have aren't manuscripts and that far older versions don't exist somewhere out there.

Certainly there is a good case for it being considered part of Judaism and thus the religion of Jesus day, as not only does Jesus quote from it, so do the authors of the new testament. The book of Jude even seems to confirm it, and affirms stories from the book of enoch as being truth. Further, Jesus and His apostles directly identify the formers role as the messiah in terms expressed in the book of Enoch. As wikipedia has pointed out (and I agree), 2 distinct features of the messiah and his ministry are highlighted in the book of Enoch:

-a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1–4, 48:2–7, 69:26–29)

-the sinners usually seen as the wealthy ones and the just as the oppressed (a theme we find also in the Psalms of Solomon).

I haven't really seen any good arguments in favor of omitting the book of enoch from the bible. From what I can see, the only reason it was excluded in the first place is because it wasn't considered canonical by mainstream Judaism at the time, but we can see from Christ's actions (and his own words) that he didn't exactly agree completely with the mainstream religious figures of his day in the first place (mainly the pharisees and sadducees).
edit on 14-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:52 PM
To me Enoch falls within the same category as the rest of Apocrypha and the Bible. Meaning a good source for the historical record but with one hellava spin.

Interesting reads... especially the books where Jesus goes around melting faces. I guess I will have to re-read them as a refresher it has been so long for me.

So I can't really say yea or nay because to me it is all part truth and part fiction, including Enoch.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:54 PM
a reply to: the owlbear

I think the one of the angel with the cool muave
background is "Journey". But I'm not sure of any of them
to be truthful.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I can always count on educated responses here
and I really appreciate every one.
Good on all of you.

edit on Rpm51414v00201400000044 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:51 PM
a reply to: randyvs

I say no.

Both Hebrew OT and Greek NT show a rhetorical syllable metering in various prophetic passages. The neither the Book of Enoch nor any other pseudopigrapha contain this pattern.

Background info on the meter for those interested:
edit on 14-5-2014 by BELIEVERpriest because: link added

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:21 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Randy, the Council of Nicaea did not have anything to do with selecting the books of the New Testament, that's a fiction, perpetrated mostly by Dan Brown in his novel The Da Vinci Code.

In addition, the Book of Enoch would be an Old Testament (Hebrew) book, and the reason that it is not a part of the Old Testament is that it was not a part of the Hebrew Bible. Our (the Catholics) Old Testament consists of the books of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus and the Apostles used. Later Protestant faiths "downgraded" books of the Old Testament that were in the Septuagint, but not in the oldest versions of the Hebrew Bible, but no one ever thought to add anything to the OT.

So my answer is NO -- there's nothing wrong with reading it, anymore than all of the other non-Canonical works of the Early Church Fathers, but it is not Holy Scripture.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:37 PM
Randyvs shoot me a U2 or read yours,
Interesting thread.

Regards Iwinder

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:40 PM
a reply to: adjensen

I don't understand how Nicaea is always the council people believe the canon of the bible was decided at...

Its beyond a common mistake... Its almost a regular one!

Can we blame Dan Brown, or is it just ignorance?

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: Akragon

Can we blame Dan Brown, or is it just ignorance?

It's a combination. Most people don't know early church history well enough to understand the process of canonicity, and then you have Brown and his ilk proposing that it happened at Nicaea (even though we know that it did not,) so the idea gets passed around like a… well, like a bad idea, lol.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:56 PM
Yay all the way. I have always found the book of Enoch to be fascinating.I don't care how historically accurate it is or not,it gives a interesting account

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: Akragon

Ok Ak I give you that.

a reply to: adjensen

I felt like I might be wrong somewhere in my OP.
But is my premise still valid, hopefully?

edit on Rpm51414v152014u12 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:31 PM

originally posted by: Dimithae
Yay all the way. I have always found the book of Enoch to be fascinating.I don't care how historically accurate it is or not,it gives a interesting account

See this is more like my thinking. We have a book here,
that seems like more of a miracle than all others. That we
even know of it's existence let alone have a translation?
Considering the fact that being authentic puts it to a
time before the flood and was brought to this world, by
none other than Noah himself? In my mind stamps this
as Holy Scripture indeed.

And it's wholly fascinating even if it's only deep antiquity
sci fi to some. That alone holds tons of interest. It just has
to be scripture.

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: randyvs

I vote 'yay', because I don't trust the opinions or motives of those who decided what was and what wasn't canon.

Also because I believe Enoch offers spiritual insight and knowledge - especially because he was also quoted by the Son.

This might interest you too:

edit on 14/5/2014 by Maigret because: To include link

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in