The Book of Enoch Yay or Nay

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I'm not sure what difference it makes. Who came first?

Enoch's works do much to explain what Ezekiel experienced. To my mind anyways. Ezekiel is an oddity found within the bible. Something odd and mysterious. The Book of Enoch helps me understand what Ezekiel may have experienced from the perspective of the more ancient views that were pressing on the people of the day.

When Ezekiel experienced what he saw and felt and relayed in scripture - was in a time where the more ancient beliefs of the day were prevalent through oral tradition. I wonder how influenced Ezekiel was - by The Book of Enoch in his own day, during that time in culture, influenced in much same way new age today is, through oral exchange of ideas and the sharing of personal experiences to give it validation...

After all Enoch did come first, and survived oral tradition, made it to writing, and was passed down and historically categorized to writing in this day an age. That's how influential at one time, The Book of Enoch was, to our ancient ancestors. So yeah, I'll gamble that Ezekiel might have read or heard of Enoch during the time of his experience.

CdT

a reply to: CirqueDeTruth
My first thought was that Enoch was perhaps the same being as Machiventa Melchizedek "Priest of Jer- Salem" but now after many seconds of contemplation think Ezekiel was probably in fact Enoch; which explains EVERYTHING (who is to say he wasn't both in different time periods or the same in the two simultaneously), Great post! Cirque; as it fits logically for me perfectly (in the abstract non linear).

a reply to: randyvs

Just wanted to post this puppy here.

Well hello there Randy...

While I enjoyed reading the book of Enoch...I could not endorse it as scripture....+1 NAY

Why did I vote nay? Well, I asked myself...IF this if from God, how do I prove it...
And while I know atheists and the like scoff at such a thing...The only way to prove the Word of God is WITH the Word IN the spirit...

My conclusion was based solely off the wording of the text...some of the words betrayed the age of the text...(some words were not in use until the time of Moses++)

Holy scripture maintains an authenticity and signature that is consistent....amazingly consistent....

Which brings me to the problem(s) with the book of Enoch...

1)Jews didn't exist...until after the Flood....but the book of Enoch is flooded with Jewish terminology...(Abraham was the first Jew evidenced by circumcision...)


2)ALL the texts are in translation...all of them in languages which are post-flood...but I daresay if God really had Enoch write a book which we were supposed to get....then God himself would have preserved what was writ...IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE...

(I realize thinking about it now, that Jacob was probably the first Jew...but I will leave it as-is for now....)
A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Definitely a valued synopsis A2D.
And how great to hear from you again.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I disagree; all information comes from the AUO (absolute unbounded oneness); that fathomed/thought everything start to finish, (its idea perfect in creation) you are (as an inserted soul/spirit in this time period) are experiencing only a small part of that totality of this creation/experience process IT CREATED; (book of Enoch, Judaism etc.) you have been made aware of (WHY, TO CHALLENGE? where does your dominion rest itself), not necessarily to make judgments upon; as those are ego based and FALSE mirrors reflecting your image. Scripture: mans words re-interpreting as an ego based entity its Gods Ideas; and are going to be flawed/warped in interpretation. I'm not standing on that soap box or riding that band wagon (even if peach pies are nearby).

A few examples of what I've found...

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

When was Christ named? Revelation 1:8 says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." You caught that right? Enoch says our Lord was created....the bible says our Lord is, was, and always will be...ie eternal

9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’

Who is this Phanuel? Never heard of him...The bible says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Just 2 quick examples to see how...INCONSISTENT the book of Enoch is when compared side by side with scripture...

A2D

a reply to: randyvs

Yay the Books of Enoch should have been canon. In choosing to put the bible together which didn't take place until something like the 12th century if I remember correctly, it ended up as being a very selective set of documents.

Historically the early church fathers sent men out to destroy all the documents they thought were a threat, held in monasteries everywhere which says to anyone that they were extraordinarily selective and would only tolerate their brand of Christianity- there were obvious reasons for this selectivity and one of them is the questionable existence of Jesus due to no records, other than written by Christians of his existence - but that alone also hides a greater truth than they wanted passed to their congregations.

Late to the discussion as I missed this very interesting one.

Also as an after-thought any christian should wonder why did they not want to include Gospels written by the supposedly actual disciples, - there are three and obviously they were concurrent with Jesus's life - so were far more accurate than anything put together years after the event of Christ's death - again something that the roman's should have documented full.

Which version would you advice, Nyland or Lumpkin? Both offer the three Books of Enoch in one binding.

a reply to: randyvs

what an interesting video. i'd like to make a correction to one of his references.

the sons of god came down
the sons of anak, the annunaki, came down.
these are referred to as the sons of the heavenly father, an or anu.
i traced his name, etymological to ancient egypt. there he was known as amun or amen.
in the name of heavenly father, amen. (not to be confused with amun-ra)

i'm pretty sure enki, otherwise known as ea, pronounced ayah (h-ayah) is iah, is jehovah jesus.
also an, also known as anu, is his heavenly father.

iah is found as a suffix on the ends of many biblical names, such a jeremiah, nehemiah, hezekiah, obadiah, etc.
it's also found in the names of pharaohs. for example, ahmose means born of iah.
that is, born of ea, or born of yah, who is yahweh.

p.s. Iah (Ea) wasn't originally a god of the moon. He was the creator god. He became synonymous with Enlil, who is the actual moon god and god of this world. That is because the creator god is different than the god of this world/moon god.

a reply to: undo

I love a great many of the threads I've created here.
But mostly for the knowledge I've managed to some how attract.

If there's anything good about my presence in this venue?
I dream it is that.

Some really great replies to sort thru everyone.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I have to disagree here.

When was Christ named? Revelation 1:8 says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." You caught that right? Enoch says our Lord was created....the bible says our Lord is, was, and always will be...ie eternal

No it doesn't... Where does it say He was "created"?

It say's he was named before the creation...

And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

Who is this Phanuel? Never heard of him...The bible says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Phanuel is an angel, As is Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel. The text isn't indicating that there is more than one God, and even the bible confirms that there are heavenly hosts/angels, and that Gabriel is one of them.

From Wikipedia:

as The Book of Enoch attests, Phanuel is the angel of repentance unto hope of those who have inherited eternal life. Piecing together the writings of Enoch and the Revelation of John, Phanuel, along with Michael, Gabriel and Raphael will all drink from the 'winepress of the Wrath of God', strengthening them in that day, the Day of the Lord. Phanuel's arch-rival in the demonic hoards is Belial, the Antichrist, the demon of lies.

During the Battle of Armageddon, Phanuel will relinquish this rivalry, to fulfill the prophecy that Christ will destroy Beliar with the word of His mouth. It is often thought that Phanuel is among the angelic voices in Revelation 11:15b saying "The world has now become the Kingdom of our LORD and His Christ. He shall reign forever and ever. Amen"

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The name Phanuel reminds me of the biblical name Emmanuel.

Matthew 1:23 – “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel (or Immanuel), which being interpreted is, God is with us.”

This is where God’s angel tells Joseph in a dream to name his unborn child Jesus. The angel also quotes Isaiah in the above scripture.

The book of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:8, 10 with respect to this Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 8:8 – “And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

Isaiah 8:10 – “Take counsel together and it shall come to naught; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us.”

If Phanuel is meant to be Immanuel then the book of Enoch is right.

as The Book of Enoch attests, Phanuel is the angel of repentance unto hope of those who have inherited eternal life.

Nay to the book of enoch. It takes focus off of what is truly important (God's Love and Forgiveness) and it focuses on stories about demons instead.

Many early church fathers accepted the book of Enoch. www.youtube.com...
They also accepted the Shepard of Hermas which is a weird book. Jude quotes from Enoch. The 14 deuterocanonical books of the LXX are alluded to in the new testament yet the protestants rejected them. Most OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX, and the NT was written in Greek. No one seems to care about history, just their tradition they have now. Enoch has contradictions from the Cannon that was chosen. Enoch was in consideration when assembling the Cannon. Revelation was chosen over it. You can read about it in the works of Eusebius. archive.org...

a reply to: TURBOTRON5000

I need a yay or a nay for the new count.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TURBOTRON5000

I need a yay or a nay for the new count.

i think it has really interesting parts. other things are confusing, such as the description of the nephilim being absolutely enormous. physics wouldn't allow them to stand erect in this gravity. so unless they were dinosaurs (and the earth's globe would have to be smaller as well), i don't quite get how that could be correct. a mistranslation perhaps? a different planet? a smaller planet? part machine maybe? i just don't know. if i could get a good translation for it, i'd say yay. but barring that?? i dunno.

a reply to: randyvs

Margaret Barker is a very well respected old testament scholar across a broad spectrum of christian viewpoints.

MargaretBarker.com

She has a very different viewpoint than many, the essence is that the first temple was VERY different from the second temple in Jerusalem. The worship of the first temple was centered on ascension to the 3rd heaven (like Paul), or like John experienced on Patmos. She believes that Jesus was a Merkabh Mystic, and his being called the Son of God is associated with his experience of ascension.

Anyway she is very big on Enoch, and feels it is part of the 1st temple priesthood that had been suppressed by the Deuteronomists of the second temple, the brood of vipers.

There is a long list of papers that are free to read on her website, if you are interested.

a reply to: zardust

There is a long list of papers that are free to read on her website, if you are interested.

I'm very interested. Thanks.