It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why isn't the book of Enoch in the Bible?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Quoting from the New Testament book of Jude: 14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.


Now, if Jude thought it appropriate to quote Enoch, then why isn't the book of Enoch considered canonical in any of the major versions of the Bible around today (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic)?

Clearly there is a book of Enoch. You can order a copy on Amazon. So why has it not been considered canonical when other Apocryphal books have been included in catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles?

Further, even though catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles tend to include Apocryphal books, then why does the Eastern Orthodox Bible include even more Apocryphal books than even the catholic Bible?

And still no inclusion of the book of Enoch....



+10 more 
posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
lets not forget that The Vatican is known to possess a number of other scriptural writings that have been intentionally kept out of the bible, and out of the public eye.

A bit suspicious, no?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The Vatican like all super powers drip feed us nutrient poor knowledge.

Its sad but true

Hypocrisy is prevalent its a power thing



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman
Evidently there was a consensus in the early church that the book of Enoch as a whole didn't express what they understood as Christian teaching.
If there are any differences between what that book teaches and what the New Testament teaches, then that explains the omission.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Simply put....

the book of Enoch teaches things that Christianity does not believe in

It also tells about things that are complete nonsense... even to a Christian




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What I find interesting is that there are a lot of things the Catholic Church incorporates that aren't found in the Bible at all. For instance, the story of Veronica and the Veil is one of the 12 Stations of the Cross, but is not found in the New Testament at all.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
It was one of the biblcal books that was removed ftom the canon. The First Council of Nicaea was in part called to deal with the plerhora of bibles that were out there.
see
first nicaea - biblacal canon
and
Development of the Christian biblical canon



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman




Now, if Jude thought it appropriate to quote Enoch, then why isn't the book of Enoch considered canonical in any of the major versions of the Bible around today (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic)?
Paul also quoted from secular writings as well . I think that it has more to do with what books Jesus referred to rather then any of the 12 or the many others of the day .imo



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 0 x 0

No...

The canon of the bible wasn't discussed at the council of Nicaea

The council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of the bible




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

Simply put....

the book of Enoch teaches things that Christianity does not believe in

It also tells about things that are complete nonsense... even to a Christian


Just a thought that sprung up from your post.

How much nonsense is allowed before it is considered too much?

How do we know when it moves from a little, to a lot, to complete?



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I think when a book talks about people being born that are over 450 feet tall...


That kinda breaks the barrier of sanity




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DrogoTheNorman

If a particular writing doesn't conform to a religious belief, it's intentionally left out. There have been a lot of writings that have been left out of the bible.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Seems to me that would be par for the course though seeing as how there are talking snakes, people who lived 500+ years, and a guy who walked on water.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

First I have never read anything Dan Brown wrote.

I agree with you .. I am probably mistaken ..

en.wikipedia.org...

"There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council.[66] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[67]

In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), but some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which suggests that the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures.

The main source of the idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar the Council and then keeping the ones that didn't fall off. The original source of this story is the Vetus Synodicon, a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887"

But still we see

"This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[7] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[8] These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[9] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[6] or if not the list is at least a 6th-century compilation[10] claiming a 4th-century imprimatur.[11] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[12] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church."[13] Thus, from the 5th century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon.[14]"

en.wikipedia.org...

as you said Re: Council of Laodicea

"The 59th canon forbade the readings in church of uncanonical books. The 60th canon listed Canonical books, with the New Testament containing 26 books, omitting the Book of Revelation, and the Old Testament including the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy.[1]

The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful[2] as it is missing from various manuscripts and may have been added later[1] to specify the extent of the preceding 59th canon. Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea.[3]"

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Sounds like an interesting anime!
a reply to: Akragon



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Perhaps... they have some beliefs that are out there...

Though 450 feet tall would actually mean these people were taller then Noahs ark was in length... Basically walking sky scrapers... idk about that one...

then theres this...

Chapter 40

7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth. After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
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.’

No such angel exists in the bible... And to say that said angel is "over repentance" unto the hope of those who inherit eternal life is straight blasphemy in Christian circles...




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 0 x 0


First I have never read anything Dan Brown wrote.

I agree with you .. I am probably mistaken ..



I didn't say you have read Dan brown... but I assure you, you are mistaken...

No worries though I wrote that thread specifically because I see that mistake all the time, and I just got tired of explaining it...

We actually still have some of the letters from the council of Nicaea, that's how we know what was discussed at said council...

You can read them in another thread I wrote a while back if you choose to do so

Reconciling Arius




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon


It also tells about things that are complete nonsense...


Calculus appears to be complete nonsense to an algebra student. Now imagine a calculus teacher that has to use a translator to relay the message to the algebra student.
edit on 13-1-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I'll check that out - thanks



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon


It also tells about things that are complete nonsense...


Calculus appears to be complete nonsense to an algebra student. Now imagine a calculus teacher that has to use a translator to relay the message to the algebra student.


Not understanding something... and believing people were once 450 feet tall, or a snake and a donkey once had a little chat with men are hardly the same thing




new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join