book of enoch

why is it that Enoch is mentioned in the bible at Jude 14,which is the exact verse in the book of Enoch..and yet the book of Enoch is not in the bible,i find this very dificult to understand

If it is good enough to be quoted by a bible writer why not good enough for the bible?

Depends on which version of the Bible you look at . Here is some additional information on the subject.

Some of the things mentioned in the ENOCH BOOK scared the churches in power so the hid them. LIKE THE WATCHERS AND THE NEPHELIM OFFSPRING THEY CREATED WHICH BROUGHT FORTH THE GREAT FLOOD TO KILL THESE OFFSPRINGS FLESH WHY TRAPPING THERE SPIRITS IN THE ABYSS UNTIL ABBADON THE *STAR* OPENS IT.

[edit on 8/5/09 by Ophiuchus 13]

It also depends on which Book of Enoch (Hanokh) that you are talking about.

1 Hanokh was included amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and some Orthodox Churches consider it canonical.

2 Hanokh was not included because not only is it pseudepigraphic (meaning the book claims authorship by someone other than who wrote it...but that's the case with almost the entire Bible), but rather because it is Apocalyptic (how many differing Apocalypses do you need in the Bible? The Bible wasn't ATS!)

3 Hanokh was not included because it was Jewish Hekhaloht/Merkavah Literature. These mystic texts are jealously guarded and kept secret as they are not meant for the masses. Try to find a copy of 3 Hanokh (or 3 Enoch) online! (I stand corrected, it is available online finally 3 Enoch)

[edit on 5-8-2009 by fraterormus]

Originally posted by illece

why is it that Enoch is mentioned in the bible at Jude 14,which is the exact verse in the book of Enoch..and yet the book of Enoch is not in the bible,i find this very dificult to understand

If it is good enough to be quoted by a bible writer why not good enough for the bible?

Exactly why every thing is scewed up.
Enki and Enlil arent even mentioned, yet the old testemant is written by the wery stones of the story of the anunnaki..

The bible is the story from when anunnaki were here, that is also why the evolution theory gets so much fundings from the illuminati, to make it so darn hard to figure out, lets not mention how hard to try to convince people of it...

Thats why they try so hard to pin the chromosome 2 as an 'natural' evolution event, yet it only happend to humans, and you realy need alab to splice and fuse the chromosomes with chemical scissors..

makes me so mad ..

I recently picked up what looks like a pretty decent book on the Dead Sea Scrolls written by Neil Asher Silberman called The Hidden Scrolls.

Might give it a look.

What he argues is that the authors of the Scrolls were part of a Jewish Resistance against Roman Occupation (The Romans being the Great Satan).

So therefore the scrolls are reluctantly released... certain scholars don't want some of that info too well known.

What it basically boils down to is that some of the noncanonical books paint a not so rosy picture of early Christianity... "Oh, you mean that Lucifer was a King and the Serpent was Rome? Okay, so Jesus was killed for treason against Rome and he was an 'insurrgent' if you will...not God."

[edit on 5-8-2009 by JayinAR]

reply to post by illece


You raise a good question. Protestant churches historically regard certain non-canonical books as profitable for reading, (at least in part,) but not Scripture inspired by God himself. They are referred to as the Apocrypha. (Note - The Roman Catholic church has included these as part of the OT since the Council of Trent in the 16th century.)

Beyond that there are other works, such as Enoch (sometimes referred to as 1 Enoch,) that are referred to as 'pseudepigrapha'. 'Pseudepigrapha' are defined (within the article quoted below) as "those Jewish writings which were excluded from the OT Canon and which find no place in the Apocrypha".

It is believed that the words quoted in Jude relate to a very ancient pronouncement made by Enoch, handed down outside Scripture. The book of Enoch itself was written down during the last two centuries BC. It is comprised of 5 sections, dating from different points within that time-frame:

By far the most important group of Jewish pseudepigrapha is the apocolypses, among which the Book of Enoch takes pride of place. It is a composite work, of which the various parts were composed at different times during the last two centuries BC...

...This book is of great importance for studies in the intertestamental period and furnishes valuable data for pre-Christian Jewish theology. It is also of interest in being cited in the NT Epistle of Jude.

[my note: detailed section-by-section summary omitted]

...The fifth [section] is a miscellaneous collection of exhortations and other material, of which the most notable is an Apocalypse of Weeks which divides world-history into 10 weeks, the last 3 being apocalyptic.

The Apocalypse of Weeks has been thought to be connected with the Qumran sect [my note: i.e. the group to whom the Dead Sea Scrolls originally belonged], but because there is no trace of the Similitudes [my note: i.e. a related section appearing earlier in the book] at Qumran it is possible that this part should be dated in the Christian era (cf. JC Hindley).

Taken from the IVP New Bible Dictionary Inter-Varsity Press, section titled 'Pseudepigrapha' (for interest: an academic book with over 1,300 pages)

I hope this quotation answers at least some of your questions.

Man I just went out and got a bunch of new books now I'll have to make another trip. Enoch has always fascinated me. I'm taking notes. Great stuff guys. Now this is why ATS caught my eye in the first place. Great sources for future reading.

reply to post by illece


Remember that the Bible is a Compilation, not a book in the sense that it has one author...The Book of Enoch is quite critical of the Compilers and that is why it is not included in some Bibles...Would it be accurate to suggest which Bibles are of the Rebels is easily identified as the ones that do not contain the Book of Enoch.

How? You ask...the Compilers of the Bible are of the Tradition of the fallen that made the oath atop Mt. Hermon.

Their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise; And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime. But they answered him and said; We all swear; And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking. Then they swore all together, and all bound themselves by mutual execrations. Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon Ardis, which is the top of mount Armon. That mountain therefore was called Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by mutual execrations. These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who was their leader, akabarameel, Akibeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel, Saraknyal, Asael, Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael, Turel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred angels, and the remainder were all with them. Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. And the women conceiving brought forth giants,

Remember all of those guys...The rebels from Enoch and the compilers of the Bible AKA the Modern and Contemporary Priesthood are the same types of groups...get it? Pope Benedict XVI is the successor to Semjaza in a manner of speaking...get it...I know on ATS you have to repeat things so that people can understand.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by IDK88]

reply to post by IDK88

Remember that the Bible is a Compilation, not a book in the sense that it has one author...

I beg to differ. It has one Author, but many writers.

The Book of Enoch is quite critical of the Compilers.

I'm sorry, but that is pure nonsense my friend. I've read the whole thing, and nowhere does it touch on such matters. Unless...

...you take something totally out of context, such as the way it discusses fallen angels, as you do here:

the Compilers of the Bible are of the Tradition of the fallen that made the oath atop Mt. Hermon.

Sorry. Playing fast and lose with a text like that just won't wash on a public forum where people know what they're talking about. That might sound harsh, but you are peddling hogwash.

The rebels from Enoch and the compilers of the Bible are the same types of groups...get it?

If you say so...

Why did I say something that hurts? That those Priests who Pimp the word of God may be exceptionally Evil men.

Believe what you will...I know what they are and I know that Peter denies Christ.

Oh I see...after quickly glancing at your Avatar I realized that you are not exactly an UNBIASED person on this issue. So sorry for you Pause4Thought.

Your position is not credible because of what you are I am a neutral observer.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by IDK88]

Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. And the women conceiving brought forth giants.

This part of Enoch describes the crimes of those early Priests atop Mt. Hermon. Many people probably cannot see that the crimes are Genocide - The dividing of roots and trees. The Sorcery and Incantations deal with the process of fabricating false worlds from the ruin of natural worlds. The giant children, magnified via Alchemical processes became Kings over men and drove society to ruin when their abomination became Unsustainable.

It gets darker and it can be more clearly seen why those Priest who committed these atrocities upon Humanity have no desire whatsoever for anything resembling God to exist on this planet...it is their ancient oath and sacred responsibility to avoid this at all costs.

reply to post by IDK88

Peter denies Christ

Not if you know the Bible:

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven."

Gospel of Matthew 16:16

Having just read your comment on my credibility I'll leave it to others to assess which of us knows what they're talking about.

Enoch Chapter 69 verse 9, 10, & 11

A condemnation directly from God of the very notion of Religion, which was taught to men by the Rebels.

And he (Pênêmûe) instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me (God).

This isn't even close to being out of context...it couldn't be written any clearer who is the real criminals on this planet and it also goes a great distance in explaining why the book of Enoch as a whole is not included in all Bibles, as it condemns the very notion of a Bible.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by IDK88]

[edit on 5-8-2009 by IDK88]

reply to post by pause4thought


Oh yeah...in your verse he says those words to Jesus...a Scholar would have also included the three times he denied knowing Jesus in the presence of the Romans, when his life was on the line.

Please let them make their own decision as to what is what.

Groupies

One of the main reasons why the 'Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch the Son of Jared' was ommitted from the Nicene canon was that it ascribed the origin of SIN to the 'fallen ones' (Heb. 'Nephilim', from the verb N-F-L to 'descend') with no mention of Adam or Hayaa and the serpent myth found in the 2nd Creation Story (Gen 2:4b-end of chapter 4). We have 7 major fragments of this text (or rather collection of loose Henochian texts) in Aramaic from caves 1-11 among the Dead Sea Scrolls (the contents of these caves were sealed in a sort of time capsule in June of AD 68 during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome). Prior to 1946-1947 all scholars had were Greek and Coptic copies of what later became I Henoch (and the later variations and additions to I Henoch aka II and III Henoch also were known partially copied in other languages, e.g. Armenian).

Serpent Adam and Eve sin origin-loving Pauline theology reigned in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD in the Greek Speaking (non Aramaic speaking) yet more politically 'successful' Christian communities that survived the 1st and 2nd Failed Jewish Wars against Rome (the first AD 66-72, beginning at the 70th year of the death of Herod in 4BC when Rome annexed Jerusalem, and the 2nd on the 200th anniversary of the invasion of the Roman General Pompey in BC 63, when Palestine was loosely annexed by Rome), since the Nazorean churches who elected their bishops according to the Daviddic bloodlines of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (aka Jesus) and later through R. Yakkov bar Yosef (aka James the Lord's Brother) all being related closely 'according to the flesh' took over following his brother's execution for armed sedition against Rome (these apocalyptic end of Days anti Roman anti Gentile Nazorean Ebionite type Dead Sea Scroll related i.e. Jewish messianic groups flourished before the Jewish Wars, naturally, and centered around Jerusalem, Antioch, Syria) were destroyed during the 2 wars when the family of Jesus and his original followers were more or less killed off...what was left were Greek Speaking Pauline Churches that hated the Nazorean Aramaic 'Jesus-knowing' churches--Paul, as we all know, never met R. Yehoshua in the flesh, only in dreams and visions, like my cook !

Jesus quotes from the Dead Sea Scrolls alot ("the Salvation of Israel in the North shall come from the Judaeans in the South", in John chapter 4 comes from the Testament of Naphtali, from the Scroll of the Book of the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs being the Son of Jacob")

There are some Nazorean fragments in the NT echoing the earliest Aramaic Nazorean churches, e.g. the Book of James which quotes The Words of Henoch (see verse 14) and also the Assumption of Moses which also was reflected in some Cave 1-11 Aramaic fragments. All of these Apocalyptic Writings (check out Charlesworth's 2 volumes of the Pseudopigrapha in English) are Anti Gentile Anti Roman Anti Occupation and violently zionist in tone, just like R. Yehoshua must have been e.g.

'The times of the Gentiles is fulfilled...repent and believe the good news of the Kingdom [of David] !'

(recalling Moses re-conqoring the socalled Promise Land, the Times of the Amorites is fulfilled) which is basically a war-chant against Rome (to say nothing of the walzing into Jerusalem on the white she ass of Solomon (see Zechariah 9:9) which is tantamount to an act of War against Roman authority ('Behold Thy King Cometh unto Thee Jerusalem riding humbly upon the foal of an ass, yea, his kingdom shall be established and he shall Dictate terms of Peace to the Gentiles !')

I Henoch is a great read for any true interested student of the earliest Nazorean Aramaic speaking Christianities which were later usurped by the llater War Survivving Greek speaking Gentile Loving Pauline churches ...

reply to post by illece


Star and flagged!!!

Great post!!!!!

I feel that the Enki Enlil history is fascinating!! When I try to tell people about them they llok at me as if I'm crazy, more than likely because they are invisioning them to look like Hollywood aliens...

Then I say, no they look like us, rather we look like them, as quoted from Genesis; " Let US make mankind in OUR image, according to OUR likings"

reply to post by IDK88


That happened because of Peter's excessive self-confidence, whereby during the last supper Peter had told Jesus he would gladly go and die with him - Christ warning him there and then that he would deny him 3 times that very night. (Gospel of John 13:36-38) Then in the Garden of Gethsemane Peter fell asleep instead of praying for God's help in the face of the coming trial. (Gospel of Matthew 22:39-46) So yes, he denied Christ at that point.

But a few days later, following the resurrection, Christ clearly gave Peter a chance to return to him. Three times in a row - corresponding to the three denials - Christ asked Peter if he loved him. Three times Peter replied "Yes", and each time Christ commissioned him to lead his Church, saying "Tend my lambs... shepherd my sheep... and ...tend my sheep. (Gospel of John 21:15-19)

If you knew the Bible you would know that Christ constantly referred to the OT as speaking of him personally. (Eg. Gospel of Luke 24:44-47) And that he commissioned the apostles to proclaim his message throughout the world, promising them that his Spirit would bring to their memories all that he had taught them, and reveal other things to them as well. (Gospel of John 16:12-15) Christ could not have given the Bible a higher commendation. I follow him. I have no idea whom you follow.

You clearly wish to set an obscure interpretation of an obscure portion of an obscure (nonetheless interesting) book above Christ and above the entire Bible. That is blatantly anti-Christian.

You are free to follow such a path. But unfortunately you have to stretch the limits of credulity to claim the phrase you quote, referring to writing, is supposed to condemn the written record of the prophets, the apostles, and Christ himself.

I sense you have a vehement, anti-Biblical agenda.

reply to post by pause4thought


Yeah okay...so Peter is redeemed and I know nothing of the Bible. Anyone that thinks they can talk themselves out of what is clearly a condemnation of Religion...has no intention of giving up; you're not alone.

I suppose there is some big long scholarly excuse as to why the Romans left it out of their Bible.

reply to post by IDK88

I suppose there is some big long scholarly excuse as to why the Romans left it out of their Bible.

No, its entirely straight-forward. The Christian canon of the OT is the same as the Jewish canon. It contains the same books as the Jewish 'Bible' today.

The books written between that time and the appearance of Christ are of a different order altogether. Many of the books in the apocrypha openly proclaim that they are the fallible thoughts of fallible men. Biblical books, however, repeatedly claim they are 'the word of the Lord' himself.

Enoch was never even counted among the apocrypha. It is not even the work of a single author. Earlier you tried to lay such a criticism at the Bible itself:

Remember that the Bible is a Compilation, not a book in the sense that it has one author...

If leveled at the book of Enoch, such a criticism would unquestionably be fair. (As I say, I cannot accept it is a fair criticism of the Bible, though.) Enoch was written over the course of a couple of centuries by different people in different places. It has little internal coherence: though the first section can be seen to accord with a variety of biblical themes, later sections contain lengthy astronomical discourses, etc. - they bear little relation to the first section.

Clearly such a document would never be accepted as part of the Apocrypha, never mind the Bible, which is regarded by Christ and his followers as God's own Word.

The first part of Enoch is of interest to Christians, even if it has no place in what they term Scripture: writings inspired by God himself.