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.

 

book of enoch

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Aside from all of the genital comparisons being made about people's personal knowledge of the Bible, I think that the answer to the question posed in the OP is quite simple.

To include the book is to show a darker side of early and/or pre-christian history that could possibly dissuade people from following in the footsteps of a man who was on the war-path against Rome.

This is the problem with Religion in general. Peace by the sword is a foolish notion. Always has been and always will be.




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


The subject matter of the Book of Enoch is directly attributed to a male descendant of Adam himself...the stature of this character could be considered second only to Jesus himself...if that were even necessary. In this book the foundation of the law is outlined and without it many other concepts in the Bible wouldn't be teachable.

The decision to leave it out was a political one; made to support the monopoly on spiritual authority the Priests estimated that they possessed.

These Priests knew then and know now that religion is the path to death and God informed Adam and Eve in Genesis to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is one and the same as religion and the knowledge communicated from the Rebels to the daughters of men.

A less confrontational suggestion I could make would be that the reason the Book of Enoch wasn't included as a separate book in the Bible is becuase the gist of it was already explained in the Genesis chapter "the fall of man", for the Book also seems to be nothing more than eloboration on this section of Genesis.

Buy I still think a better reason is that they wanted to keep and expand the power they had and that is why it was left out.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IDK88
 


How can the knowledge of good and evil (moral consciousness) be tantamount to disaster?

The only other option you present is a society of dog-eat-dog psychopaths.
In which case, the moral man will embrace his disobedience to this so called God.

As they say... Does not compute.

Knowledge of Good and Evil does not amount to religiousity...necessarily.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I think that the "Of Good and Evil" part is a romantic term lumped in after the fact.

God is telling people not to pursue KNOWLEDGE in general. For then, through time, they will learn to be like us.
One who can descend can also ascend.

They don't want us travelling through the cosmos like they can.

Someone up there must be mighty upset right now.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

It seems that the persons who compiled the Bible as it is now did in fact have an agenda,why did they use some writers and not others?

what i cannot understand is why they did not leave that particular verse in Jude out all together,there are other verses in the various books that the bible do us that would have worked just as well to put forward the thought they wanted to use.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by illece
 


Why leave it out? It is just a quote from another book.

The bible is full of them.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by illece
 


The book of Enoch goes into great detail of the nephalim (fallen angels) and even names many of them. When the council of Nicea weaved together paganism and early christianity, would not the "men of renown"(nephalim), perhaps be considered as the original Greco-Roman Pantheon, by the then existing populace.

In other words, this book would outright demonize the gods of the pagans of the time; whereas, the simple quote in Genesis 6 of the fallen ones is not so brazen.

Maybe part of it was a compromise.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by IDK88
 


Hello 1dk88.

Thanks for your replies to my thread....Are you a neutral observer?If so credit to you!Personally i find it difficult to be.......Talk about being tossed4d about by the waves of the sea,i honestly don't know what i do believe anymore.

Must admit though i do think that 1st Enoch was left out of tr5he Bible because some of the things were to difficult to explain the part about the fallen angels teaching things we would class as good,but they were in fact condemned for it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
@pauseforthought

I have read the Bible but I have to admit that I didn't exactly analyze it fully. It was a "just for curiosity's sake" thing. I also read the books of Enoch for the same purpose.

I have always thought that the Bible's primary purpose are the teachings/commands. The expounded version of the Ten Commandments were in the New Testament (e.g. TC indicates "Thou Shalt Not Kill" while the commands in the NT expands this in thought, etc.). When I read the second book of Enoch (Secrets), there were a lot of commands that was being written by Enoch which was commanded by God. They were somewhat similar to the New Testament teachings (mind/body/spirit). Another part that was being written was the 7 days creation.

My first thoughts when I stumbled to the comparison of the two was, the Book of Secrets is supposed to be Pre-Genesis to first few pages of Genesis. But why wasn't it included? What's worse was that the importance of God's "expanded" commandments was relegated to the latter part of the Bible.

Was the Book of Secrets made after the compilation of the Bible?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join