The book of enoch

Forums: Religion, Religious
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Oppps... the churches conviently left out the book of enoch from the bible..I have brought this book up to many christians and they tell me that it is not part of the bible because it was not inspired by God..hmmm how do you know when a book is inspired by God and not..I guess if it doesn't have any trash about God in it, it was inspired by God..

Enoch was the great grandfather of Noah.

Intersting read...what do you think?

The Book of Enoch

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,746 • Replies: 56

No top replies

@STNGfan,

The Canon of the Bible is a fascinating subject

The oldest copy of any portion of the Bible is the Gospel of Mark dated to 125 CE (almost 100 years after the crucifixion), it was likewise 50 years after Israel's losing war with Rome.

That copy (the oldest gospel in existence) ends at chapter 18, making no mention of a resurrection. Later Gospels are found in their origin from 150-170 CE with the canonization occurring somewhere around 200 CE.

Given those dates it is mathematical impossibility that they were actually written by the men they were named after. In fact if you look closely at the writers of that period they make no mention of it. Even early Christian writings don't refer to the Gospels until 150 CE.

There is one account of a historian who claims around 150 CE that the Gospels were in fact written by the men they are named after but it's actually a Roman Priest in 350CE writing about how this man 200 years earlier made this claim.

No independent evidence supporting the Catholic Priests claims has ever surfaced. And while there is no evidence to lay claim that he fabricated this we all know the Roman Catholic Church wasn't above fabrication to support it's agenda.

All your non-canon gospels were written between 150CE and 250CE, but they were left out as most of them didn't favor the Pistic Christianity that Rome wanted to install...

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

also

The Apocrypha existed in Bible's until roughly 1880 CE (so much for not changing God's word). Its 18 books were written and added around 500BCE and were very much Canon when they were included, even if they were slightly supplemental.

The majority of Protestants will tell you these books are"Catholic", but this is just miseducation. A Catholic Priest during the original translation of the Geek source materials to the "Latin Vulgar" Bible was the first to question the validity of these texts by making a footnote saying "I'm not sure if these are inspired or historical", as it stands I believe the Catholic Church has retained 2 of the 18 books while Protestants have disregarded them en masse

but what do I know? according to people on this site I know nothing about Christanity lol

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

Those are some very interesting facts. It seems that omitting texts isn't technically changing the word of God...just making it bias...hehe Wink

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

I actually do allot of reading on the subject, it's amazing how much about Christianity Christians aren't aware of

but then again what is blind faith if not blind?

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

Well they simple aren't exposed to it. I only fell upon the book on the internet researching the concept of Aliens visiting the earth and the book of enoch came up.
The leaders of the churches are very good at covering these old texts up from their followers and the followers normally do not do any thinking or researching on their own so they are easily mislead.
and many of them are so gullible. I mean they honestly accept the notion that these texted where not inspired by God so they are not valid just because a religion leader says so.
No facts or prove to back it up...just well he must be true he is a christian and there fore he/she must be right and good.

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

My favorite Gospels that were left out, The gospel according to Thomas (Judas) and the Gospel according to Mary (Magdeline)

If the bible was supposed to be ALSO a historical accounting, would it not be a GOOD Thing to include the writings of people who were there?

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

ackk.. magdeline was a prostitute and woman she automatically gets dumped because of it.. ROFLMAO
as for Thomas or Judas is he the one who turned Jesus into the Jews? I am sure the church discredited his writings because of it.

I am sure their stories did not match what the church wanted to tell the followers so they were hacked out.

Standards you know LOL

1 Reply

@STNGfan,

No Thomas is A differnt Judas there was Judas Thomas, and Judas Iscariet (thomas was the middle name, I do not remmber his first)

Magdeline was not a prostitute untill the church began describing her.

(No I did NOT come to this belief from the Da Vinci Code)

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

STNGfan;20855 wrote:

ackk.. magdeline was a prostitute and woman she automatically gets dumped because of it.. ROFLMAO

Actually modern scholars now think that Mary the Prostitute was separate from Mary Magdeline who was a respected women on Greek origin

Your observation would have been correct 20 years ago, archeology is a bitch like that

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

wow the lack of participation in this thread shocks me

it's amazing how little there is to debate when you introduce the 400lb gorilla of historical fact

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

How has this thread not been eviserated by our local zealots yet?

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

Go figure!

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you people care so much about what Christians chose to believe. Is there some reason you care so much about Christianity? The Apocrypha (which is not even a term used by the Church) as you call it, is there for everyone to see, it is deuterocanonical and still has value. The book of Enoch and others are not included because of questionable authorship.

3 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;20915 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you people care so much about what Christians chose to believe. Is there some reason you care so much about Christianity? The Apocrypha (which is not even a term used by the Church) as you call it, is there for everyone to see, it is deuterocanonical and still has value. The book of Enoch and others are not included because of questionable authorship.

Everyone does this

Christians care about Evolution and they don't believe it

questionable authorship?

The first Gospel of Mark in existence is dated to 125CE, isn't that reason enough to question it?

what about Acts 3?

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;20915 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you people care so much about what Christians chose to believe. Is there some reason you care so much about Christianity? The Apocrypha (which is not even a term used by the Church) as you call it, is there for everyone to see, it is deuterocanonical and still has value. The book of Enoch and others are not included because of questionable authorship.

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you people care so much about what Christians chose to believe.

They are praticing there tolerence and openmindedness, LOL.

Quote:

Is there some reason you care so much about Christianity?

We care because we have faith, they care because we have so much faith, or they have so little?

0 Replies

@STNGfan,

no what we have a problem with is some Christians arrogents and pompous attitude that the bible is infailable and that bible texts is the absolute truth.

If you believe that that is fine but when you try to tell others how to believe that is when we discredit the book and why we bring it up that it is full of fallacies and loopholes.

We are not jealous because you have faith. We question why you follow something so blindly. LOL..

0 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;20915 wrote:

I'm not entirely sure I understand why you people care so much about what Christians chose to believe. Is there some reason you care so much about Christianity? The Apocrypha (which is not even a term used by the Church) as you call it, is there for everyone to see, it is deuterocanonical and still has value. The book of Enoch and others are not included because of questionable authorship.

Blatant mind numbing ignorance must be poked and prodded.

Some of us actually WANT to understand how blind faith is okay in this but NOTHING else.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;20924 wrote:

Everyone does this

Christians care about Evolution and they don't believe it

questionable authorship?

The first Gospel of Mark in existence is dated to 125CE, isn't that reason enough to question it?

what about Acts 3?

We don't presume to tell Darwinists what Darwinists should believe, just to give inteligent design a chance (I believe in evolution, to a degree, for the record.) The point is that at the Council of Rome, a council of theologians decided on what they wanted to include in the Bible based on coherence and what they believed were the valid authors.

2 Replies

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;21286 wrote:

We don't presume to tell Darwinists what Darwinists should believe, just to give inteligent design a chance (I believe in evolution, to a degree, for the record.) The point is that at the Council of Rome, a council of theologians decided on what they wanted to include in the Bible based on coherence and what they believed were the valid authors.

I've heard this before about intelligent design (which I subscribe to), but also (and more often) toward Christianity. The idea that Agnostics somehow haven't done their homework is, at least for me, extremely offensive.

0 Replies

The book of enoch

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know