I recall hearing of a preacher at a campmeeting or some big deal referencing the book of enoch as authoratative on angels....not good.
Would you be willing to elaborate just a little more? If you were an early Christian making a vote to remove Enoch from canonization; what would your reasoning be?
I agree with Prax's caution, thus was the reason I said I wasn't sure. I just read through the book in question, and I thought some of it was interesting although I couldn't say that this was a legitimate work done by anyone we can give credit to. I also read the book of Enoch and I try to use caution with this book. I'd be interested to know why early elders decided that this was not to be canonized.
Just to make things messy... Tertullian's thoughts sort of sum up the most ancient of those "elders" who all seem to have accepted the authenticity of the Book of Enoch:
Quote:
Chapter III.—Concerning the Genuineness of “The Prophecy of Enoch.”
I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch,which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity.
Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.” See 2 Tim. iii. 16. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude. See Jude 14, 15.
Later Fathers such as Jerome questioned the canonicity of not only Enoch but also of the NT epistles that most obviously quoted it - Jude and 2 Peter. It all seems to have to do with the rather "fantastical" behavior of the angels that fell.
It is my opinion that this is an important intersection between the Judeo-Christian literature of antiquity and the writings of just about every other culture. Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.
Would you be willing to elaborate just a little more? If you were an early Christian making a vote to remove Enoch from canonization; what would your reasoning be?
"He's Prax and he doesn't need no Peter and Jude to be tellin' him what to think!!!"
Just to make things messy... Tertullian's thoughts sort of sum up the most ancient of those "elders" who all seem to have accepted the authenticity of the Book of Enoch:
Later Fathers such as Jerome questioned the canonicity of not only Enoch but also of the NT epistles that most obviously quoted it - Jude and 2 Peter. It all seems to have to do with the rather "fantastical" behavior of the angels that fell.
It is my opinion that this is an important intersection between the Judeo-Christian literature of antiquity and the writings of just about every other culture. Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.
Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.
If the daughters of men and the sons of God refer to women and angels what prevented such things from continuing down through history to the present day? I would think it would be a well known fact (if such a thing were to occur) to everyone in society that the product of fallen angels and women are giants and we should all conclude that every modern giant has such a beginning!
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
If the daughters of men and the sons of God refer to women and angels what prevented such things from continuing down through history to the present day? I would think it would be a well known fact (if such a thing were to occur) to everyone in society that the product of fallen angels and women are giants and we should all conclude that every modern giant has such a beginning!
LOL, I'm not mad at you! It's you're insinuation that angels and humans can reproduce that has my foot tapping and arms crossed with a frown on my face!!!
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
It wasn't an insinuation - just an acknowledgement that in antiquity this was a common view. The exact biology of such an event is beyond my science, but then again I think that's the point the ancients who held this view would want to make as well.
It wasn't an insinuation - just an acknowledgement that in antiquity this was a common view. The exact biology of such an event is beyond my science, but then again I think that's the point the ancients who held this view would want to make as well.
Then I would put that right up there with those ancients who thought the the sun and planets revolved around the earth.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
