The book of Enoch

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Sam

Jude quotes a prophecy of Enoch in verse 14. That does not mean he is quoting from a book named "Enoch." It could have been common knowledge among the people of Jude's day that Enoch had prophesied that years ago.

An example of something like that would be Acts 20:25. Here Paul quotes Jesus as having said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Where is that found in the Gospels? It's not. It was probably common knowledge among the people back then that Jesus had said that but it was not quoted by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Good point, Sam.

(That should be Acts 20:35, by the way.)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Enoch is quoted by New Testament writers so it was inspired for sure. The problem is we cannot be certain the Book Of Enoch we have today is not altered from its original state. If what we have today is true Oneness doctrine is false.

When we see a verse in a so-called lost or excluded book that contains statements that are in the bible, this does not validate the book. Someone can easily take a statement quoted in the bible from someone whose book does not exist today, and repeat that quotation and surround it with gobbledegook, and claim the whole book was found by you and is written by the original writer whom the bible quoted from.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I feel like if God wanted it to be part of the bible, it would be there.

It might have some good stuff in it, but I dont really spend a lot of time thinking about extra-biblical books like Enoch. As it stands, I have my hands full with the 66 books that are in the bible we have now.

Amen. One man called this the LOGIC OF FAITH. We believe God would have ensured it be included in the bible if it was genuine, or else it may not have been meant for all the church.

[Aquila]

God keeps some things secret for the diligent to discover.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God keeps some things secret for the diligent to discover.

I doubt the book of Enoch is one of them.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I doubt the book of Enoch is one of them.

Amen.

I think people who go through these so-called "lost books of the bible" looking for some kind of "hidden wisdom" are setting themselves up to be deceived.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Amen. One man called this the LOGIC OF FAITH. We believe God would have ensured it be included in the bible if it was genuine, or else it may not have been meant for all the church.

Blume, the only problem with this logic is we know that some of the books we have today in the New Testament have been tampered with. Jewish scholars reject the virgin birth due to the fact some scriptures do not appear in earlier versions.

We also know that the original book of Enoch was widely read and circulated among early Christians.

I know we want to think that "God" has preserved His word, but God has man to contend with...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Blume, the only problem with this logic is we know that some of the books we have today in the New Testament have been tampered with. Jewish scholars reject the virgin birth due to the fact some scriptures do not appear in earlier versions.

We also know that the original book of Enoch was widely read and circulated among early Christians.

I know we want to think that "God" has preserved His word, but God has man to contend with...

There was an original book of Enoch. But the one we know about today was not it. I never said a book did not exist. But I did say that although it existed, I fully believe it is not in our bibles because God did not need it to be there. Although God has man to contend with, I think God would superced that with His abilityt o preserve what He willed to be repserved despite that. Is He not able to do that?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When we see a verse in a so-called lost or excluded book that contains statements that are in the bible, this does not validate the book. Someone can easily take a statement quoted in the bible from someone whose book does not exist today, and repeat that quotation and surround it with gobbledegook, and claim the whole book was found by you and is written by the original writer whom the bible quoted from.

That's an excellent point Mike, one made frequently in this discussion. Yet we don't find any evidence of such a book or sources. I've often wondered if there couldn't be some sort of OT variety of the NT's "Q" that might account for these citations. But such a source should have left a mark in numerous works the way "Q" appears to have done.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Good point, Sam.

(That should be Acts 20:35, by the way.)

Thank you.