LOLOL - good lordy child. Enoch is pretty awesome anyways,...even if not alot is shared about him in the so called "canonized" (sanitized) version of the scriptures- the esoteric, occult schools around Enoch are very interesting, as well as the Keys of Enoch. - I dont think however that just because something is in the 'canon' (standard works) that that 'gaurantees' its authenticity, validity or usefulness. I'll play along with the 'pun' for the time being :surf:
Actually, the fact that it was so thoroughly and methodically erased from the planet, until the Ethiopian version was finally found somewhere in the 1800's, only goes to show how thoroughly their mother church tried to, and almost succeeded in, wiping the book of 1Enoch off of the face of the Earth. Then, when the Qumran fragments were found in the middle of the last century, it was like the icing on the cake; for we know that 1Enoch or a very similar version of it was highly popular and widely extant in the first century around the time of the advent of Messiah; it was already well known and in some circles even considered canonical. That means there really is no doubt that the finger points directly at their mother church and her dirty deeds once again. The question is why would the church want to eradicate it so desperately and thoroughly? It is because it thoroughly refutes their atonement theory, especially with the fact that Azazel is mentioned by Moses in Leviticus 16 several times without any sort of explanation as to why the name is there or what it is supposed mean, (because the information was already written in the book of 1Enoch as we now know from Qumran). With Jude quoting from it verbatim that adds even more weight to what I say; for Jude not only quotes from the book of 1Enoch found at Qumran, but if you read carefully enough what the Jude passage says, he actually attributes those very words to Enoch himself, meaning that Jude must have believed that work was actually originally written by Enoch himself, (then of course copied and passed down). That is a whole lot different from just quoting a source from a book; for he calls Enoch the author, by default, in the way that the Jude passage is worded, for he says, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied concerning these", and then gives the quote from 1Enoch. Being that most of 1Enoch has now been recovered from Qumran, at least a hundred years before the advent of Messiah, there is no way it was tampered with because of theological reasons pertaining to the Messiah or the advent of Christianity, for the Messiah had not yet come and the controversies pertaining to such issues had not yet arisen.
Additionally, how many other books in the modern canon have this kind of "a stamp of approval" from within the canonical books themselves? What the author of Jude says is about the highest kind of stamp of approval one can get for the question of whether or not another book might have been considered canonical by the New Testament Apostolic authors: it does not get much better than the Jude statement, and we know that we now have a source text, (or at least a large amount of fragments that almost make up the whole), from a hundred years before the advent of Messiah. The naysayers are flat out wrong. They simply do not like what it teaches because it refutes their own atonement theory, (just as that is Evil.Eye's precise reason for hating it). And they do the same thing with such ancient works as they do with people such as you and me: ridicule, mock, ostracize, excommunicate, anathematize, and make unfounded accusations of demonology, spirit of antichrist, and teachings of devils. The book of 1Enoch can actually teach one how to avoid falling into the traps of demons, devils, and their doctrines because their evil attributes are clearly portrayed, (even the canonical N/T scriptures do the same but not as thoroughly).
PS ~ And 1Enoch was indeed canonized by the Ethiopian church, which was why manuscripts of 1Enoch were found there; for the Ethiopian church refused to destroy them, and hid them away, for it was already canonized when the mother church in Rome began to solidify her dogmas.
Last edited:
