Noah's Great Grandfather and the Book of Watchers

[lovedbygod]

Enoch1 or Ethiopian Enoch was one of the most respected Prophetic books of the early Christian Church. It was one of the only non gospels to be quoted by nearly every Church Father.

The core of its content deals with Enoch's revelations. The more interesting part and likely the part which led to its denial deals with the fallen angels asking enoch to intercede with God on their behalf and his righteous accusations against the many evil kings of earth. The intercession was a great threat to the Church of Rome after Nicaea because it implies that many of the fallen angels were good people being persecuted by a premadonna God.


One Ethiopian Bishop who was pro enoch went as far to say that "his truths shame God himself." An anti enochian wrote "his words are a challenge we dare not meet.

Enoch's revelations, unlike Revelations, are more indictment than description, likely another factor which made the Church of Rome do everything in their power to discredit and even deny the Book's very existence.


Enoch 1:9 was particulary terrifying for it described a world where all who oppose righteous truth, even innocently but with godly conviction, will be judged wanting.

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

What one can say with surety was that the early Church, the true Church of Christ, knew that enoch was second only to Jesus. A later non Christian scholar mused, "God took enoch directly to heaven, for he feared that in death, enoch might choose redemption for the fallen, and the Kingdom itself would fall to such a righteous man."


Regardless, all scholars and many Christians agree on one thing. Enoch's denial and deletion makes Christianity's essence suspect, and that the loss of such wisdom had no positive effects on the Church, only negative ones.

Fear, after all, is the mind killer, and the Church of Rome, in its cowardice and complacency fear Enoch above all beings, moreso than God himself.


A wiki link whose links contain sources for all quotes and most statements made above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Enoch








Enjoy. I always do.

[cfmonkey45]

Enoch1 or Ethiopian Enoch was one of the most respected Prophetic books of the early Christian Church. It was one of the only non gospels to be quoted by nearly every Church Father.

The core of its content deals with Enoch's revelations. The more interesting part and likely the part which led to its denial deals with the fallen angels asking enoch to intercede with God on their behalf and his righteous accusations against the many evil kings of earth. The intercession was a great threat to the Church of Rome after Nicaea because it implies that many of the fallen angels were good people being persecuted by a premadonna God.


One Ethiopian Bishop who was pro enoch went as far to say that "his truths shame God himself." An anti enochian wrote "his words are a challenge we dare not meet.

Enoch's revelations, unlike Revelations, are more indictment than description, likely another factor which made the Church of Rome do everything in their power to discredit and even deny the Book's very existence.


Enoch 1:9 was particulary terrifying for it described a world where all who oppose righteous truth, even innocently but with godly conviction, will be judged wanting.




What one can say with surety was that the early Church, the true Church of Christ, knew that enoch was second only to Jesus. A later non Christian scholar mused, "God took enoch directly to heaven, for he feared that in death, enoch might choose redemption for the fallen, and the Kingdom itself would fall to such a righteous man."


Regardless, all scholars and many Christians agree on one thing. Enoch's denial and deletion makes Christianity's essence suspect, and that the loss of such wisdom had no positive effects on the Church, only negative ones.

Fear, after all, is the mind killer, and the Church of Rome, in its cowardice and complacency fear Enoch above all beings, moreso than God himself.


A wiki link whose links contain sources for all quotes and most statements made above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Enoch








Enjoy. I always do.

So, if God took Enoch to heaven, how, and why, did he write a book. I think that this book, like most contemporary Apochraphyna, were forgeries. They seem to have no relevence to the core principles of Christianity, and instead seem to assert a splinter group's own doctrines as truth, particularly by naming it after an obscure person in the Old Testament.

[maculous]

So, if God took Enoch to heaven, how, and why, did he write a book. I think that this book, like most contemporary Apochraphyna, were forgeries. They seem to have no relevence to the core principles of Christianity, and instead seem to assert a splinter group's own doctrines as truth, particularly by naming it after an obscure person in the Old Testament.

I agree, though whether or not there was ever an enoch in pre Jesus times is impossible to know. Enoch was hugely popular in the early church, especially in North Africa. There is also Enoch2 or slavic enoch and I think even some german or greek or other Enoch3 as well.

I disagree about it's revelance. It has far more revelance to the early Church than Matthew or Paul or Romans, the first two also dubiously assigned to men who surely did not write them. What is interesting is how thoroughly the Church attacked books like Enoch and James and Judas which painted more human and jewish portriats of Jesus, or, as with enoch, decried the evilness of temporal power.

Good OP though I feel I miss of some its point. No matter. Everyone should read Enoch2 or the secrets of enoch. It is very cool.

[cfmonkey45]

I agree, though whether or not there was ever an enoch in pre Jesus times is impossible to know. Enoch was hugely popular in the early church, especially in North Africa. There is also Enoch2 or slavic enoch and I think even some german or greek or other Enoch3 as well.

I disagree about it's revelance. It has far more revelance to the early Church than Matthew or Paul or Romans, the first two also dubiously assigned to men who surely did not write them. What is interesting is how thoroughly the Church attacked books like Enoch and James and Judas which painted more human and jewish portriats of Jesus, or, as with enoch, decried the evilness of temporal power.

Good OP though.

The interesting thing about this document was that, if you had read the Wiki article, you would be intrigued to find that "since the term "Son of Man" is a Semitic phrase, and since the Book of Daniel also refers to a Son of Man in a context of judgment, most specialists now maintain that the work is a Second Temple Jewish document, likely composed as early as the late 1st century BC or the very beginning of the 1st century AD."

Therefore, it was, in all likelihood, not written by the early Church fathers. In fact, I believe that it is my opinion that it would have been a document that was made specifically about another person, aside from Jesus (there were a few other contenders at that time for the title of Messiah, one, Bar Kofka (sp.?), which means "Son of the Star" in Hebrew, who was supported by the Saudicees). This book, rather than asserting the messiah was the "Son of God", instead insinuated that Jesus (or Yeshua, a particularly common name in that time), was the true messiah. This, however, was originally rejected the Jewish High Priests.

Nevertheless, it is true that many early Church Fathers, especially in North Africa, supported this book. However, you must also look at their beliefs, these Christians, later in history, converted to what we now call Arianism, which held that since Jesus was created by God, he was inferior, something that the Book of Enoch would support.

[maculous]

The interesting thing about this document was that, if you had read the Wiki article, you would be intrigued to find that "since the term "Son of Man" is a Semitic phrase, and since the Book of Daniel also refers to a Son of Man in a context of judgment, most specialists now maintain that the work is a Second Temple Jewish document, likely composed as early as the late 1st century BC or the very beginning of the 1st century AD."

Therefore, it was, in all likelihood, not written by the early Church fathers.

That is well known. It was QUOTED by almost every Church father, IE respected and believed as essential.

In fact, I believe that it is my opinion that it would have been a document that was made specifically about another person, aside from Jesus (there were a few other contenders at that time for the title of Messiah, one, Bar Kofka (sp.?), which means "Son of the Star" in Hebrew, who was supported by the Saudicees). This book, rather than asserting the messiah was the "Son of God", instead insinuated that Jesus (or Yeshua, a particularly common name in that time), was the true messiah. This, however, was originally rejected the Jewish High Priests.

You are confused. Enoch is viewed through the context of Pre Christian Judaism, and I assume, as you seem knowledgable, that 1st century AD would put it closer to Jesus than most of the New Testament gospels.

Nevertheless, it is true that many early Church Fathers, especially in North Africa, supported this book. However, you must also look at their beliefs, these Christians, later in history, converted to what we now call Arianism, which held that since Jesus was created by God, he was inferior, something that the Book of Enoch would support.

Actually, Arianism is the belief that Jesus was human, something supported by history and common sense, not that he was inferior, although humanity as a reflection could be argued to be inferior to God, though God himself in Christian myths favors humans over angels. You also belittle enoch. Enoch was respected by the Greeks. In fact, aside from the temporally minded Roman nobility, enoch was respected by the early Church universally.


And to be brutally honest, they did not convert to Arianism, others converted to Trinitarianism. Arianism, Jesus as a Son of Man Jewish line Messiah, is the older belief.