in Jude 14-15 Jude quote from Apocryphal book, Enoch to support his argument. Why then is the Book of Enoch not included in the Biblical canon?

But if Jude is a canonical letter and inspired by God, how he can quotes a Book that is not considered inspired by God by the christians today?

More of this books were not canonized by the church but were quote by bible writers as word of God.

Are what christians regard to as word of God determined by some high profile men in the church or by God himself?

If these books were removed because it contradict christian doctrines or does not smoothen doctrines, could this mean christianity is a scam?

SMH. nothing will happen in this world if God doesnt want it to. OK? And i know you as an atheist, but your constant attack of the bible and not the TERRORIST BOOK should tell you that it is true...
peace

mcfynest: SMH. nothing will happen in this world if God doesnt want it to. OK? And i know you as an atheist, but your constant attack of the bible and not the TERRORIST BOOK should tell you that it is true...
peace

Still you dont answer the question im begging answer for.

Stop putting your faith in biggest shame. Here is from your bible.....

1 Peter 3:15
King James Version (KJV)

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

^^^^ check out the pieces in bold.

For your info, im not attacking bible....I post a thread showing my support for christianity once. You are the hypocrite attacking muslims by calling their sacred book terrorist book.

Mind providing answer to my question?

Where are the christians when they are needed?

@OP, Who wrote the book of enoch?

superior1: @OP, Who wrote the book of enoch?

Is the author what you want? God inspires his book. Game over

Jude quote it in his letter. So why did Christians ignore this as not inspired? Answer my question

FOLYKAZE:

Is the author what you want? God inspires his book. Game over

Jude quote it in his letter. So why did Christians ignore this as not inspired? Answer my question

If you know the author, you will know why it wasn't accepted and why do you think it was Jude who quoted him and not the other way around?

superior1:

If you know the author, you will know why it wasn't accepted and why do you think it was Jude who quoted him and not the other way around?

Whats the meaning of this running around? The author was agreed by christians to be Enoch and his inspiration was from God.... Also do you mean the letter of Jude was not written by Jude?

You showing us everything in christianity is hoax

FOLYKAZE:

Whats the meaning of this running around? The author was agreed by christians to be Enoch and his inspiration was from God.... Also do you mean the letter of Jude was not written by Jude?

You showing us everything in christianity is hoax

The bold is not true, the author isn't Enoch. The book of Enoch is a fraud. I clarify this later

superior1:

The bold is not true, the author isn't Enoch. The book of Enoch is a fraud. I clarify this later

You went to dig your lies from another source? I will wait till you come back though.

Jude quoted from book of Enoch. Maybe you produce the author of book of Enoch or not, jude quote directly from it.


Jude 1:14-15
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.""


Enoch 1:9:
"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."

Read english translation of the book of enoch from http://m.ccel.org/ccel/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM .


The question remains, if the letter of jude is canonized as word of God.......and jude quote from book of enoch as word of God to back his arguement, Why do christians disregard the book of enoch. Why is it not included in the bible as word of God?

mcfynest: SMH. nothing will happen in this world if God doesnt want it to. OK? And i know you as an atheist, but your constant attack of the bible and not the TERRORIST BOOK should tell you that it is true...
peace

You speak from both sides of the mouth. Your post also means that God wants your so called 'Terrorist Book' OK?

Richfella:

You speak from both sides of the mouth. Your post also means that God also wants your so called 'Terrorist Book' OK?

I promise he wont come back.....that make them christian....

@ op
Post the quotation from the two books

The fact is that all the books of the bible are scriptures but not all scriptures are in the bible.I think the vook of Enoch was not canonised because it was not in the septuagint.The septuagint was the major basis for the canonisation of the OT scriptures by the catholic church of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Besides Enoch ,we also have scriptures like jubilees and some other writings mentioned in the bookks of Kings and chronicles but did not make it to the bible.Even the assumption of moses was also quoted in the Letter of Jude.

The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC (wikipedia)

@OP, some parts of the book was written in 300 BC and others as late as 1BC, meaning after Jesus must have been given birth to. Now Enoch lived before Noah which predates Abraham, Moses etc. That will probably 2000 BC. Isreal's Captivity in the time of Daniel was around 700 BC, so how can Enoch be alive to write the book of Enoch in 1BC?

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons,(wikipedia)

Part of the book is written in Latin and Greek, even we can't prove Enoch neither spoke Geez and Aramaic, a little sense will tell anybody he never spoke greek nor latin.

Now, let me give you 2 scenarios

1. If we have an adage we use in my mother tongue which has been use for a long time, if 2 separate authors quote the adage in their book, it never mean one copied another, it may mean both are aware of that adage

2. If an author A quoted author B in his writing but author A's book was talking about a more ancient history compared to that of author B, it doesn't mean author B copied A.

Finally, the book of Enoch wasn't accepted among the majority of Isreal, whereas there was consensus about others canonised, the odds are Jude won't quote from such book. Most Biblical scholars believe the scenario 1 is what took place but there was no doubt the author wasn't Enoch.

Book of Enoch is nothing but a fraud.

superior1: The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC (wikipedia)

@OP, some parts of the book was written in 300 BC and others as late as 1BC, meaning after Jesus must have been given birth to. Now Enoch lived before Noah which predates Abraham, Moses etc. That will probably 2000 BC. Isreal's Captivity in the time of Daniel was around 700 BC, so how can Enoch be alive to write the book of Enoch in 1BC?

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons,(wikipedia)

Part of the book is written in Latin and Greek, even we can't prove Enoch neither spoke Geez and Aramaic, a little sense will tell anybody he never spoke greek nor latin.

Now, let me give you 2 scenarios

1. If we have an adage we use in my mother tongue which has been use for a long time, if 2 separate authors quote the adage in their book, it never mean one copied another, it may mean both are aware of that adage

2. If an author A quoted author B in his writing but author A's book was talking about a more ancient history compared to that of author B, it doesn't mean author B copied A.

Finally, the book of Enoch wasn't accepted among the majority of Isreal, whereas there was consensus about others canonised, the odds are Jude won't quote from such book. Most Biblical scholars believe the scenario 1 is what took place but there was no doubt the author wasn't Enoch.

Book of Enoch is nothing but a fraud.

So many books of the bible were written long after the events had occurred.The first five books of the bible traditionally ascribed to moses contained events that occured thousands of years before moses was born.

The books of Joshua and samuel reffered us to read further on their events on the lost book of Jashar.Tis implies that the lost book of jashar was written before the book of Joshua.And if the book of Jashar contained events that occured during the time of samuel,it further goes to show that the book of Joshua was not written by Joshua.

The fact is so many books of the bible might not have been written by their acclaimed authours but that does not vitiate the fact that there are still scriptures.

Joagbaje:

@ op
Post the quotation from the two books

Do you follow the thread at all? I posted the quotation from the two books to superior1. Read it there

chukwudi44: The fact is that all the books of the bible are scriptures but not all scriptures are in the bible.I think the vook of Enoch was not canonised because it was not in the septuagint.The septuagint was the major basis for the canonisation of the OT scriptures by the catholic church of the fourth and fifth centuries.

Besides Enoch ,we also have scriptures like jubilees and some other writings mentioned in the bookks of Kings and chronicles but did not make it to the bible.Even the assumption of moses was also quoted in the Letter of Jude.

You still not answering my question... Why was it removed? Every writing document were scriptures until it canon by the catholic. If they weren't scripture, they wouldn't have been quote by other bible writers. The Coptics have the Book of Enoch in their Holy Bible. Also, translated versions from earliest time didn't start with sepuagint....we had the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targums.

Why are these books included in Coptic bible and not in your own bible? Is it the catholic who determine fate and your faith?

superior1: The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC (wikipedia)

@OP, some parts of the book was written in 300 BC and others as late as 1BC, meaning after Jesus must have been given birth to. Now Enoch lived before Noah which predates Abraham, Moses etc. That will probably 2000 BC. Isreal's Captivity in the time of Daniel was around 700 BC, so how can Enoch be alive to write the book of Enoch in 1BC?

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons,(wikipedia)

Part of the book is written in Latin and Greek, even we can't prove Enoch neither spoke Geez and Aramaic, a little sense will tell anybody he never spoke greek nor latin.

Now, let me give you 2 scenarios

1. If we have an adage we use in my mother tongue which has been use for a long time, if 2 separate authors quote the adage in their book, it never mean one copied another, it may mean both are aware of that adage

2. If an author A quoted author B in his writing but author A's book was talking about a more ancient history compared to that of author B, it doesn't mean author B copied A.

Finally, the book of Enoch wasn't accepted among the majority of Isreal, whereas there was consensus about others canonised, the odds are Jude won't quote from such book. Most Biblical scholars believe the scenario 1 is what took place but there was no doubt the author wasn't Enoch.

Book of Enoch is nothing but a fraud.

The bold part is really showing the whole bible is a hoax. Jude was not the only person that quote from this book....jesus does too. If jude can specifically quote from this book, could this mean letter of jude was written later in the 2nd century BC?

the text of the Book of Enoch was considered lost until the beginning of the 17th century, when it was confidently asserted that the book was found in an Ethiopic (Ge'ez) language translation there, and Nicolas- Claude Fabri de Peiresc bought a book that was claimed to be identical to the one quoted by the Epistle of Jude and the Church Fathers.(wikipedia). The book of enoch was not primarily written in Ge'ez but the one found in Ethiopia was a translation. It was from this pieces found latin fragment was made. non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that the book of Enoch was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew; E. Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew. (wikipedia).


YOUR TWO ANALYSIS IS WRONG.

In the letter of Jude...it is boldly written the was he was saying was documented in a book and he brought his statement to it. There is difference between making same claim from same origin and making a claim referencing your source directly. The latter indicates you coping from your source directly. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these. Here it is very clear that what he was writting is directly from Enoch......the book of Enoch contain the exact message jude was trying to convey which implies Jude quote him. This is direct and intact.

Second analysis is completely wrong. How does quoting an author with reference pointing you quoting from an author implies you not copying your work from another source?

You cant conclude a book is fraud without showing how it fraud. The content of the book were quoted by Jesus and quote referenced to letter of Jude. The Coptic and Ethiopian Christians have this documents or book in their own bible. So why does the catholic makes your own faith different?

If the book is fraud...jude wont quote directly from it or it makes Jesus related teaching, hebrew judaism and jude writings included in the book of enoch makes it all fraud. Meaning the whole bible is fraud

chukwudi44:

So many books of the bible were written long after the events had occurred.The first five books of the bible traditionally ascribed to moses contained events that occured thousands of years before moses was born.

The books of Joshua and samuel reffered us to read further on their events on the lost book of Jashar.Tis implies that the lost book of jashar was written before the book of Joshua.And if the book of Jashar contained events that occured during the time of samuel,it further goes to show that the book of Joshua was not written by Joshua.

The fact is so many books of the bible might not have been written by their acclaimed authours but that does not vitiate the fact that there are still scriptures.

You have started again !

You will water down the bible to project your tradition.

What if we just take every thing contain in the bible as a lie ?

there where many books written those days and all can not definitely enter into d bible. though i dont know d criteria for choosing d books butvi think chukwudi got it correctly when he said that d book of enoch was not in the septuagint so d catholic church canonized only the septuagint and then added d new testament books.
NB: that a book is not in the bible does not mean its not good or even inspired so just like every author, st.jude quoted d part he thought and was convinced to be true and that does not mean that everything said by the book of enoch was true. so the book of jude was inspired even if he quoted enoch. enoch may be inspired but its inpiration may not be for d edification of all. like i said b4, i dont know d criteria for chosing d books but dat what might have happened

I think Chukwudi hit the nail on the head. There are extrabiblical texts that can also be considered scripture. This will be hard for the bible worshippers who take the bible as a kind of Constitution of Christianity.

And Jesus said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old."

truthislight:

You have started again !

You will water down the bible to project your tradition.

What if we just take every thing contain in the bible as a lie ?

Im seeing things.....we knew this before....just hard for christians to agree on this.

The book was believed to be written by Enoch, the father of Methuselah....I have d book and have read it from d beginning 2 d end.It is awesome and shed light on some things in d bible(during d days of jared to d times of d flood). I mean wat led 2 it. To b precise, wat Jude quoted is Enoch 1:9;dat shld b,if I still remember. It is among d opening chapter of d book when he said his eyes was opened to see d holy one(Ancient of days) in d heavens.It is interesting though and mysterious.I believe u can't come into dat book ordinarily without d eyes of ur understanding being enlightened.....coz u will just with religious&doctrinal mind dat us not renewed termed it as “No way".It took me a while 2 comprehend some things in there coz it sometimes speak of High spiritual terms u have 2 decipher not with letters but by d Spirit of revelation.
For d issue of not being canonized: decision made by a group then in a meeting.....why? Coz they don't accept d claim made in d situation of “sons of God“ laid with d “daughters of men" saga as said in Genesis. They believed dat Genesis is not trying 2 say they are spirits/angels...dat they are human too.....but B.O.E states with all clarity dat they are spirits who fell.....these ones are not in satan's league since they commited their abomination after Lucifer's fall.Due to dis atrocities they were imprisoned by Angel Gabriel I think coz d cries of d sons of.men reached d ears of God.
To cut it short: it wasn't canonized due 2 doctrines and its authenticity was doubted......Same goes 4 d Book of Jasher....it is good 4 widening ur.Knowledge and seeing tinz frm different angles.....coz God revealed everything to Enoch frm d end back 2 d beginning and knew about d flood b4 Noah was born....and Enoch was said to beam d countenance of God b4 he was taken.Shalom!

lacum: there where many books written those days and all can not definitely enter into d bible. though i dont know d criteria for choosing d books butvi think chukwudi got it correctly when he said that d book of enoch was not in the septuagint so d catholic church canonized only the septuagint and then added d new testament books.
NB: that a book is not in the bible does not mean its not good or even inspired so just like every author, st.jude quoted d part he thought and was convinced to be true and that does not mean that everything said by the book of enoch was true. so the book of jude was inspired even if he quoted enoch. enoch may be inspired but its inpiration may not be for d edification of all. like i said b4, i dont know d criteria for chosing d books but dat what might have happened

You got some points but I wont fully agree with you.

The oldest fragment book of Enoch was written in Aramaic Targums and some part in Hebrew......this was the outline book of Daniel contained. Both were translated from Aramaic to septuagint. Aramaic came to be used as the common language of many of the jews living in the territory of Persia, and so it was necessary to accompany readings of the Hebrew Scriptures with the translations into the language. So it should be believe that the book was translated from Hebrew to Aramaic. The Greek septuagint was the most of the early versions of the Hebrew Scriptures......Jesus teaching found in the book of Enoch and Jude quoting from it is an evidence that the book existed during their days. The book could not have been translated to septuagint and this could be the reason why it considered lost until it found the Ethiopian Ge'ez was found.

My point is im not disputing everything in it flows along with christian doctrine today. Even evidence is pointing that most of the book contradictes christian doctrine today. This could be the reason this book was rejected and not included in the bible today. Most of, the bible contradict itself so removing a complete book and quoting some lines that drive doctrine should be highly questioned. So therefore, Enoch wrote from Inspiration if Timothy 3:16 was right. The whole books removed should be brought together so that people grasp full knowledge about their doctrine. Half or part knowledge of a doctrine cant be accepted to say christians today are truely in the true path.........christianity is a church cake not until the full documentation and theological writers are known

Lots of hot air over something which is not a problem for a Christian theologically or otherwise.

And to give the lie to Roman Catholic and others' falsehoods about the canon of the Bible, the Ethiopian Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Bible and canon. So can one then, strictly, say that the Book of Enoch is not part of "the Bible" or is not part of "the Biblical Canon"!

In any event, the passages from the book of Enoch are themselves taken from Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the traditional Old Testament.

There are other matters about the book but increasingly it is not really worthwhile discussing these things in an atmosphere of such ignorance, lack of wisdom and pandering to people with an agenda.

truthislight:

You have started again !

You will water down the bible to project your tradition.

What if we just take every thing contain in the bible as a lie ?

Olodo how did I try to water down the bible? Why don't you attack the points I raised on my post? Is anything I wrote there which is not true?

FOLYKAZE:

You still not answering my question... Why was it removed? Every writing document were scriptures until it canon by the catholic. If they weren't scripture, they wouldn't have been quote by other bible writers. The Coptics have the Book of Enoch in their Holy Bible. Also, translated versions from earliest time didn't start with sepuagint....we had the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Aramaic Targums.

Why are these books included in Coptic bible and not in your own bible? Is it the catholic who determine fate and your faith?

The book of Enoch was never in the bible hence the question of anyone removing it from the bible should not even arise.The other point you raised that every piece of writing was considered scripture before the catholic church canonised the bible.That is very far from the truth.There were various arguments among the church fathers considering the canonicity of scriptural writings before the bible was compiled.It was the need to avert the risk of adulteration of the scripture that led to the compilation of the bible by the catholic church in the late fourth and fifth century.

The coptic church alongside other oriental orthodox churches broke away from the catholic church @ the council of chalcedon in 451 CE

After they left the catholic church,they went ahead to add more books to the bible that was canonised by the catholic church @ the synod of hippo 393CE,councils of carthage 397CE,419CE

The Roman Catholic Church did not canonise anything at the African Synods of Hippo and Carthage.

Even before the Synod of Hippo, Athanasius of Alexandria who was not a Roman Catholic had in AD 367 identified the canon "handed down".

The Roman Catholic Church did not finalise its own canon until as late as the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

FOLYKAZE:

You got some points but I wont fully agree with you.

The oldest fragment book of Enoch was written in Aramaic Targums and some part in Hebrew......this was the outline book of Daniel contained. Both were translated from Aramaic to septuagint. Aramaic came to be used as the common language of many of the jews living in the territory of Persia, and so it was necessary to accompany readings of the Hebrew Scriptures with the translations into the language. So it should be believe that the book was translated from Hebrew to Aramaic. The Greek septuagint was the most of the early versions of the Hebrew Scriptures......Jesus teaching found in the book of Enoch and Jude quoting from it is an evidence that the book existed during their days. The book could not have been translated to septuagint and this could be the reason why it considered lost until it found the Ethiopian Ge'ez was found.

My point is im not disputing everything in it flows along with christian doctrine today. Even evidence is pointing that most of the book contradictes christian doctrine today. This could be the reason this book was rejected and not included in the bible today. Most of, the bible contradict itself so removing a complete book and quoting some lines that drive doctrine should be highly questioned. So therefore, Enoch wrote from Inspiration if Timothy 3:16 was right. The whole books removed should be brought together so that people grasp full knowledge about their doctrine. Half or part knowledge of a doctrine cant be accepted to say christians today are truely in the true path.........christianity is a church cake not until the full documentation and theological writers are known

FOLYKAZE:

You got some points but I wont fully agree with you.

The oldest fragment book of Enoch was written in Aramaic Targums and some part in Hebrew......this was the outline book of Daniel contained. Both were translated from Aramaic to septuagint. Aramaic came to be used as the common language of many of the jews living in the territory of Persia, and so it was necessary to accompany readings of the Hebrew Scriptures with the translations into the language. So it should be believe that the book was translated from Hebrew to Aramaic. The Greek septuagint was the most of the early versions of the Hebrew Scriptures......Jesus teaching found in the book of Enoch and Jude quoting from it is an evidence that the book existed during their days. The book could not have been translated to septuagint and this could be the reason why it considered lost until it found the Ethiopian Ge'ez was found.

My point is im not disputing everything in it flows along with christian doctrine today. Even evidence is pointing that most of the book contradictes christian doctrine today. This could be the reason this book was rejected and not included in the bible today. Most of, the bible contradict itself so removing a complete book and quoting some lines that drive doctrine should be highly questioned. So therefore, Enoch wrote from Inspiration if Timothy 3:16 was right. The whole books removed should be brought together so that people grasp full knowledge about their doctrine. Half or part knowledge of a doctrine cant be accepted to say christians today are truely in the true path.........christianity is a church cake not until the full documentation and theological writers are kn

own

The book of Enoch was already in existence as @ the time of the compilation of the septuagint but yet it was not included for reasons best known to then jewish authourities.

The septuagint later xcame to serve as the christian OT and was quoted by the NT writers in about 70% of OT quotations in the NT.

By the end of the first century ce the jewish authourities sensing that the xtians had began using their scriptures decided to create their canon to further delineate them from the new religion.That was what led to the convocation of the jewish council of Jamnia in 100CE whereas the 39 books of the today's protestant OT were chosen.

The catholic church after rigorous arguments by the church fathers in the first four centuries of the xtinaity created the xtian canon @ the synod of hippo in 393CE.This was later ratified by the local council of carthage in 397 and 419

The Roman Catholic Church did not canonise anything at the African regional Synods/Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Even before the Synod of Hippo, Athanasius of Alexandria who was not a Roman Catholic had in AD 367 identified the canon "handed down".

The Roman Catholic Church did not finalise its own canon until as late as the 16th century at the Council of Trent.