I had a kid from my youth group ask about enoch quoted in james ( his friend was in a church that read enoch as part of their bible) but I told him, Paul also quoted pagan poets Menander in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians. He quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus. In support of spreading the gospels by using a known source to relate it. It would be the same as me during this age saying "Jesus said follow me, he didnt mean on twitter." The kids laughed but got the idea.
Paul, The issue is not that Jude quoted Enoch - the issue is that Jude believed it actually was written by Enoch...😖😢 This should be a clue to our friends who signed on to the Chicago statement...😖
It's one thing to reference an outside, non-Jewish source talking about the cries of the human heart or the vices of a culture (a la the Cretans). It is quite another to treat Enoch as an accurate history of the Hebrew religion and a theological basis for things the church should know, or already do know.
As for me though, I read Enoch on my phone during lunch-breaks at work in 2014, and it is part of my testimony on what brought be back to Jesus and the Bible.
He never said the book was fake or a lie. Just because it was written by another author other than Enoch, doesn't mean it's not scripture. It agrees with the Bible and doesn't take away from Christ or the history. It's also extremely detailed and prophetic. Church fathers always held it as having authority but I don't believe God ever intended it to be in the biblical Canon. Simply just too much to digest. Only true believers can handle this book. It freaks most ppl out
Jude did NOT quote from the book of Enoch. A closer study of the two texts makes that obvious. It’s not quoted by anyone in the New Testament. Furthermore, Jude would have know it was a pseudepigraphal work, NOT containing the words of Enoch, so why would he quote from it? He didn’t. The most troubling problem with the book of Enoch (which Jude would have been aware of) is that it claims ENOCH is the Messiah. There’s a word for that: heresy.
I have a genuine question. I find this really interesting. It seems Jesus is quoting, 1 Enoch 15:7 "And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.” When He is speaking In Matthew 22:29-30 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (NASB) Is there a more accurate explanation? There doesn't appear to be another reference to this in the old testament.
I'm curious, unless I missed something in it, when you were talking about the Gnostic Gospels and the gospel of Thomas.... You never said that it was a forgery and if I remember hearing correctly you said that it was indeed sayings from Jesus but it wasn't put into the canonized text because it's confusing and doesn't really fit the narrative of the canonized Bible. But if it's stuff that Jesus actually said wouldn't it be important to put into it and the things that I've heard from the gospel of Thomas of Jesus saying seem to go on opposition of what the church is teaching or am I incorrect?
@@the_spiritual_hulk7449 no Thomas isn’t a legitimate source for the historical Jesus. Take a look at this video where I both go to where it was found, discuss some of its content, and visit the only preserved and complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas th-cam.com/video/Gm4_ZvIvIj0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eK2kqcMyzytON4Jt
While I'm fine with it not being considered canon, how come you dont address how it was believed by church fathers for the first 400 years that it was seen as canon? Also isnt it quoted many times, such as alluded to regarding the way to understand verses like on account of the angels women should cover their heads? Also didnt Jesus quote it as scripture when He said scripture teaches that angels dont marry in heaven, yet where can you find this idea in the 66 books of the Bible? Lastly hasn't it always been considered canon in the Ethiopian orthodox churches and has been in their bibles the whole time? I'm lead to believe book 1 should be considered canon, the other 2 books are latter developed gnostic trash, but at very least I'd agree with Dr Heiser when he says it need needs to be read by believers so they can understand a major source that influenced their Biblical authors minds.
Here’s the issue. The book of Enoch was one of the most found works at the Dead Sea scrolls. It was found at Qumran which was found to be the place of origin where John the Baptist was, and where Jesus would have spent some of his childhood. The dead sea scrolls is the oldest copies of the Old Testament known to man and therefore means as far as we know the Old Testament only dates to 400bc by your logic. Also the lack of knowledge of what gnostic texts is shows as there was a gnostic book known as the “second book of Enoch” which differs from the 1st book of Enoch which is split in 4 parts. Also he was very righteous we know this it’s said in the Bible, and some people think R.H Charles mistranslated the part saying Enoch was the son of man having supposed to be a prophecy of Christ. Also the New Testament definitely does quote it and have other things that originate from it including prophecies in the book of revelation. We know books are missing form scripture because they are mentioned in the Old Testament, and I would never believe that Jesus would let his disciples quote a book that was blasphemy against God. So you can say someone added it later which then one could say how do we know the entire miracles of Jesus wasn’t a forgery? It’s either you believe Jesus and the apostles or you don’t.
I like this break down on the Book of Enoch. Great job on the content provided. If the book of Enoch was suppose to be in the Bible it would have found it’s way there by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting though because Jude believed what he wrote was quoted by Enoch. Now this isn’t just Jude writing it but the Holy Spirit wrote it and that makes it truth. Now maybe not the whole book as the host points out but Enoch said what Jude quotes. It’s a very interesting book and it is included in Ethiopian cannon. Thanks for producing this video.
This is a terrible excuse for believers not doing more research. In fact china today is creating a bible that is a bible that says, jesus in fact sinned and that he was not deity. There is a curse for those who alter the truth and if we look at the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls and historical Jews and their scrolls we can find that some of these books need extra more careful attention. So to assume we can say because it isn’t in the Bible it’s not good is a bad way of viewing the people who are deciding what can and can’t be in the Bible without a detailed explanation. Especially considering in the 19th century they took them out. The original King James Bible had some of the books. And I seem to find that they can have value from the Holy Spirit. It says however in proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing but the honour of kings to search out a matter” so if these scrolls were placed in the king chamber we can assume some of these scrolls have incredible value
I would argue that if Jude and Daniel and other biblical books seemed to draw from parts of Enoch, then it gives more credibility to it being more likely a type of scripture. Is that not correct? If not, why would it be so commonly known and used in scripture
I've read it and I'm sorry, there are things in there that the author couldn't have known. It does appear to be Scripture and not a fable. There are also details about nature that are so specific that only God could have known about it. It seems to be inspired or else Jude wouldn't have quoted from it. But I don't know, but no one, not even Wesley can say it's a lie. It is prophetic and agrees with the Bible.
Except Jude says Enoch prophesied so Jude thought it was scripture and he said Enoch wrote it. That's Jesus brother so I am going to go with those two words Enoch prophesied instead of what a modern person says
Would you also agree with 1 Enoch 71:13-14 where, in complete contradiction to everything in the New Testament, it says that Enoch is the Son of Man from Daniel 7 and the chosen Messiah who will come back in the last days?
@@WesHuff The translation that I have says, "13 And The Ancient of Days came with Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel and thousands and ten thousands of angels without number. 14 And an angel came and greeted me with his voice, and said unto me, "This is the Son of Man Who is born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over Him, and the righteousness of the Head of days, will not forsake Him." I've also heard that Jewish adherents wanted to downplay the book of 1 Enoch because it so exactly described the Messiah being so obviously Jesus. I'm looking for answers about this, not taking a hard line either way.
The issue to me seems to be that Jude acknowledges Enoch as a prophet and 1st Enoch as authentic. This would mean that Enoch received a revelation from God, which is marker of divine inspiration. This is different from Paul quoting pagan writers, as he does not acknowledge any divine influence on their writings. Perhaps, the tradition that Enoch was a prophet goes back further than the writing of his apocalypse. If that is case, one solution is that the historical Enoch really did experience an apocalyptic vision, but that vision has not be divinely preserved in writing. Thus, Jude quoting 1st Enoch would not mean a wholesale acknowledgement of the the text but only the specific passage he quotes as inspired.
There were several pseudepigraphal writings prior to & contemporary with the time of Christ & the apostles that were falsely attributed Old Testament characters, such as: 3 Esdras, Baruch, 2 Baruch, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Ascension of Moses, The Ascension of Isaiah, etc. In fact, Augustine incorrectly believed that both Wisdom & Sirach had been written by Solomon, which he had to rewrite a retraction saying that he was in error & that they were not, and he ended up classifing Psalms, Proverbs, & Song of Solomon as canonical, while classifying Wisdom & Sirach as ecclesiastical, despite including them on all in his OT list.
What is your evidence that Baruch is indeed falsely attributed? Is it simply because our earliest dating of the version of Baruch we have now comes from 300-200BC?
Jude quotes Enoch as a prophet (verse 14) and we know the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). It is not merely a reconstruction of history and a text to draw ideas from.
Historically Enoch is clearly a textual hodge podge. Each of the five major sections can be traced (depending on whether you're looking at the Greek or Aramaic sections) to different develoopmental stages in Enochic tradition. They build on one another and what we call "1st Enoch" is indeed an attempted reconstruction of these different textual traditions. Also, don't forget that 1 Enoch 71:13-14 has Enoch declared as the Son of Man from Dan. 7 and calls himself the Messiah. This is, of course, heretical.
@@WesHuff Regarding 1 Enoch 71:13:14 , there is no doubt that there is an issue with our translation of this verse, especially by RH Charles. What's odd about this particular chapter and verse is the lead up to it one can infer the obvious connection to the Son of Man to that of the Messiah (1 Enoch 46:1-3) apart from Enoch himself. I suppose one could make an argument for typology like that of Ezekiel, regardless I'm fairly confident Enoch doesn't think of himself as God. Whatever the issue may be, we have to come to terms with the fact that Jude does refer to him as a prophet and Hebrews 11:5 states it was attested that he pleased God, yet there are no prophetic utterances of Enoch in the Old Testament. It is a testimony to the saints for the last days and it contains doctrines such as conditional immortality, cosmology, and eschatology, as well as a coherent worldview.
Why does Jesus say in Matt 22 that Enoch is scriptures when talking about the angels in heaven not married? What other scriptures talk about this besides Enoch? Enoch was in the 1611 King James Bible and was talken out, Why?
@@christoprighteous8199 to say that Matthew 22:30 is a reference from Enoch is a stretch. The only place it could potentially be is 1 Enoch 69:11 but there is no linguistic connection between Jesus’s words and that text and the idea of Angels not being able to be married was a general idea within ancient Jewish thought (discussed in a number of inter-testimonial writings) the fact that Enoch alludes to it there and Jesus says it outright is at best evidence of correlative generality but far from causation. Enoch was never in the 1611 KJV. The 1611 did include the 7 Deuterocanonical books in a separate section titled “The Apocrypha,” but Enoch is not and never has been part of the Deuterocanon.
@@WesHuff Enoch was in the 1611 King James(some Bibles) and Geneva Bible and later removed.... you're wrong on that. So what scripture was Jesus referring to if not Enoch? Enoch is the only place where we learn the angels don't marry. Thanks for the response.
@ no other scriptures do, including Enoch which is not scripture. However, the Apocalypse of Moses and a handful of Essene Qumran texts all discuss the state of Angels and their inability to marry. Once again, where Jesus says this explicitly Enoch only alludes to the difference in humanity and angels. It’s not a quote and there are no substantial linguistic parallels. This was a discussion that Jews were navigating during the inter-testimental period and Jesus ways in on the subject by referencing the already present Judaic conversation of his day. Now you’re right that a dozen editions of the 1560 Geneva included Enoch in a separate section (with a preface note discussing its non-inspiration, rejection by the ancient Jews and a number of Church Fathers, but historical usefulness of Apocryphal books). However, that was not the norm (as you can see here bibles-online.net/1583). When the 1600 publication was made they only included the scriptural books and thus Enoch and the Deuterocanon was removed. The Geneva was a Puritan translation afterall and they weren’t in the habit of reading Apocryphal works. I have personally worked with 3, 1st edition 1611 KJVs and can divinely say that it never included Enoch. You can see the 1st edition KJV’s contents here (bibles-online.net/1611).
I recently watched 3hrs livestream where the 2 guys were talking about the Apocrypha (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd Esdras, 1 + 2 Maccabees, Enoch, Judith, and Tobit ect). I'm not sure if it's scripture or not. But knowing the book of Enoch hasn't been found in a document definitely makes me doubt it. I would love someone I trust (like you) to go in depth on all these.
@InitialPC that is not true. Three works of the "Apocrypha" are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ben Sira (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus), the book of Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah.
The problem I have with your theory on the apostles quoting this book is that the Holy Spirit breathed that into them. Therefore the Holy Spirit was verifying the original text they quoted. For instance when pagans were quoted in the New Testament the context was much different than these Enoch quote’s contexts are. These quotes are given point of factly within their greater sermon contexts, they’re showing you that the quote itself was inspired. Am I saying we have the original text of Enoch today? I’m saying we definitely do not have that text. But are parts of the original text intact inside Enoch? Definitely. Some parts feel breathed, other parts offer a spirit of confusion upon the reader. But both aspects of the text are there. Unfortunately whatever originally existed appears to have been overly messianic and the Jews couldn’t comprehend it. I think however 1 Enoch was originally written was similar to how Job is a Holy Spirit breathed story of events a few generations before the life of Abraham that were almost certainly recorded after the days of Moses. Since Job is not in the family tree of Abraham we have to conclude he was one like Melchizedek who was not among the chosen people but still maintained the worship of the true GOD after the flood. However his descendants were destined to eventually stop and be as gentiles whereas the Hebrew people were destined to represent the GOD of Israel with their name unto the final day. I would never fight to have Enoch in a Bible, it doesn’t belong there, but you underscored it’s value and Holy Spirit confirmed authenticity in my opinion. Something beautiful was originally written and if the Jews had maintained it for us, we’d know exactly what that was, unfortunately we only have pieces of whatever that was now. GOD Bless!
Can I just note that the book of Enoch is Apocrypha and not pseudopha. And I rarely doubt that the Holy Spirit would allow the "New York Times" to be quoted in the Bible several times both in the OT and NT. That was a bad analogy. However I do agree with you that we do not have early writings to prove the authenticity of the Book of Enoch. However, this did not stop us from believing in the OT Scriptures before the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, which by the way also have quotations of Enoch and Jasher. If you are going to do this type of topic, it needs to be laid out more thoroughly. One last thing, Enoch does discuss more on the issue of the Nephlim that are talked about in Genesis pre-flood. Just saying, Enoch writings are alive and well by being quoted in God's Word, and certainly not like the "New York Times. "
That would depend on what you mean by "Apocrypha" and how formal or informal your use of the term is. Either way 1st Enoch is not considered a part of the Apocrypha Formal (i.e. the Catholic Deuterocanonical books) nor within the category of other OT apocryphal literature. 1st 2nd and 3rd Enoch are all in and have always been considered a member of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha.
I think claims like "First Enoch must be scripture. Look! Even Jude quotes it" are a serious misunderstanding of Jude 1-16. Jude is saying, in essence, "look at theese false teachers! They think they are like Moses, Noah, and Abraham? No! They are like the unbeleiving Israelites, the fallen angels, soddom and gomorrah! They think they are like Abel, Moses and Aaron? No! They are like Cain, Korah and Balaam! Don't beleive the law? I will show their'e error using their'e own books!"
I hope I'm not paying you for these mixed up comments on your part. Are you in fact. A follower of Jesus. Or just using your education to make money!!!!
People are enamored with these false writings because they like to go down rabbit holes regarding subjects like the Nephilim. They want to justify their conclusions and hope literature like Enoch's will give them evidence to support them. It just leads to things that are not supported by the Bible and can undermine it.
The issue is not that Jude quoted Enoch - the issue is that Jude believed it actually was written by Enoch...😖😢 This should be a clue to our friends who signed on to the Chicago statement...😖
Dr Michael Heiser pretty much says the same thing about the book of Enoch. It’s worth reading but not canonical. There is some truth in it but it’s not inspired. It was something everyone had read and was very familiar with which is why Jude refers to it.
The problem is the contexts of these quotes. I disagree that these weren’t quoted as inspired quotes within their exact contexts. I don’t think we have the original Enoch today, I think we have a tainted version with entire modified chapters and verses and likely removals too. I think the text that says 3,000 ells that gets everyone so upset probably originally said digits and not ells based on the story itself too. I have no problem with a 3,000 digit tall original Nephilim based on the later giants we saw from Ham’s wife’s tainted line through Canaan. There’s serious problems with 1 Enoch, but there’s also a lot of “not problems” with it. The pre-Jesus texts we have verify that the book is extremely Messianic and said things like The Son of Man sits at the right hand of GOD and is GOD also himself… that kind of language along with the same symbolism often used by John in Revelation while Enoch is in the heavenly throne room actually verify extensively that there are Holy Spirit breathed passages inside Enoch that were so specifically about Jesus Christ having two separate comings that Jews of the era eventually rejected the text and didn’t preserve it the same way they did other texts. As a result we have a corrupted Enoch, but anyone who’s read the Bible and believes it completely can tell you that Enoch being Pre-Jesus is extremely significant because of some of the passages that are confirmed as being pre-Jesus passages. Likewise, there are entire Chapters like Chapter 22 that are so heavily rewritten that it’s painful to read some sections and see the treatment the text received by its corrupters. But the sections that aren’t corrupted you can feel the Holy Spirit in those parts of the text. You just need to enter the reading with a firm knowledge of scripture and the full armor of GOD equipped. I believe there’s a good reason the opening verses of 1 Enoch say it’s for a generation near the end and not for the generation it was given to. Ironically Michael Heiser will point of fact tell you that The Bible is a flat Earth cosmology based book. He will even verify that the Jews believed this same cosmology and say that Enoch delivers more specific information on the nature of that cosmology than any other Biblically associated book. He will say all of that and then say that he doesn’t believe Earth is flat and stationary as the Bible describes. I think some of the biggest problems Heiser has with 1 Enoch are directly cosmologically related. So your choice is simple, do you believe NASA which was started by Nazi scientists brought to America with operation Paperclip? Do you believe Movies made by Hollywood? Do you believe free Mason Scientists? Or do you believe GOD on this matter? Once you decide you believe GOD, 1 Enoch is a wonderful book, but you can’t accept anything in Enoch that Scripture directly dismisses and you still have to let your eschatology be firmly rooted in the 66 books that are not corrupted. The 66 are correct and pure, the book of 1 Enoch is tampered and unfortunately that’s just the truth, but it’s more useful than any other extra-biblical text for deeper understanding of Genesis 6 events as the Jews understood and believed them. Those parts of Enoch saw wide acceptance with the Jews whereas the Messianic parts did not receive the same acceptance. So that’s the best thing you can glean from Enoch is further information on why GOD was sorry he created mankind and had to flood the Earth to start fresh otherwise the messiah could not come. GOD Bless!
Enoch was a prophet. (Jude 1 : 14) he prophesied meaning he was a prophet. He was transfigured by God Genesis( 5: 23) absolutely a remarkable man who walked with God. Always somebody trying to take away from the word of God with useless information about trivial historic facts, when the word of God needs to be preserved the way it is. Quit trying to read more into the word of God. Let it be.
I don't see how anything you've said has anything to do with the authenticity of the the book of Enoch... which wasn't written by the actual Enoch. But I guess those historical truths are just trivial facts?
GENESIS 6:13-17 reveals that GOD warned Noah about the Flood, and that GOD told Noah to build an Ark that would allow him to survive the Flood. . Contrarily, ENOCH 10:1-2 (Book 1) claims that GOD sent an angel named Uriel to warn Noah about the Flood, and that GOD TOLD that angel to say to Noah “hide yourself”, and that GOD sent that angel to tell Noah how to survive the Flood. . The Book of ENOCH also claims that Uriel (Noah’s buddy) is the guide of the celestial bodies as they travel around Earth. . THE HOLY BIBLE teaches that Earth is round, and that Earth rotates. . Contrarily, ENOCH 72:5 (Book 1) claims that a geocentric Sun is on a chariot, and the wind is what propels the Sun chariot. . Also, ENOCH 73:2-3 (Book 1) incorrectly claims that the Moon also rides on a chariot that is propelled by the wind. . ENOCH (Book 1) claims that Uriel (Noah's buddy) is the guide of the celestial bodies as they travel around Earth (geocentric Earth). . GENESIS 6:4 reveals that some “sons of GOD” had children who were called Nephilim. . Contrarily, ENOCH 7:1-2 (Book 1) claims that “the sons of heaven” (ENOCH 6:1) had children who were giants, and that those giants had children who were called Nephilim, and that those Nephilim had children who were called “Elioud”. ENOCH 72:5 (Book 1) claims that the geocentric Sun is on a chariot, and the wind is what propels the Sun chariot. . ENOCH 73:2-3 (Book 1) claims that the Moon also rides on a chariot that is propelled by the wind. . SCRIPTURE never claims that Jude was a prophet. Jude was a servant of GOD. .
Thank you, so much! I just came across you, today. I am more grateful than you can know. I look forward to learning & understanding more content.
I had a kid from my youth group ask about enoch quoted in james ( his friend was in a church that read enoch as part of their bible) but I told him, Paul also quoted pagan poets Menander in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians. He quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus. In support of spreading the gospels by using a known source to relate it. It would be the same as me during this age saying "Jesus said follow me, he didnt mean on twitter." The kids laughed but got the idea.
Paul,
The issue is not that Jude quoted Enoch - the issue is that Jude believed it actually was written by Enoch...😖😢
This should be a clue to our friends who signed on to the Chicago statement...😖
Yeah, also Paul never quoted non scripture sources saying, this person "prophesied" and what will happen in the later days. Jude did. Big difference.
It's one thing to reference an outside, non-Jewish source talking about the cries of the human heart or the vices of a culture (a la the Cretans). It is quite another to treat Enoch as an accurate history of the Hebrew religion and a theological basis for things the church should know, or already do know.
Paul was a HERETIC.
Highly recommending this video and others on your channel
I have always wondered this. Thanks
Perfect. There is plenty of jacked-up info out there, this is perfect. Sub’d
As for me though, I read Enoch on my phone during lunch-breaks at work in 2014, and it is part of my testimony on what brought be back to Jesus and the Bible.
He never said the book was fake or a lie. Just because it was written by another author other than Enoch, doesn't mean it's not scripture. It agrees with the Bible and doesn't take away from Christ or the history. It's also extremely detailed and prophetic. Church fathers always held it as having authority but I don't believe God ever intended it to be in the biblical Canon. Simply just too much to digest. Only true believers can handle this book. It freaks most ppl out
WITHOUT THE BOOK OF ENOCH...... NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY, CAN TELL YOU WHO AZAZAEL IS IN LEVITICUS 16......
It wasn’t just Jude, but Peter, and to some extent Jesus also quoted from it.
Jude did NOT quote from the book of Enoch. A closer study of the two texts makes that obvious. It’s not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.
Furthermore, Jude would have know it was a pseudepigraphal work, NOT containing the words of Enoch, so why would he quote from it? He didn’t.
The most troubling problem with the book of Enoch (which Jude would have been aware of) is that it claims ENOCH is the Messiah.
There’s a word for that: heresy.
I have a genuine question. I find this really interesting. It seems Jesus is quoting, 1 Enoch 15:7 "And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.” When He is speaking In Matthew 22:29-30 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (NASB) Is there a more accurate explanation? There doesn't appear to be another reference to this in the old testament.
Also when he talks about mansions in heaven. John 14:2-3
I'm curious, unless I missed something in it, when you were talking about the Gnostic Gospels and the gospel of Thomas.... You never said that it was a forgery and if I remember hearing correctly you said that it was indeed sayings from Jesus but it wasn't put into the canonized text because it's confusing and doesn't really fit the narrative of the canonized Bible. But if it's stuff that Jesus actually said wouldn't it be important to put into it and the things that I've heard from the gospel of Thomas of Jesus saying seem to go on opposition of what the church is teaching or am I incorrect?
@@the_spiritual_hulk7449 no Thomas isn’t a legitimate source for the historical Jesus. Take a look at this video where I both go to where it was found, discuss some of its content, and visit the only preserved and complete copy of the Gospel of Thomas th-cam.com/video/Gm4_ZvIvIj0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eK2kqcMyzytON4Jt
While I'm fine with it not being considered canon, how come you dont address how it was believed by church fathers for the first 400 years that it was seen as canon? Also isnt it quoted many times, such as alluded to regarding the way to understand verses like on account of the angels women should cover their heads? Also didnt Jesus quote it as scripture when He said scripture teaches that angels dont marry in heaven, yet where can you find this idea in the 66 books of the Bible? Lastly hasn't it always been considered canon in the Ethiopian orthodox churches and has been in their bibles the whole time? I'm lead to believe book 1 should be considered canon, the other 2 books are latter developed gnostic trash, but at very least I'd agree with Dr Heiser when he says it need needs to be read by believers so they can understand a major source that influenced their Biblical authors minds.
Here’s the issue. The book of Enoch was one of the most found works at the Dead Sea scrolls. It was found at Qumran which was found to be the place of origin where John the Baptist was, and where Jesus would have spent some of his childhood. The dead sea scrolls is the oldest copies of the Old Testament known to man and therefore means as far as we know the Old Testament only dates to 400bc by your logic. Also the lack of knowledge of what gnostic texts is shows as there was a gnostic book known as the “second book of Enoch” which differs from the 1st book of Enoch which is split in 4 parts. Also he was very righteous we know this it’s said in the Bible, and some people think R.H Charles mistranslated the part saying Enoch was the son of man having supposed to be a prophecy of Christ. Also the New Testament definitely does quote it and have other things that originate from it including prophecies in the book of revelation. We know books are missing form scripture because they are mentioned in the Old Testament, and I would never believe that Jesus would let his disciples quote a book that was blasphemy against God. So you can say someone added it later which then one could say how do we know the entire miracles of Jesus wasn’t a forgery? It’s either you believe Jesus and the apostles or you don’t.
I like this break down on the Book of Enoch. Great job on the content provided. If the book of Enoch was suppose to be in the Bible it would have found it’s way there by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is interesting though because Jude believed what he wrote was quoted by Enoch. Now this isn’t just Jude writing it but the Holy Spirit wrote it and that makes it truth. Now maybe not the whole book as the host points out but Enoch said what Jude quotes. It’s a very interesting book and it is included in Ethiopian cannon. Thanks for producing this video.
This is a terrible excuse for believers not doing more research. In fact china today is creating a bible that is a bible that says, jesus in fact sinned and that he was not deity. There is a curse for those who alter the truth and if we look at the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls and historical Jews and their scrolls we can find that some of these books need extra more careful attention. So to assume we can say because it isn’t in the Bible it’s not good is a bad way of viewing the people who are deciding what can and can’t be in the Bible without a detailed explanation. Especially considering in the 19th century they took them out. The original King James Bible had some of the books. And I seem to find that they can have value from the Holy Spirit. It says however in proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing but the honour of kings to search out a matter” so if these scrolls were placed in the king chamber we can assume some of these scrolls have incredible value
I would argue that if Jude and Daniel and other biblical books seemed to draw from parts of Enoch, then it gives more credibility to it being more likely a type of scripture. Is that not correct? If not, why would it be so commonly known and used in scripture
I've read it and I'm sorry, there are things in there that the author couldn't have known. It does appear to be Scripture and not a fable. There are also details about nature that are so specific that only God could have known about it. It seems to be inspired or else Jude wouldn't have quoted from it. But I don't know, but no one, not even Wesley can say it's a lie. It is prophetic and agrees with the Bible.
Except Jude says Enoch prophesied so Jude thought it was scripture and he said Enoch wrote it. That's Jesus brother so I am going to go with those two words Enoch prophesied instead of what a modern person says
Would you also agree with 1 Enoch 71:13-14 where, in complete contradiction to everything in the New Testament, it says that Enoch is the Son of Man from Daniel 7 and the chosen Messiah who will come back in the last days?
@WesHuff could it be some scholar messed with that part to cause confusion?
@@WesHuff The translation that I have says, "13 And The Ancient of Days came with Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel and thousands and ten thousands of angels without number. 14 And an angel came and greeted me with his voice, and said unto me, "This is the Son of Man Who is born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over Him, and the righteousness of the Head of days, will not forsake Him."
I've also heard that Jewish adherents wanted to downplay the book of 1 Enoch because it so exactly described the Messiah being so obviously Jesus.
I'm looking for answers about this, not taking a hard line either way.
The problem with your comparison is that Jude says Enoch prophesied. So the portion Jude quoted is prophecy.
The issue to me seems to be that Jude acknowledges Enoch as a prophet and 1st Enoch as authentic. This would mean that Enoch received a revelation from God, which is marker of divine inspiration. This is different from Paul quoting pagan writers, as he does not acknowledge any divine influence on their writings. Perhaps, the tradition that Enoch was a prophet goes back further than the writing of his apocalypse. If that is case, one solution is that the historical Enoch really did experience an apocalyptic vision, but that vision has not be divinely preserved in writing. Thus, Jude quoting 1st Enoch would not mean a wholesale acknowledgement of the the text but only the specific passage he quotes as inspired.
There were several pseudepigraphal writings prior to & contemporary with the time of Christ & the apostles that were falsely attributed Old Testament characters, such as: 3 Esdras, Baruch, 2 Baruch, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Ascension of Moses, The Ascension of Isaiah, etc. In fact, Augustine incorrectly believed that both Wisdom & Sirach had been written by Solomon, which he had to rewrite a retraction saying that he was in error & that they were not, and he ended up classifing Psalms, Proverbs, & Song of Solomon as canonical, while classifying Wisdom & Sirach as ecclesiastical, despite including them on all in his OT list.
What is your evidence that Baruch is indeed falsely attributed? Is it simply because our earliest dating of the version of Baruch we have now comes from 300-200BC?
Jude quotes Enoch as a prophet (verse 14) and we know the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10). It is not merely a reconstruction of history and a text to draw ideas from.
Historically Enoch is clearly a textual hodge podge. Each of the five major sections can be traced (depending on whether you're looking at the Greek or Aramaic sections) to different develoopmental stages in Enochic tradition. They build on one another and what we call "1st Enoch" is indeed an attempted reconstruction of these different textual traditions. Also, don't forget that 1 Enoch 71:13-14 has Enoch declared as the Son of Man from Dan. 7 and calls himself the Messiah. This is, of course, heretical.
@@WesHuff Regarding 1 Enoch 71:13:14 , there is no doubt that there is an issue with our translation of this verse, especially by RH Charles. What's odd about this particular chapter and verse is the lead up to it one can infer the obvious connection to the Son of Man to that of the Messiah (1 Enoch 46:1-3) apart from Enoch himself. I suppose one could make an argument for typology like that of Ezekiel, regardless I'm fairly confident Enoch doesn't think of himself as God. Whatever the issue may be, we have to come to terms with the fact that Jude does refer to him as a prophet and Hebrews 11:5 states it was attested that he pleased God, yet there are no prophetic utterances of Enoch in the Old Testament. It is a testimony to the saints for the last days and it contains doctrines such as conditional immortality, cosmology, and eschatology, as well as a coherent worldview.
Why does Jesus say in Matt 22 that Enoch is scriptures when talking about the angels in heaven not married? What other scriptures talk about this besides Enoch? Enoch was in the 1611 King James Bible and was talken out, Why?
@@christoprighteous8199 to say that Matthew 22:30 is a reference from Enoch is a stretch. The only place it could potentially be is 1 Enoch 69:11 but there is no linguistic connection between Jesus’s words and that text and the idea of Angels not being able to be married was a general idea within ancient Jewish thought (discussed in a number of inter-testimonial writings) the fact that Enoch alludes to it there and Jesus says it outright is at best evidence of correlative generality but far from causation. Enoch was never in the 1611 KJV. The 1611 did include the 7 Deuterocanonical books in a separate section titled “The Apocrypha,” but Enoch is not and never has been part of the Deuterocanon.
@@WesHuff Enoch was in the 1611 King James(some Bibles) and Geneva Bible and later removed.... you're wrong on that. So what scripture was Jesus referring to if not Enoch? Enoch is the only place where we learn the angels don't marry. Thanks for the response.
@ no other scriptures do, including Enoch which is not scripture. However, the Apocalypse of Moses and a handful of Essene Qumran texts all discuss the state of Angels and their inability to marry. Once again, where Jesus says this explicitly Enoch only alludes to the difference in humanity and angels. It’s not a quote and there are no substantial linguistic parallels. This was a discussion that Jews were navigating during the inter-testimental period and Jesus ways in on the subject by referencing the already present Judaic conversation of his day.
Now you’re right that a dozen editions of the 1560 Geneva included Enoch in a separate section (with a preface note discussing its non-inspiration, rejection by the ancient Jews and a number of Church Fathers, but historical usefulness of Apocryphal books). However, that was not the norm (as you can see here bibles-online.net/1583). When the 1600 publication was made they only included the scriptural books and thus Enoch and the Deuterocanon was removed. The Geneva was a Puritan translation afterall and they weren’t in the habit of reading Apocryphal works. I have personally worked with 3, 1st edition 1611 KJVs and can divinely say that it never included Enoch. You can see the 1st edition KJV’s contents here (bibles-online.net/1611).
I thought the authorshio is accredited to methusula?
You are swell at breaking stuff down!
I recently watched 3hrs livestream where the 2 guys were talking about the Apocrypha (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd Esdras, 1 + 2 Maccabees, Enoch, Judith, and Tobit ect). I'm not sure if it's scripture or not. But knowing the book of Enoch hasn't been found in a document definitely makes me doubt it. I would love someone I trust (like you) to go in depth on all these.
Hit the link of that please
"hasnt been found in a document"
it was included in the dead sea scrolls...
cant say the same about the deuterocanon...
@InitialPC that is not true. Three works of the "Apocrypha" are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Ben Sira (also known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus), the book of Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah.
The problem I have with your theory on the apostles quoting this book is that the Holy Spirit breathed that into them. Therefore the Holy Spirit was verifying the original text they quoted. For instance when pagans were quoted in the New Testament the context was much different than these Enoch quote’s contexts are. These quotes are given point of factly within their greater sermon contexts, they’re showing you that the quote itself was inspired.
Am I saying we have the original text of Enoch today? I’m saying we definitely do not have that text. But are parts of the original text intact inside Enoch? Definitely. Some parts feel breathed, other parts offer a spirit of confusion upon the reader. But both aspects of the text are there. Unfortunately whatever originally existed appears to have been overly messianic and the Jews couldn’t comprehend it.
I think however 1 Enoch was originally written was similar to how Job is a Holy Spirit breathed story of events a few generations before the life of Abraham that were almost certainly recorded after the days of Moses. Since Job is not in the family tree of Abraham we have to conclude he was one like Melchizedek who was not among the chosen people but still maintained the worship of the true GOD after the flood. However his descendants were destined to eventually stop and be as gentiles whereas the Hebrew people were destined to represent the GOD of Israel with their name unto the final day.
I would never fight to have Enoch in a Bible, it doesn’t belong there, but you underscored it’s value and Holy Spirit confirmed authenticity in my opinion. Something beautiful was originally written and if the Jews had maintained it for us, we’d know exactly what that was, unfortunately we only have pieces of whatever that was now.
GOD Bless!
Hi, but quoting one sentence from a book is different from affirming the entire book is inspired.
Can I just note that the book of Enoch is Apocrypha and not pseudopha. And I rarely doubt that the Holy Spirit would allow the "New York Times" to be quoted in the Bible several times both in the OT and NT. That was a bad analogy. However I do agree with you that we do not have early writings to prove the authenticity of the Book of Enoch. However, this did not stop us from believing in the OT Scriptures before the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, which by the way also have quotations of Enoch and Jasher.
If you are going to do this type of topic, it needs to be laid out more thoroughly.
One last thing, Enoch does discuss more on the issue of the Nephlim that are talked about in Genesis pre-flood. Just saying, Enoch writings are alive and well by being quoted in God's Word, and certainly not like the "New York Times. "
That would depend on what you mean by "Apocrypha" and how formal or informal your use of the term is. Either way 1st Enoch is not considered a part of the Apocrypha Formal (i.e. the Catholic Deuterocanonical books) nor within the category of other OT apocryphal literature. 1st 2nd and 3rd Enoch are all in and have always been considered a member of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha.
@@WesHuff
That would be an understatement...🙂
I think claims like "First Enoch must be scripture. Look! Even Jude quotes it" are a serious misunderstanding of Jude 1-16.
Jude is saying, in essence, "look at theese false teachers! They think they are like Moses, Noah, and Abraham? No! They are like the unbeleiving Israelites, the fallen angels, soddom and gomorrah! They think they are like Abel, Moses and Aaron? No! They are like Cain, Korah and Balaam!
Don't beleive the law? I will show their'e error using their'e own books!"
I hope I'm not paying you for these mixed up comments on your part.
Are you in fact. A follower of Jesus.
Or just using your education to make money!!!!
Dr Michael Hiser!
Check out my recent interview with Dr. Heiser here: apologeticscanada.com/2021/07/02/angels-and-demons-an-interview-with-dr-heiser/
People are enamored with these false writings because they like to go down rabbit holes regarding subjects like the Nephilim. They want to justify their conclusions and hope literature like Enoch's will give them evidence to support them. It just leads to things that are not supported by the Bible and can undermine it.
Exactly. It’s a Gnostic worldview. I used to be from that side- the “truther” rubbish. It’s pure Gnosticism. (And I repent)
Jude never acknowledged a book of Enoch
You must have a loose screw in your head. He literally quotes 1 Enoch
The issue is not that Jude quoted Enoch - the issue is that Jude believed it actually was written by Enoch...😖😢
This should be a clue to our friends who signed on to the Chicago statement...😖
You are a real example of the kind of people who are here to misinform people. You have absolutely no idea what qualifies to be in the Bible.
Dr Michael Heiser pretty much says the same thing about the book of Enoch. It’s worth reading but not canonical. There is some truth in it but it’s not inspired. It was something everyone had read and was very familiar with which is why Jude refers to it.
The problem is the contexts of these quotes. I disagree that these weren’t quoted as inspired quotes within their exact contexts. I don’t think we have the original Enoch today, I think we have a tainted version with entire modified chapters and verses and likely removals too. I think the text that says 3,000 ells that gets everyone so upset probably originally said digits and not ells based on the story itself too. I have no problem with a 3,000 digit tall original Nephilim based on the later giants we saw from Ham’s wife’s tainted line through Canaan.
There’s serious problems with 1 Enoch, but there’s also a lot of “not problems” with it. The pre-Jesus texts we have verify that the book is extremely Messianic and said things like The Son of Man sits at the right hand of GOD and is GOD also himself… that kind of language along with the same symbolism often used by John in Revelation while Enoch is in the heavenly throne room actually verify extensively that there are Holy Spirit breathed passages inside Enoch that were so specifically about Jesus Christ having two separate comings that Jews of the era eventually rejected the text and didn’t preserve it the same way they did other texts.
As a result we have a corrupted Enoch, but anyone who’s read the Bible and believes it completely can tell you that Enoch being Pre-Jesus is extremely significant because of some of the passages that are confirmed as being pre-Jesus passages.
Likewise, there are entire Chapters like Chapter 22 that are so heavily rewritten that it’s painful to read some sections and see the treatment the text received by its corrupters. But the sections that aren’t corrupted you can feel the Holy Spirit in those parts of the text. You just need to enter the reading with a firm knowledge of scripture and the full armor of GOD equipped.
I believe there’s a good reason the opening verses of 1 Enoch say it’s for a generation near the end and not for the generation it was given to.
Ironically Michael Heiser will point of fact tell you that The Bible is a flat Earth cosmology based book. He will even verify that the Jews believed this same cosmology and say that Enoch delivers more specific information on the nature of that cosmology than any other Biblically associated book. He will say all of that and then say that he doesn’t believe Earth is flat and stationary as the Bible describes.
I think some of the biggest problems Heiser has with 1 Enoch are directly cosmologically related. So your choice is simple, do you believe NASA which was started by Nazi scientists brought to America with operation Paperclip? Do you believe Movies made by Hollywood? Do you believe free Mason Scientists? Or do you believe GOD on this matter?
Once you decide you believe GOD, 1 Enoch is a wonderful book, but you can’t accept anything in Enoch that Scripture directly dismisses and you still have to let your eschatology be firmly rooted in the 66 books that are not corrupted. The 66 are correct and pure, the book of 1 Enoch is tampered and unfortunately that’s just the truth, but it’s more useful than any other extra-biblical text for deeper understanding of Genesis 6 events as the Jews understood and believed them. Those parts of Enoch saw wide acceptance with the Jews whereas the Messianic parts did not receive the same acceptance. So that’s the best thing you can glean from Enoch is further information on why GOD was sorry he created mankind and had to flood the Earth to start fresh otherwise the messiah could not come.
GOD Bless!
It’s already in the Bible….. in Ethiopian bible and stop giving white names to the people on the Bible his name is Henok .
how is enoch a white name???
it originated in a jewish text thousands of years ago
Enoch was a prophet. (Jude 1 : 14) he prophesied meaning he was a prophet. He was transfigured by God Genesis( 5: 23) absolutely a remarkable man who walked with God. Always somebody trying to take away from the word of God with useless information about trivial historic facts, when the word of God needs to be preserved the way it is. Quit trying to read more into the word of God. Let it be.
I don't see how anything you've said has anything to do with the authenticity of the the book of Enoch... which wasn't written by the actual Enoch. But I guess those historical truths are just trivial facts?
No thank you. Your names not down you're not getting in. Not tonight.
GENESIS 6:13-17 reveals that GOD warned Noah about the Flood, and that GOD told Noah to build an Ark that would allow him to survive the Flood.
.
Contrarily, ENOCH 10:1-2 (Book 1) claims that GOD sent an angel named Uriel to warn Noah about the Flood, and that GOD TOLD that angel to say to Noah “hide yourself”, and that GOD sent that angel to tell Noah how to survive the Flood.
.
The Book of ENOCH also claims that Uriel (Noah’s buddy) is the guide of the celestial bodies as they travel around Earth.
.
THE HOLY BIBLE teaches that Earth is round, and that Earth rotates.
.
Contrarily, ENOCH 72:5 (Book 1) claims that a geocentric Sun is on a chariot, and the wind is what propels the Sun chariot.
.
Also, ENOCH 73:2-3 (Book 1) incorrectly claims that the Moon also rides on a chariot that is propelled by the wind.
.
ENOCH (Book 1) claims that Uriel (Noah's buddy) is the guide of the celestial bodies as they travel around Earth (geocentric Earth).
.
GENESIS 6:4 reveals that some “sons of GOD” had children who were called Nephilim.
.
Contrarily, ENOCH 7:1-2 (Book 1) claims that “the sons of heaven” (ENOCH 6:1) had children who were giants, and that those giants had children who were called Nephilim, and that those Nephilim had children who were called “Elioud”.
ENOCH 72:5 (Book 1) claims that the geocentric Sun is on a chariot, and the wind is what propels the Sun chariot.
.
ENOCH 73:2-3 (Book 1) claims that the Moon also rides on a chariot that is propelled by the wind.
.
SCRIPTURE never claims that Jude was a prophet. Jude was a servant of GOD.
.