Why isn't 1 Enoch canon in most churches?

It has the clearest prediction of Jesus I've ever seen, and it was written HUNDREDS of years before Jesus was even born.

Attached: 1515535471842.jpg (627x1012, 217.04K)

really makes you think

It really does. In Genesis Enoch is mentioned as the first ever person to be raised to Heaven without dying, a privilege that wasn't even afforded to Noah or Abraham. Genesis gives no explanation as to why that was, 1 Enoch fills that gap and explains why Enoch was special enough to be raised bodily into Heaven. 1 Enoch is also quoted several times in the New Testament, even by Jesus, the epistle of Jude is heavily influenced by it. The rejection of 1 Enoch as inspired scripture is simply bizarre given these facts.

Based Jay Dyer confirming nephilim being Human-Angel rapebabies

A book, supposedly written by the first guy to have been privileged to be assumed into Heaven, supposedly written before the Pentateuch, with information so delicate that we technically can build a whole world view from it, which supposedly hints towards Christ, even mentioned in Jude. Why is that not in Canon in the Church ? And more importantly: Why is it not in the Tanakh ? Imagine this incredibly important book, sparked from jewish tradition, yet the jews outright rejected it - older than the Pentateuch and important as it supposed to be ?
That doesn't make me think at all. We have enough in the current Canon - even in the butchered protestant bible - to contemplate and learn for several lifetimes. Who cares about a non-canonical book that is so obscure that it isn't even relevant for the jews.

It has awful theology, for one. In the so-called Book of Enoch, Enoch becomes an angel, which seems to be a Pharisaical fanfiction.

"Sorry God, we have enough revelation now, no need for any more, the Bible is long enough thanks"

Attached: 1444765935605.png (700x700, 362.43K)

"No God please give us everything at once, it's not like armies of exegets are still debating numerous verses and parts of the current Canon."
Despite the fact that who knows whether it was inspired or just
Or are you not aware why God reveals His Truth gradually ? Furthermore, if it was really that relevant or important, why did the Holy Spirit not intervene when the Canon was declared ? Who knows who knows.
For sure a random weeb on the internet.

I apologize for pulling the "muh weeb"-card. Rest stands tho.

This.
Who were they that went to look upon God in the tabernacle and burned to dust since they were yet impure to stand in His presence?

Azazel was a place not an angel

What could be the (((reason)))?

...

Could you post the quote about Jesus?

...

...

I'm sorry, but this is VERY generic writing with random mumbo jumbo here and there. Wisdom of Solomon has way better prophesy in chapter 2. Apocryphal testament of Solomon has demon saying that God will become human and be crucified. There are apocrypha covering it MUCH better than what we have here.

You know, it is considered canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

You're kidding right? It's a perfect description of Jesus, from describing the fact he existed with the Father before the universe, to him coming and saving the nations as their hope to the judgement at the second coming when "In his presence shall they fall, and not be raised up again; nor shall there be any one to take them out of his hands, and to lift them up: for they have denied the Lord of spirits, and his Messiah"

There's nothing generic or vague about it.

They strike me as a bunch of goobers for a whole lot of other reasons.

It is excluded because of the whole thing about Enoch becoming the Metatron.

Not surprising. They reject Christ, too.

THIS IS WHAT WEIRDOS ACTUALY BELIEVE

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x960, 504.06K)

They held the book of Enoch in high regard until Christ came. Then they quickly rejected it. Not surprising with verses like this

I choked from laughing. Thanks for the chuckle, user.
But in all seriousness, I think it's fine to read the Book of Enoch on a private basis (along with works like the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Epistle of Clement, etc.), but the Church hasn't declared it canon, so we shouldn't regard it as such.

Attached: 12345665432.jpg (480x360, 28.17K)

That happens in 3 Enoch which is a work from the 4th Century. 1 Enoch was written hundreds of years earlier around 300 BC


I read the Shepherd of Hermas recently. It's very weird, I'm surprised it got so popular.

I didn't realize we were only talking about 1 Enoch, my apologies.

You're welcome. Yeah, private reading is fine, my problem with this particular book is that /x/ won't shut up about it.

Attached: 1531087484676.png (3084x2568, 187.81K)

It means onto other boards, including this one. Don't pretend they don't.

*leaks onto

I actually haven't given it a read, since I'm still in the middle of Eusebius' History of the Church. How weird are we talking?

They willingly cavort with demons and put themselves in grand danger.
They most likely read the Books of Enoch in an attempt to mantle him or find some knowledge.

I haven't browsed it in ages because of all the bullshittery you mentioned.

Good, I thought you continued to do so.
If there was ever a place that would warrant exorcism, it's /x/.

You're being too lenient

Attached: fukkin' heretiiiiiiiiiiiiiiics.jpg (680x383, 45.58K)

Gee I don't know user. Why isn't the gospel of Judas or the gospel of nicodemos on the canonical list as well?

Wew it's almost if the belief in a messiah wasn't a Jewish tradition and that issaiah didn't say God would come in person or that Daniel never spoke about the son of God.

Btw the book of "henoc" is recent as winnie the pooh. At least from the 5th century BC

5th century BC would make it one of the earlier OT books.

It would still be more recent than the majority of the books of the prophets.

titus 1:14

Who would have known that those fables had one or two sentences that were true?
You can even look into the new testament apocrypha there are somethings that are based on truth. But 95% of it is pure falsehood.
Sincerely I don't get the protestant boner for apocryphal books, but somehow the deutero Canon isn't inspired scripture

Sorry I misread.
Yes Titus just proves that you shouldnt believe on those shit.

The book of enoch says Azazel was a fallen angel but Azazel was actually a place

The place was named after the Angel that fell there

Pretty weird. It's a very long trippy style dialogue between Hermas and the personification of the early Church, who initially appears as a withered old woman but slowly becomes more beautiful as the faithful correct their sinful behavior.


There are lots of parables and metaphors. It was one of the most popular early works, there are tons of copies still existing.

Attached: Broof-a-doodle-doo.png (899x547, 61.55K)

Attached: f03d33430b8c01e5aeee6be01d0f19ba478c57e853e677ef905d857449f65ed8.jpg (250x250, 14.78K)

Meh, why not, I'll join the bantwagon too

Attached: 9WtjTcz.jpg (258x195, 10.71K)

Perhaps it is not included in the canon because the canon only includes books written by those who are a part of the covenant of Abraham, and due to it being antediluvian it is not needed to achieve knowledge for salvation.