CrackerJackAg said:

---

I didn't watch the lesson as I'm very familiar with the content.

What is the goal of post?

What do you want to discuss?

---

Quote:

---

In Orthodoxy, Enoch remains a valuable, authentic window into the apocalyptic worldview of Second Temple Judaism, but it stays outside the liturgical canon of the Church.

---

Quote:

---

I would actually blame the protestants far more as they tend to view anything not in the Bible as invalid. The orthodox in Roman Catholic churches never said Enoch was not valid.

---

Quote:

---

Protestants tend to view the Bible as the end all be all so if something is not in the Bible, that is how they tend to draw a valid/not valid line.

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Please be precise. Explain what you think Protestants believe about the book of Enoch that's different than what the EO and RCC believe. You're not clear at all.

Also, how can you constantly complain about the fragmentation of the Protestant church but then also confidently assert what all Protestants believe?

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Please be precise. Explain what you think Protestants believe about the book of Enoch that's different than what the EO and RCC believe. You're not clear at all.

Also, how can you constantly complain about the fragmentation of the Protestant church but then also confidently assert what all Protestants believe?

---

I spent the first 35 years of my life as a protestant and still interact with them regularly in the Orthodox Church.

Obviously, in the Sola Scriptura world you are absolutely correct, and there is no way to know what every single protestant thinks about everything. There's about 30,000 denominations worldwide and I can probably name about two dozen.

I doubt there's a person alive that can tell you the beliefs of every single protestant denomination.

In general, though, Catholics and Orthodox do not have an all or nothing mentality towards scripture.

I would say that it is safe to suppose most protestants have a mostly all or nothing mentality towards scripture. It's either "Biblical" or not.

As far as what a protestant thinks about the actual content of The Book of Enoch, I've never claimed any knowledge of that.

I've made no assertion on that.

My posts have simply been directed towards how it is classified as a book and the original statement that the RCC suppressed it.

I've never had a protestant bring up Enoch in a Q&A

Revelations all the damn time. That's always been the Protestant fascination.


As far as I know, I have an insulted anybody and I haven't gotten all worked up in response to anybody and I'm really not interested in an argument with a protestant that's attempting to be combative.

All of my texts have been just discussion and perspectives.

No arguments.

---

Quote:

---

In short there Orthodox Church uses the Septuagin that was translated into Greek in the 2nd century.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That's a fun and creative conspiracy theory but certainly not uncontested out even remotely mainstream.

The Greek and Latin Church spent its first 300 years being hunted, tortured, and fed to lions by the Roman Empire. Early Christians had zero interest in protecting the honor of pagan Rome. The Book of Revelation calls Rome the "***** of Babylon" and the "Beast," yet Revelation was preserved and canonized. If the Church was afraid of anti-Roman literature, Revelation would have been the first book burned.

The early Greek and Latin Church Fathers actively quoted and praised Enoch. They didn't suppress it out of Greco-Roman pride. The canon was determined by Eucharistic liturgical lectionaries and pastoral concerns over 4th-century Gnosticism.

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this as I don't have an anti Church conspiracy theory perspective.

---

5Amp said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I didn't watch the lesson as I'm very familiar with the content.

What is the goal of post?

What do you want to discuss?

---

Preexisting human souls were heavenly entities, these heavenly souls took on human bodies and with a lost memory of where they came from, and if successful with their faith and loyalty to God, will return for greater rewards, this is available for every human that ever lived.

Did the Roman Catholic Church remove Enoch writings?

The watchers drown in the flood but 10% of the offsprings of the watchers are evil spirits under contract with Satan to test the free will of these human souls as they try to complete their mission. The other 90% of evil spirits were bound by God and will be released in end times.

is that correct?

The second tape I watched is how to protect your home from these constant attacking evil spirits and that answer is with prayer.

I really like these tapes (at least the first 2), am I listening to a good source as I know nothing of the writings of this great man who God loved so much he was no more.

---

codker92 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That's a fun and creative conspiracy theory but certainly not uncontested out even remotely mainstream.

The Greek and Latin Church spent its first 300 years being hunted, tortured, and fed to lions by the Roman Empire. Early Christians had zero interest in protecting the honor of pagan Rome. The Book of Revelation calls Rome the "***** of Babylon" and the "Beast," yet Revelation was preserved and canonized. If the Church was afraid of anti-Roman literature, Revelation would have been the first book burned.

The early Greek and Latin Church Fathers actively quoted and praised Enoch. They didn't suppress it out of Greco-Roman pride. The canon was determined by Eucharistic liturgical lectionaries and pastoral concerns over 4th-century Gnosticism.

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this as I don't have an anti Church conspiracy theory perspective.

---

You are arguing against a position I haven't actually advanced. Recognizing that cultural, philosophical, and theological considerations influenced the development of the biblical canon is not the same thing as alleging an anti-Church conspiracy.

Augustine explicitly addressed Enoch's exclusion in City of God XVIII.38, explaining that writings attributed to Enoch were regarded with suspicion because of their antiquity and uncertain authenticity. That is an actual historical explanation from a Church Father, and it has nothing to do with Eucharistic lectionaries or fourth-century Gnosticism. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm? I guess Augustine did not know about Qumran where they read Enoch alongside Isaiah and Genesis?

I'm not suggesting that the Church Fathers secretly conspired to eliminate Enoch. I'm suggesting that canon formation in the Latin and Greek churches was a complicated historical process involving competing theological interpretations, questions of authority, changing intellectual traditions, which were just as influenced by Greco-Roman culture as actual theological tradition traceable to the Second Temple period.

Pointing that out does not require an anti-Church perspective. It simply requires recognizing that the Latin and Greek churches developed within a particular historical and cultural environment through a lense of Greco-Roman culture.

The more interesting question is why a text demonstrably circulating among Second Temple Jews, quoted in Jude, and defended by some early Christians ultimately fell outside the Latin and Greek church canon while remaining canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition to this day.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

codker92 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

That's a fun and creative conspiracy theory but certainly not uncontested out even remotely mainstream.

The Greek and Latin Church spent its first 300 years being hunted, tortured, and fed to lions by the Roman Empire. Early Christians had zero interest in protecting the honor of pagan Rome. The Book of Revelation calls Rome the "***** of Babylon" and the "Beast," yet Revelation was preserved and canonized. If the Church was afraid of anti-Roman literature, Revelation would have been the first book burned.

The early Greek and Latin Church Fathers actively quoted and praised Enoch. They didn't suppress it out of Greco-Roman pride. The canon was determined by Eucharistic liturgical lectionaries and pastoral concerns over 4th-century Gnosticism.

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this as I don't have an anti Church conspiracy theory perspective.

---

You are arguing against a position I haven't actually advanced. Recognizing that cultural, philosophical, and theological considerations influenced the development of the biblical canon is not the same thing as alleging an anti-Church conspiracy.

Augustine explicitly addressed Enoch's exclusion in City of God XVIII.38, explaining that writings attributed to Enoch were regarded with suspicion because of their antiquity and uncertain authenticity. That is an actual historical explanation from a Church Father, and it has nothing to do with Eucharistic lectionaries or fourth-century Gnosticism. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm? I guess Augustine did not know about Qumran where they read Enoch alongside Isaiah and Genesis?

I'm not suggesting that the Church Fathers secretly conspired to eliminate Enoch. I'm suggesting that canon formation in the Latin and Greek churches was a complicated historical process involving competing theological interpretations, questions of authority, changing intellectual traditions, which were just as influenced by Greco-Roman culture as actual theological tradition traceable to the Second Temple period.

Pointing that out does not require an anti-Church perspective. It simply requires recognizing that the Latin and Greek churches developed within a particular historical and cultural environment through a lense of Greco-Roman culture.

The more interesting question is why a text demonstrably circulating among Second Temple Jews, quoted in Jude, and defended by some early Christians ultimately fell outside the Latin and Greek church canon while remaining canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition to this day.

---

I don't disagree that those things were factors. Not ultimately the decision why. It was excluded from The Canon ultimately for the same reason Clemente I was and it was not excluded for any of the t reasons you listed.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

He did. All of the factors that you brought up, apply to Enoch at the time, but those were still not ultimately the reason Enoch wasn't included in the Canon.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Augustine's statement in City of God actually proves the point, not yours.

In that exact passage, Augustine acknowledges that Enoch was an inspired prophet and that Jude's quotation of him is genuine. What Augustine points out is the problem of canonical custody and authenticity: the Church could not receive it as canonical Scripture because it lacked an unbroken, verified chain of transmission through the historic covenant community, opening the door to fables and spurious additions.

And no, Augustine didn't have satellite access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes were an isolated, sectarian apocalyptic commune that hid their library in jars before being wiped out in 68 AD. The Church was never beholden to what a fringe desert sect read in secret; the Church received the public Scriptures handed down through the Apostles and the Septuagint tradition across the Christian world.

It boils down to the exact same principle that excluded 1 Clement or The Didache from the New Testament.

The Church never operated on a binary where a book is either "in the Bible" or it's just evil garbage.

There has always been literature that is edifying, historically authentic, and prophetically insightful (Enoch, 1 Clement, the Didache etc…) which the Church nonetheless excluded from the public, canonical lectionary.

The canon was established by the conciliar authority of the Church discerning what constituted the Eucharistic deposit of faith. Enoch wasn't kept out by Greco-Roman cultural vanity.

It was kept out because it lacked the institutional liturgical custody required of canonical Scripture.

---

5Amp said:

---

So once you agree to the contact to become human, what happens if you don't fulfill your mission but not an unholy person. Do you go back to what you were or end up with the souls were condemned.

What about aborted babies or children who died before they could do anything?

Let me see if I have the after death holding place correct:

1.) Job well done faithful servant
2.) condemned
3.) Tribulation martyrs
4.) the watchers and 1/3 of heaven administers who rebelled

I can believe the watcher story and the evil spirits that came from their offsprings after the flood. Pray constantly for protection and guard your house, no booze, drugs, evil ornaments, avoid bad thoughts, etc.

I also can believe the holding place after death more than what is taught at my church, standard straight to heaven with Jesus.

Just getting into the writings of Enoch but with caution and discernment.

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

First calling a Hellenistic Jewish text from the 3rd century BC a "polemic against the Greco-Roman empires of late antiquity" is an error spanning centuries.

In regards to direct reasons and receipts Augustine and Athenasius:

St. Athanasius the Great's 39th Festal Letter (367 AD)

This is the foundational text of canonical classification in the East.

Athanasius creates a clear, formal tripartite division:

1. Canonical Books: The books received from the Apostles to be read at the altar for the proclamation of salvation.

2. "Books to be Read" (Anaginoskomena): Books appointed by the Fathers to be read by catechumens and those wishing to learn piety (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas).

3. Apocryphal Books: Books not received into the public custody of the Church, liable to Gnostic manipulation and spurious authorship.

Enoch was never preserved in the apostolic custody of the lectionary, so it failed Athanasius's first category.

Furthermore just read the rest of the chapter you cited.

Augustine explicitly states why Enoch was excluded.

"Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocrypha, because their origin was not clear to the fathers, by whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted down to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession... but these were never judged to be of such authority either by the Jews or by the Church."

Augustine's decisive test is unbroken transmission within the historic covenant community. The Church received the public Septuagint and the Apostolic lectionary. Enoch had no public liturgical custody, no verified textual pedigree in the historic synagogues, and circulated with wild interpolations.

Again, the idea that Greek and Latin Christians excluded Enoch because they felt insulted as Romans makes no sense when the same Church canonized the Book of Revelation, which literally depicts Rome as a blood-soaked beast and predicts the complete annihilation of the empire.

Got to crash.

Goodnight

---

Zobel said:

---

100% of that is AI.

Boo this man. Boooooooo

---

Zobel said:

---

Did you write this or did you ask ChatGPT to help?

---