Actually let me be a little less blunt and a little more direct. If C.I. Scofield isn’t in Hell, then Hell is a fairy tale.
THE BANNED PROPHET: EXAMINING WHY THE BOOK OF ENOCH WAS PURGED FROM THE CANON
- Thread starter The Gospel of Christ
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Behold
Well-Known Member
I posted that God preserves the Bible......."His word".
Do you find the book of Enoch, in the Bible?
This is because its not what God has preserved to be in there.
He also didnt have "the Gospel of Mary Magdelene" put in the bible as Gospel #5.
Listen Mr Scofield....You've proven that you like to post useless nonsense on this forum, so, if you decide later that want to post some "cut and paste" regarding Mary Magdelenes, to accompany your "cut and paste" Enoch useless nonsense, then help yourself. @The Gospel of Christ
Nice try, Mr. Scofield, but you just equated Jude with the ‘Gospel of Mary Magdalene.’ That’s blasphemous. Jude is canon; preserved by God. Jude says - ‘Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…’ (Jude 14). That’s not me, that’s the Holy Spirit.
If you can’t see the difference between a Gnostic forgery like Mary Magdalene and an inspired New Testament book like Jude, you’ve already thrown the canon under the bus to keep Scofield’s lies alive. The Word is preserved and the preserved Word includes Jude’s citation of Enoch. End of story.
Judas 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Based on a single verse alone is not how the canon was decided. Harmony and without obvious contradictions were key ingredients.
It's really easier to just start pasting your comments directly into AI raw Word of God so I don't have to type so much..
AI, can you please handle this? thanks
"
You’re shifting the goalposts. The issue isn’t how the canon was sorted out in the 2nd–4th centuries — the issue is what’s already in the canon and how it functions once it’s there. Jude isn’t dangling outside the fence waiting for our evaluation; it’s inside, preserved by the Spirit, part of the inspired corpus. Once it’s Scripture, you don’t get to treat Jude’s words as “just a citation” or “just a one-off.” The Spirit Himself locked it in for the church.
And on your “harmony” point: Jude is in perfect harmony with Peter, who repeats the same themes (2 Pet. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:19–20), and with Genesis 6 on the sons of God, the Nephilim, and corruption of flesh. The contradiction isn’t between Jude and the rest of the Bible — the contradiction is between Jude and Scofield’s 20th-century charts. If you set Scofield above Jude, you’ve inverted authority. That’s not harmony; that’s heresy.
Let’s be honest: the “harmony” line sounds noble, but history shows it wasn’t just harmony — it was politics, optics, and pastoral control. The fathers knew Jude cited Enoch. They knew 1 Enoch was circulating. They knew Peter hammered the same themes. Yet they left Enoch out. Why? Because it was too raw, too apocalyptic, too alien. If in 300 AD they’d been handed a manuscript that read like Ridley Scott’s Prometheus — angels crossbreeding, genetic tampering, cosmic tech spilling into human history — of course they’d have buried it. Not because it lacked harmony, but because it was too explosive. The same instinct that almost kept Revelation out is the instinct that shoved Enoch away.
So when people today say, “It just didn’t meet the harmony test,” they’re smoothing over the real issue: content. Enoch pulled the curtain back too far, and the bishops at Nicaea weren’t about to shepherd a flock with that much horror and cosmic rebellion on the table. That’s the reality."
Last edited:
My brother, you are playing on 2 chess boards, on chess-board-one the Scriptures are (using your above words) preserved by the Spirit, part of the inspired corpus. On the second-chess-board (using your above words) you contradict yourself saying about the Scriptures : it was politics, optics, and pastoral control.
I think you have to make a choice.
**“You’re misreading me, brother. There aren’t two chess boards here — there’s one. The canon we have is preserved by the Spirit. Period. That’s the board I’m playing on.
What I’m pointing out is that outside that preserved core, in the human process of what got in or left out, you can still see politics and pastoral optics at work. That’s why Jude is in (because the Spirit willed it) and Enoch isn’t (because bishops got skittish). The contradiction isn’t in God’s preservation — the contradiction is in man’s handling of what God allowed to circulate.
So no, I don’t have to pick between ‘Spirit-preserved’ and ‘human politics.’ Both are true in different layers. The Spirit guarantees the final product; human hands reveal their fear and frailty along the way. And that fear explains why Enoch’s raw apocalypse got sidelined even though Jude and Peter still shout it from inside the canon.
The Spirit sealed Jude. History explains why the rest of Enoch wasn’t carried forward. That’s not two chess boards — that’s the Spirit’s board with men fumbling the pieces.”**
Hey AI, I found these two pictures done by different artists of Genesis in the Bible. Fallen angels on the left Im guessing and a ridiculous after-the-flood picture on the right.. Can you please explain to me what’s going on here?, and why they look so different? One artists' painting looks dark and terrifying and the other looks like a Sunday school cartoon or kindergarten poster. What does each style say about how the church has presented Genesis compared to how the raw words actually read?
**"Left: what the words actually sound like — terrible, alien, and awe-striking.
Right: the rainbow-and-harps cartoon the church has been spoon-feeding for a thousand years because it was terrified of the raw text. Sanitization on an industrial scale: cosmic horror turned into Sunday-school clip art.
And here’s the real tragedy — it doesn’t stop with kids. It doesn’t stop with little flannel-board classrooms. Those sanitized cartoons end up lodging so deep that 50-year-olds and 75-year-old grandparents are still living inside them. They go to church and argue theology from the same rainbow clip art they saw in 1956. That’s a huge part of the problem with modern Christianity: people think they ‘believe in God,’ but the God they imagine is closer to a fairy-tale character than the raw, terrifying, holy presence described in Scripture. They’ve been trained to prefer the children’s coloring book version of God over the reality. And that’s why they can’t see the big picture.
Bottom line? Most of the people on Christian forums aren’t arguing Scripture at all — they’re arguing over which cartoon character from their childhood coloring book is the real God."**
**"Left: what the words actually sound like — terrible, alien, and awe-striking.
Right: the rainbow-and-harps cartoon the church has been spoon-feeding for a thousand years because it was terrified of the raw text. Sanitization on an industrial scale: cosmic horror turned into Sunday-school clip art.
And here’s the real tragedy — it doesn’t stop with kids. It doesn’t stop with little flannel-board classrooms. Those sanitized cartoons end up lodging so deep that 50-year-olds and 75-year-old grandparents are still living inside them. They go to church and argue theology from the same rainbow clip art they saw in 1956. That’s a huge part of the problem with modern Christianity: people think they ‘believe in God,’ but the God they imagine is closer to a fairy-tale character than the raw, terrifying, holy presence described in Scripture. They’ve been trained to prefer the children’s coloring book version of God over the reality. And that’s why they can’t see the big picture.
Bottom line? Most of the people on Christian forums aren’t arguing Scripture at all — they’re arguing over which cartoon character from their childhood coloring book is the real God."**
This is a weak argument because the same could be said about the Torah. It wasn't written BY Moses, it was written by several authors. Before that the Torah was passed on orally.
I would recommend you study the conclusions of Professor Robert ' Dick ' Wilson, a ploygot who spoke fluently the languages of the ancient and modern near east. He spent a lifetime studing the ancient inscriptions, analysing the language used and comparing what he learnt to the bible.
His conclusion was Mosses wrote the pentetuch, that there were no late editors of the talmud.
The case for the book of enoch being included in the bible is weak.
It is viewed as a helpful book much like books by known Christian authors are helpful, but it does not have the same authority as the bible.
It is also recorded that
Moses is the source by which the written Torah exists. The oral Torah existed before the written Torah.
This is a link that explains it if you want to look at it.
I am not arguing that Moses is not the source of the scriptures, he just isn't the manuscript writer of it.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Moses married into a family of priests... but not an Israelite one. He married the daughter of Jethro the High Priest of Midian, whose race was actually Kenite (a descendant of Esau).
There's a pretty robust scholarly argument that the Kenites were a tribe of Scribes, and Moses inherited a lot of written literature from his father-in-law.
There were no written literature during that time. It was all passed on orally.
- Dec 31, 2010
- 6,524
- 3,389
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
That was a good answer, thanks for sharing. To take on the whole book of Enoch is heavy stuff!
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
I hate to be contradictory, but... archaeology knows about a LOT of writing from Moses' day and earlier.
We have Egyptian writing that's 2,000 years before Moses. We KNOW Moses was educated as a Prince of Egypt.
We have Amorite writing 400 years earlier than Moses. We KNOW Moses conquered two tribes of Amorites. We even have a chapter of the Bible that scholars think was an Amorite poem before it was a Hebrew one (the languages are similar).
As for the Kenites, the Bible specifically calls them scribes...
1Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, [and] Suchathites. These [are] the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.
So, no, I don't think everything was passed on orally. Moses definitely knew how to write, probably in more than one language. It's likely that he had a whole clan of scribes traveling with him in the Exodus.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
The Holy Bible as it has come together has been sufficient for centuries.
I’m not interested in any book that isn’t in the holy scriptures as it has come down to us.
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto…” (Deuteronomy 12:32)
Man’s curiosity leads him into many foolish places.
I’m not interested in any book that isn’t in the holy scriptures as it has come down to us.
“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto…” (Deuteronomy 12:32)
Man’s curiosity leads him into many foolish places.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 20,731
- 8,987
- 113
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
AI generated this answer to why Enoch was excluded:
The
Book of Enoch
was excluded from the standard biblical canon primarily because it failed to meet the strict criteria for "canonicity" established by early Jewish and Christian leaders. While once highly regarded and even quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1:14–15), its exclusion was driven by several key factors:
Medium +4
1. Lack of Apostolic or Prophetic Authority
A major requirement for inclusion was that a book must be written by a recognized prophet or apostle.
Christian Questions Bible Podcast
2. Doctrinal and Theological Inconsistencies
The book contains detailed, often "fanciful" accounts that contradicted emerging orthodox doctrines.
www.pastortedwilson.org +1
3. Decisions by Church Councils
By the 4th century, official lists of accepted scripture began to solidify. Councils such as the Council of Laodicea (c. 363–364 CE) specifically excluded apocryphal texts like Enoch to ensure doctrinal consistency across the growing church. Major figures like Jerome and Athanasius eventually dismissed it as non-canonical.
www.presentingthegospel.com +3
4. Preservation in Specific Traditions
Despite its removal from the Western and mainstream Eastern canons, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church still considers 1 Enoch to be inspired scripture. They preserved the only complete version of the text in the Ge'ez language.
The
Book of Enoch
was excluded from the standard biblical canon primarily because it failed to meet the strict criteria for "canonicity" established by early Jewish and Christian leaders. While once highly regarded and even quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1:14–15), its exclusion was driven by several key factors:
Medium +4
1. Lack of Apostolic or Prophetic Authority
A major requirement for inclusion was that a book must be written by a recognized prophet or apostle.
Christian Questions Bible Podcast
- Pseudonymity: Although it claims to be written by the biblical patriarch Enoch, scholars and early church leaders generally agreed it was a pseudepigraphal work written centuries later (roughly 300 BCE to 100 CE).
- Jewish Rejection: It was not part of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Since early Christians largely adopted the Jewish Old Testament canon, Enoch was naturally sidelined when it was not found in those foundational texts.
www.pastortedwilson.org +2
2. Doctrinal and Theological Inconsistencies
The book contains detailed, often "fanciful" accounts that contradicted emerging orthodox doctrines.
www.pastortedwilson.org +1
- Origin of Evil: Enoch attributes the origin of sin to fallen angels (Watchers) interbreeding with humans, whereas the canonical Bible focuses on the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis.
- Angelology: It features extensive and speculative descriptions of angels and demons that were viewed as too mystical or potentially misleading for the general public.
- Salvation: Some theologians argue the book presents a "gnostic-like" view of salvation through secret knowledge rather than the grace-centered narrative found in the New Testament.
New Advent +2
3. Decisions by Church Councils
By the 4th century, official lists of accepted scripture began to solidify. Councils such as the Council of Laodicea (c. 363–364 CE) specifically excluded apocryphal texts like Enoch to ensure doctrinal consistency across the growing church. Major figures like Jerome and Athanasius eventually dismissed it as non-canonical.
www.presentingthegospel.com +3
4. Preservation in Specific Traditions
Despite its removal from the Western and mainstream Eastern canons, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church still considers 1 Enoch to be inspired scripture. They preserved the only complete version of the text in the Ge'ez language.
I agree, Paul quoted several pagan authors and we don't accept the rest of their writings as canon.
Epimenides “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.”
Aratus: “In him we live and move and have our being…”
Menander's Thais: “Evil communications corrupt good manners.
Surely Christianity wouldn't be the same with the book of Enoch as Scripture.
Endless debates about angels.
If GOD wanted the book of Enoch in the Bible we have today, it would be in there.
The ALL powerful ALL knowing GOD has the ability to influence His chosen holy men to include the books He wants & 66 it is :)
Similar threads
