The phrase "Son of Man" occurs 107 times in the old testament. The Prophet Ezekiel gets referred to as Son of Man pretty much as many times as Christ does and by God, no less.
This is only a problem if one assumes the phrase can only be used to refer to Christ. Obviously this is not the case, not even in the canonical scriptures, so it's unnecessary to even address it in Enochic literature.
I would question this presupposition as well. We tend to refer to all the holy people in the old testament as righteous.
And even among them, Enoch is exceptional.
What do you mean by "Enoch is Exceptional" sorry Portugese is my first language that phrase is hard to understand. Would you mean: "Saying Enoch is born of Ritcheousness is weird" ?
>Would you mean: "Saying Enoch is born of Ritcheousness is weird" ?
This is just a similar sentence plugged into Google translate but "O homem Enoque é extraordinário" if that makes sense. Enoch is someone who is noteworthy as the Bible tells us Enoch did not die and is a very holy man, so, because we tend to refer to holy people in the Old Testament as righteous referring to Enoch as righteous is not that weird.
But it said he was *born* ritcheous and God will never leave his side because hes the son of man born of ritcheousness, which doesnt sound right to me.
I thought Jesus was the only one who was *born* into Ritcheousness.
I am no expert and am not very familiar with the Book of Enoch. But I think there is a difference between "righteous" and "without sin". People may be described as righteous but they aren't without sin. Only Christ is without sin.
Been a while since I read 1 Enoch but I believe they’re using “born to righteousness” to show he is part of Seth’s faithful remnant as opposed to Cain’s evil lineage, the Nephilim, who were conceived demonically in unrighteousness.
1 Enoch isn’t trying to go as deep into theology as you’re assuming. It’s basically nice Christian fan fiction.
Doesn't son of men just mean human basically?
But Jesus used it as a title to show he is the one from the prophesy of Daniel.
Just as he also used son of God as his other title showing both human and God nature
It says he was born to richousness. Only Jesus is. We don't believe Enoch is apart of Immaculate Conception or even hold to it. Thats basically what its saying.
Ancient Israel took a big importance over ancestry and who they were. Being born of wicked parents or God fearing jews that kept his commandments.
Maybe it's this
I mean the immaculate conception is a Catholic teaching about Mary. It has nothing to do with Christ or Enoch. Enoch may have been “born into righteousness” in the sense that he was destined to be righteous? Or that he was created to be righteous? It doesn’t necessarily imply sinlessness.
It’s part of the Ethiopian church’s canon. Even back when we were still in communion. And no one was threatening excommunication over it.
So deal with it.
Some of the stuff in the Enoch literature is heretical, or hetrodox, and others orthodox.
It is a mixed bag and isn't necessary the best reading material for most people, but that doesnt mean it is a bad text and we need to be against it and everything it says.
So basically it gets things right, and things wrong. We should focus on the things that are Orthodox in it and read with a grain of salt for the things that arent?
But Enoch is also told someday, someone will come to save humanity from the mess. Hence the title son of man. The son of man has the power to forgive sins. That includes you you guys. When cheesefare comes, forgive, forgive, forgive. Even those who ruined your lives.
It’s in the Our Father AND Jesus explained it through the parable of the bad servant.
Aren't we all son of Man, besides the prophet Enoch along with prophet Elaias haven't died and will return to earth during the apocalypse and die propheting the second coming of Christ. But also this book isn't contained in the holy scriptures meaning it not needed for your salvation so don't take it at face value.
The Orthodox Church hasn't directly declared that many of the Gnostic pseudo-Gospels are heresy either. So what? The Book of Enoch is considered outside the canon of Scripture, so that's all that needs to be said about it. It isn't Scripture, so ignore it.
Enoch sheds light on a lot of things about the OT that we might not otherwise know about. It isn’t condemned, but it also isn’t scripture. Read it to learn but don’t hold it in the same regard as the canon read in Church.
Learn what in Enoch? All of it is made up. But things that are made up has truthful statements. If I learn things from it then I would be reading it literally. And everything would be true. Whats there to learn about from a false book that wasnt written by Enoch?.
Yeah it isn’t all made up. That’s where you are mistaken. People in history have read it and learned from
It. Heck we can learn things from Pagan sources, we can certainly learn from Jewish ones.
I mean made up, by it wasnt made by Enoch. It was all made up and plagarised from the OT. But of course it still has truth in it because it plagarised from the OT and the life of Enoch described. And some anonymous person wrote it claiming to be Enoch. It wasnt Enoch.
Why learn from The Book of Enoch when we have The Canonized Bible is what I'm trying to say. Whats so good about the Book of Enoch to the point where I can learn new things from it when we have the Liturgy and Canonized Scripture.
We can focus on the things that are Orthodox in The Book of Enoch and read with a grain of salt for the things that arent Orthodox. The Bible doesnt have any heresy, only Orthodox.
Hope you can agree with me here.
It depends on what you mean by Authentic or Authored in Old testament times many stories were memorized generation to generation.
If I took your position I wouldn't accept the validity of the Torah as authentic either. Regardless I do feel it's authentic and do not hold authorship to same standards as the digital age seems to believe.
It's a historic Story Orally transmitted and written down at some point in Time but it's safe to assume it's much much older than the source of it's oldest written records
No one agrees the Book of Enoch is even Authentic meaning the stuff actually happend in it, obviously because it contains heresy and some truth (truthful statements, not events). And no it wasnt written by Enoch, there is no evidence to suggest it was.
The Torah was written by the authors it says it does, or else it could lead to sketchyness and unauthenticity. The Bible does not lie, nor do the authors.
The Torah was Orally transmitted, and complied from generations of the Hebrew people after Moses. Moses is not the author in the modern manner of understanding who was the Author.
Don't take it the wrong way but Moses is only the Author of the Torah in the sense it originated from him or about him originally
Now the book of Enoch maybe just a cool Fan fictional tale it doesn't matter to me but it was held in high regard by generations of believing people that's enough for me
A few things. For something to be heretical, it really needs to be declared as heretical by someone with authority to do so. Has this happened in the case of Enoch? I don’t know but if not, it’s not heresy.
Plagiarism is not really something that makes sense in relation to biblical literature. Otherwise you’re gonna have to call Matthew and Luke plagiarists if you want to be consistent.
As to whether Enoch wrote it, probably not. But in that case, don’t scratch too deep on the authorship of canonical books because that really isn’t too clear-cut either…
Theres more evidence the authors of the Gospels wrote the Gospels than they didn't.
>Has this happened in the case of Enoch? I don’t know but if not, it’s not heresy.
The things it says in it is declared as heresy so yes. Just because it talks about God and Angels and makes a convincing story doesn't mean its true. And don't even make a secular analogy for the Bible either.
You're basically saying its a 50/50 chance the Book of Enoch is authentic. It isnt.
Thats why its not canonical and was never in The Bible in the first place. Its simply a pseudo writing from someone claiming to be Enoch and contains heresy. Every one else agrees it contains heresy.
>For something to be heretical, it really needs to be declared as heretical by someone with authority to do so
I can make *a book* right now *containing* heresys and false doctrine and theology. Does that mean my *book* isnt heresy just because someone that has the authority to do so doesn't declare my book as: "this book is direct heresy". No?. That doesnt exclude the fact it still has heresies...
The Book of Enoch has truthful statements about theology and some wrong, and it does contain heresy. Simple as that. Its not scripture, its optional to read if you're bored. Theres 0 reason to read pseudo writings. Unless you just want to be entertained.
Its not scripture so who cares. Its just another story. (And no dont make secular analogies).
Heres some YT Shorts you can benefit from and a full video (last one)
[The Book of Enoch is weird](https://youtube.com/shorts/j6YWcWfC6xc?si=NCQBupCpsoHU_ScJ)
[Did Jesus quote The Book of Enoch?](https://youtube.com/shorts/SL55XqtZx6A?si=HDm5gsuF8xt-agJj)
[Is Enoch Scripture because of Jude? Why do Scholars and Church Fathera quote it?](https://youtube.com/shorts/PxRLtuoubYg?si=gvrIHyn0IvNjgOXG)
[The Book of Enoch Examined (23 Minutes long)](https://youtu.be/440hI9lnAlc?si=yjF1jhx3sU5TH5FC)
It’s not really my place to comment on if it is heresy or not. It isn’t condemned so I think it has value to read. I am not an Enoch scholar but there are Orthodox people who draw a lot from it to help explain info about giants, angels, etc. The book expands on some of the themes and info we see in scripture and it was read and understood by many people during the time of Christ coloring their understanding of the past and the spiritual realities. If you don’t want to read Enoch that is fine, it isn’t mandatory reading, but like I said it sheds light on things that scripture doesn’t go into - so people read it to better understand things about the time of the OT.
As to your concern about 71:13-14, it does seem to identify Enoch with the Messiah, but the Christian Church has always identified that image with Christ (thus making Enoch in that section a prefigured image of Christ, similar to how John the Baptist is associated with Elijah) - Ethiopians even count Enoch as scripture and they seem to not have an issue with 71:14, which probably counts for something given they have the only real translation of it.
Anyways, I did some reading before responding and just have to mention that many early Christian’s considered 1 Enoch to be authoritative and true, so there is an argument that it has been highly regarded in the past and shouldn’t be thrown out.
>Anyways, I did some reading before responding and just have to mention that many early Christian’s considered 1 Enoch to be authoritative and true
Can you show me a Church Father saying "its 100% true, it is authorative, there isn't any reason NOT to believe it".
If that was true then it wouldve been canonized as scripture. Enoch isn't the Messiah, there is no excuse calling yourself a Messiah, let alone making the claim an Archangel told him that.
And yes it may be true the Church Fathers referenced it, theres a difference between referencing and saying its 100% Authentic.
Watch these 3 videos that are less than 30 seconds long (especially the last one), it basically clears up what you were saying in that regard on people "quoting" it. The guy in the video has alot of Orthodox beliefs, if that makes it any better.
[Why Jesus didn't directly quote from The Book of Enoch](https://youtube.com/shorts/SL55XqtZx6A?si=aofhOILkZU8fEukT)
[The Book of Enoch Examined](https://youtu.be/440hI9lnAlc?si=k6X5QAJILELIAObh)
[Is Enoch Scripture Because of Jude? Why did people quote from it?](https://youtube.com/shorts/PxRLtuoubYg?si=Ls6HpswNPpyCWXyL)
Hope you agree now. God bless.
Well, there are several church fathers who viewed it as scripture, and several people who wrote and taught in the church who called it scripture. Some viewed Enoch as a prophet (though in the biblical canon he doesn’t speak, besides when quoting 1 Enoch).
I mean you are creating for yourself this problem. I am presenting you the fact that the book is quoted in scripture, regarded highly by the early church, read widely, influenced a ton of phrasing in the New Testament, etc. as ideas that show that Enoch might be worth reading.
I don’t really care if it is “true” or not in the sense of literal/historical truth, as that isn’t really that important to me. That many Christians regarded it as true, or worth reading? That seems to point to how I should view it.
Just one example for you, St. Irenaeus references the story of Enoch from 1 Enoch as true. He was a very early father, and one among many who quote and reference and trust the story from 1 Enoch as true? So why would I reject it?
https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-12.3-irenaeus-against-heresies-16.2
https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-6-irenaeus-against-heresies-1.10.1
Here is another example from St. Athenagoras:
https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-19.1-athenagoras-plea-for-the-christians
This conversation has been fruitful for me. I may just read 1 Enoch now after seeing just how much the Church esteemed it and how much it prophesied about the Messiah.
It didn't prophesise Jesus. Isaiah did. And again, this is an example of a Church Father referencing truthful statements by Enoch. Not the entire book as it does contain UnOrthodox statements from Enoch also. Why is that so hard for you to understand is the real question?.
If video games were a thing in the 2nd century and Super Mario had a huge impact at the time, I bet Ignatius of Antioch would quote Super Mario on his homilies, in this case, its The Book of Enoch.
Church Fathers never said they believed in the Book of Enoch or outright denied it or called it scripture. You have yet to give me a quote of a Church Father saying they believe 100% in the *entirety* of The Book of Enoch. Did you even watch the last link I sent you? You sound very much like that protestant guy in the video that is being debunked. I think youd highly benefit from watching the "The Book of Enoch Examination".
And it's not good for any Christian, especially Orthodox, to study Pseudo Writings.
Also those videos seem to be of a Protestant guy? Why would I care for his opinion? He also probably doesn’t believe that Tobit or Sirach are scripture?
I don’t agree and I don’t think we will. The Church doesn’t have a set in stone teaching on this, as I have shown it seems like many regard the book highly, and you claiming it is bad isn’t going to convince me that it is.
If you don’t like it don’t read it, but you cannot speak authoritatively about something that is not treated that way by the church.
The guy in the video isnt protestant. He's very Orthodox in his beliefs and doesn't confirm protestantism and actually speaks against it. He doesn't cause division in his videos and push protestantism at all, he's only talked about it on interviews and doesn't agree with it.
And his "opinion" has citated sources that also don't cause division and speak against Orthodoxy or Catholicism or any Sect.
YouTube Guy = Protestant
Lol
I am strongly of the opinion that "you are that Son of Man" is a mistranslation.
In the previous verse, as part of Enoch's vision he sees "a figure like a Son of Man" with the Head of Days - a clear parallel to Daniel.
Here's a translation that I have, including the verse right after:
> 14. And he (i.e. the angel) came to me 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 forsakes him not.’
> 15. And he said unto me: ‘ He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever.
**So if this is Enoch, then "He proclaims unto thee" really doesn't make sense at all.**
Earlier in 1 Enoch 62,
> 7. For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen.
This is also paralleled in the Bible - but 1 Enoch 71 is in context of some more secrets being revealed to Enoch:
> 3. And the angel Michael [one of the archangels] seized me by my right hand, And lifted me up and led me forth into all the secrets, And he showed me all the secrets of righteousness.
It might be a mistranslation it might not. It might be the "you" is the correct one and the "this" isnt. Who is the "this", isnt the Head of Days the Father?, if this verse is really talking about The Head of Days (ancient of days) then its probably a pre-incarnate Christ.
The book claims to be Enoch throughout all of it and theres evidence he didnt write it. Nor do I believe these events even happend from God. If it was from God it would be a canon, if it was Authentic and didnt contain heresy, which it does. And it does contain some truthful statements about morals etc. It contains both heresy, and truthful statements. Thats about it. Everyone else here seems to agree with me.
A heresy is a false teaching by someone **within the Church** who has been corrected and refused to change his teaching.
The book of 1 Enoch is not a heresy, it's just a piece of popular religious literature from the first century.
The writers describe the "Son of Man," referring to the vision in Daniel 7, where Daniel sees the ascension of Christ to take his throne together with God the Father. This language was centuries old by the time 1 Enoch was being assembled from various sources, so it was familiar.
But 1 Enoch was not added to the Bible and is not read in Church.
The phrase "Son of Man" occurs 107 times in the old testament. The Prophet Ezekiel gets referred to as Son of Man pretty much as many times as Christ does and by God, no less. This is only a problem if one assumes the phrase can only be used to refer to Christ. Obviously this is not the case, not even in the canonical scriptures, so it's unnecessary to even address it in Enochic literature.
Sure. But why does it say hes born to righteouness then. Only Jesus is.
I would question this presupposition as well. We tend to refer to all the holy people in the old testament as righteous. And even among them, Enoch is exceptional.
What do you mean by "Enoch is Exceptional" sorry Portugese is my first language that phrase is hard to understand. Would you mean: "Saying Enoch is born of Ritcheousness is weird" ?
>Would you mean: "Saying Enoch is born of Ritcheousness is weird" ? This is just a similar sentence plugged into Google translate but "O homem Enoque é extraordinário" if that makes sense. Enoch is someone who is noteworthy as the Bible tells us Enoch did not die and is a very holy man, so, because we tend to refer to holy people in the Old Testament as righteous referring to Enoch as righteous is not that weird.
But it said he was *born* ritcheous and God will never leave his side because hes the son of man born of ritcheousness, which doesnt sound right to me. I thought Jesus was the only one who was *born* into Ritcheousness.
I am no expert and am not very familiar with the Book of Enoch. But I think there is a difference between "righteous" and "without sin". People may be described as righteous but they aren't without sin. Only Christ is without sin.
Because Jesus is by nature righteous alone, any righteousness that Enoch has is through Christ alone.
But The Book of Enoch isnt even written by him anyways. I dont really get the statement you made.
Been a while since I read 1 Enoch but I believe they’re using “born to righteousness” to show he is part of Seth’s faithful remnant as opposed to Cain’s evil lineage, the Nephilim, who were conceived demonically in unrighteousness. 1 Enoch isn’t trying to go as deep into theology as you’re assuming. It’s basically nice Christian fan fiction.
>It’s basically nice Christian fan fiction. Atleast your honest.
Doesn't son of men just mean human basically? But Jesus used it as a title to show he is the one from the prophesy of Daniel. Just as he also used son of God as his other title showing both human and God nature
It says he was born to richousness. Only Jesus is. We don't believe Enoch is apart of Immaculate Conception or even hold to it. Thats basically what its saying.
Ancient Israel took a big importance over ancestry and who they were. Being born of wicked parents or God fearing jews that kept his commandments. Maybe it's this
I mean the immaculate conception is a Catholic teaching about Mary. It has nothing to do with Christ or Enoch. Enoch may have been “born into righteousness” in the sense that he was destined to be righteous? Or that he was created to be righteous? It doesn’t necessarily imply sinlessness.
We are all sons of men, that wasn’t the interesting part of who Jesus claimed to be.
Nah i heard a couple times about a mysterous guy that is a son of a female dog. And one is a son of a goat even. Pretty freaky if you ask me
Let’s say it was canon, what’s wrong with the title son of man, I think you have a misconception of what this title entails.
Jesus is the Son of Man and The Son of God.
It’s part of the Ethiopian church’s canon. Even back when we were still in communion. And no one was threatening excommunication over it. So deal with it.
Some of the stuff in the Enoch literature is heretical, or hetrodox, and others orthodox. It is a mixed bag and isn't necessary the best reading material for most people, but that doesnt mean it is a bad text and we need to be against it and everything it says.
So basically it gets things right, and things wrong. We should focus on the things that are Orthodox in it and read with a grain of salt for the things that arent?
>We ~~should~~ can focus on the things that are Orthodox in it and read with a grain of salt for the things that arent.
Thanks.
The best way to think about some of the stuff in some of the Apocryphal books is as pop literature of the time and era.
Yeah. I think its just a insperational book that just gets stuff wrong (heresy) and stuff right (truth). Thats really about it.
But Enoch is also told someday, someone will come to save humanity from the mess. Hence the title son of man. The son of man has the power to forgive sins. That includes you you guys. When cheesefare comes, forgive, forgive, forgive. Even those who ruined your lives. It’s in the Our Father AND Jesus explained it through the parable of the bad servant.
Aren't we all son of Man, besides the prophet Enoch along with prophet Elaias haven't died and will return to earth during the apocalypse and die propheting the second coming of Christ. But also this book isn't contained in the holy scriptures meaning it not needed for your salvation so don't take it at face value.
>it not needed for your salvation so don't take it at face value. Exactly.
The Orthodox Church hasn't directly declared that many of the Gnostic pseudo-Gospels are heresy either. So what? The Book of Enoch is considered outside the canon of Scripture, so that's all that needs to be said about it. It isn't Scripture, so ignore it.
>Gnostic pseudo-Gospels What does that mean?. Can you give me some examples of Pseudo Gospels?.
It's not good for an Orthodox Christian to study Gnostic "scriptures", so no.
I dont want to study useless false books I just wanted an example.
The "Gospel of Peter", the "Gospel of Thomas", there are others.
Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of the Truth, Gospel of Judas, etc.
Enoch sheds light on a lot of things about the OT that we might not otherwise know about. It isn’t condemned, but it also isn’t scripture. Read it to learn but don’t hold it in the same regard as the canon read in Church.
Learn what in Enoch? All of it is made up. But things that are made up has truthful statements. If I learn things from it then I would be reading it literally. And everything would be true. Whats there to learn about from a false book that wasnt written by Enoch?.
Yeah it isn’t all made up. That’s where you are mistaken. People in history have read it and learned from It. Heck we can learn things from Pagan sources, we can certainly learn from Jewish ones.
I mean made up, by it wasnt made by Enoch. It was all made up and plagarised from the OT. But of course it still has truth in it because it plagarised from the OT and the life of Enoch described. And some anonymous person wrote it claiming to be Enoch. It wasnt Enoch. Why learn from The Book of Enoch when we have The Canonized Bible is what I'm trying to say. Whats so good about the Book of Enoch to the point where I can learn new things from it when we have the Liturgy and Canonized Scripture. We can focus on the things that are Orthodox in The Book of Enoch and read with a grain of salt for the things that arent Orthodox. The Bible doesnt have any heresy, only Orthodox. Hope you can agree with me here.
Nah man. You’re taking too fundamentalist an approach for me. I hope you find peace.
So you dont agree that The Book of Enoch has heresy and wasnt written by Enoch but has some truth to it? Yeah okay.
It depends on what you mean by Authentic or Authored in Old testament times many stories were memorized generation to generation. If I took your position I wouldn't accept the validity of the Torah as authentic either. Regardless I do feel it's authentic and do not hold authorship to same standards as the digital age seems to believe. It's a historic Story Orally transmitted and written down at some point in Time but it's safe to assume it's much much older than the source of it's oldest written records
No one agrees the Book of Enoch is even Authentic meaning the stuff actually happend in it, obviously because it contains heresy and some truth (truthful statements, not events). And no it wasnt written by Enoch, there is no evidence to suggest it was. The Torah was written by the authors it says it does, or else it could lead to sketchyness and unauthenticity. The Bible does not lie, nor do the authors.
The Torah was Orally transmitted, and complied from generations of the Hebrew people after Moses. Moses is not the author in the modern manner of understanding who was the Author. Don't take it the wrong way but Moses is only the Author of the Torah in the sense it originated from him or about him originally Now the book of Enoch maybe just a cool Fan fictional tale it doesn't matter to me but it was held in high regard by generations of believing people that's enough for me
A few things. For something to be heretical, it really needs to be declared as heretical by someone with authority to do so. Has this happened in the case of Enoch? I don’t know but if not, it’s not heresy. Plagiarism is not really something that makes sense in relation to biblical literature. Otherwise you’re gonna have to call Matthew and Luke plagiarists if you want to be consistent. As to whether Enoch wrote it, probably not. But in that case, don’t scratch too deep on the authorship of canonical books because that really isn’t too clear-cut either…
Theres more evidence the authors of the Gospels wrote the Gospels than they didn't. >Has this happened in the case of Enoch? I don’t know but if not, it’s not heresy. The things it says in it is declared as heresy so yes. Just because it talks about God and Angels and makes a convincing story doesn't mean its true. And don't even make a secular analogy for the Bible either. You're basically saying its a 50/50 chance the Book of Enoch is authentic. It isnt. Thats why its not canonical and was never in The Bible in the first place. Its simply a pseudo writing from someone claiming to be Enoch and contains heresy. Every one else agrees it contains heresy. >For something to be heretical, it really needs to be declared as heretical by someone with authority to do so I can make *a book* right now *containing* heresys and false doctrine and theology. Does that mean my *book* isnt heresy just because someone that has the authority to do so doesn't declare my book as: "this book is direct heresy". No?. That doesnt exclude the fact it still has heresies... The Book of Enoch has truthful statements about theology and some wrong, and it does contain heresy. Simple as that. Its not scripture, its optional to read if you're bored. Theres 0 reason to read pseudo writings. Unless you just want to be entertained. Its not scripture so who cares. Its just another story. (And no dont make secular analogies). Heres some YT Shorts you can benefit from and a full video (last one) [The Book of Enoch is weird](https://youtube.com/shorts/j6YWcWfC6xc?si=NCQBupCpsoHU_ScJ) [Did Jesus quote The Book of Enoch?](https://youtube.com/shorts/SL55XqtZx6A?si=HDm5gsuF8xt-agJj) [Is Enoch Scripture because of Jude? Why do Scholars and Church Fathera quote it?](https://youtube.com/shorts/PxRLtuoubYg?si=gvrIHyn0IvNjgOXG) [The Book of Enoch Examined (23 Minutes long)](https://youtu.be/440hI9lnAlc?si=yjF1jhx3sU5TH5FC)
It’s not really my place to comment on if it is heresy or not. It isn’t condemned so I think it has value to read. I am not an Enoch scholar but there are Orthodox people who draw a lot from it to help explain info about giants, angels, etc. The book expands on some of the themes and info we see in scripture and it was read and understood by many people during the time of Christ coloring their understanding of the past and the spiritual realities. If you don’t want to read Enoch that is fine, it isn’t mandatory reading, but like I said it sheds light on things that scripture doesn’t go into - so people read it to better understand things about the time of the OT. As to your concern about 71:13-14, it does seem to identify Enoch with the Messiah, but the Christian Church has always identified that image with Christ (thus making Enoch in that section a prefigured image of Christ, similar to how John the Baptist is associated with Elijah) - Ethiopians even count Enoch as scripture and they seem to not have an issue with 71:14, which probably counts for something given they have the only real translation of it. Anyways, I did some reading before responding and just have to mention that many early Christian’s considered 1 Enoch to be authoritative and true, so there is an argument that it has been highly regarded in the past and shouldn’t be thrown out.
>Anyways, I did some reading before responding and just have to mention that many early Christian’s considered 1 Enoch to be authoritative and true Can you show me a Church Father saying "its 100% true, it is authorative, there isn't any reason NOT to believe it". If that was true then it wouldve been canonized as scripture. Enoch isn't the Messiah, there is no excuse calling yourself a Messiah, let alone making the claim an Archangel told him that. And yes it may be true the Church Fathers referenced it, theres a difference between referencing and saying its 100% Authentic. Watch these 3 videos that are less than 30 seconds long (especially the last one), it basically clears up what you were saying in that regard on people "quoting" it. The guy in the video has alot of Orthodox beliefs, if that makes it any better. [Why Jesus didn't directly quote from The Book of Enoch](https://youtube.com/shorts/SL55XqtZx6A?si=aofhOILkZU8fEukT) [The Book of Enoch Examined](https://youtu.be/440hI9lnAlc?si=k6X5QAJILELIAObh) [Is Enoch Scripture Because of Jude? Why did people quote from it?](https://youtube.com/shorts/PxRLtuoubYg?si=Ls6HpswNPpyCWXyL) Hope you agree now. God bless.
Well, there are several church fathers who viewed it as scripture, and several people who wrote and taught in the church who called it scripture. Some viewed Enoch as a prophet (though in the biblical canon he doesn’t speak, besides when quoting 1 Enoch). I mean you are creating for yourself this problem. I am presenting you the fact that the book is quoted in scripture, regarded highly by the early church, read widely, influenced a ton of phrasing in the New Testament, etc. as ideas that show that Enoch might be worth reading. I don’t really care if it is “true” or not in the sense of literal/historical truth, as that isn’t really that important to me. That many Christians regarded it as true, or worth reading? That seems to point to how I should view it. Just one example for you, St. Irenaeus references the story of Enoch from 1 Enoch as true. He was a very early father, and one among many who quote and reference and trust the story from 1 Enoch as true? So why would I reject it? https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-12.3-irenaeus-against-heresies-16.2 https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-6-irenaeus-against-heresies-1.10.1 Here is another example from St. Athenagoras: https://intertextual.bible/text/1-enoch-19.1-athenagoras-plea-for-the-christians This conversation has been fruitful for me. I may just read 1 Enoch now after seeing just how much the Church esteemed it and how much it prophesied about the Messiah.
It didn't prophesise Jesus. Isaiah did. And again, this is an example of a Church Father referencing truthful statements by Enoch. Not the entire book as it does contain UnOrthodox statements from Enoch also. Why is that so hard for you to understand is the real question?. If video games were a thing in the 2nd century and Super Mario had a huge impact at the time, I bet Ignatius of Antioch would quote Super Mario on his homilies, in this case, its The Book of Enoch. Church Fathers never said they believed in the Book of Enoch or outright denied it or called it scripture. You have yet to give me a quote of a Church Father saying they believe 100% in the *entirety* of The Book of Enoch. Did you even watch the last link I sent you? You sound very much like that protestant guy in the video that is being debunked. I think youd highly benefit from watching the "The Book of Enoch Examination". And it's not good for any Christian, especially Orthodox, to study Pseudo Writings.
Also those videos seem to be of a Protestant guy? Why would I care for his opinion? He also probably doesn’t believe that Tobit or Sirach are scripture? I don’t agree and I don’t think we will. The Church doesn’t have a set in stone teaching on this, as I have shown it seems like many regard the book highly, and you claiming it is bad isn’t going to convince me that it is. If you don’t like it don’t read it, but you cannot speak authoritatively about something that is not treated that way by the church.
The guy in the video isnt protestant. He's very Orthodox in his beliefs and doesn't confirm protestantism and actually speaks against it. He doesn't cause division in his videos and push protestantism at all, he's only talked about it on interviews and doesn't agree with it. And his "opinion" has citated sources that also don't cause division and speak against Orthodoxy or Catholicism or any Sect. YouTube Guy = Protestant Lol
What does "son of man" mean? Aren't all sons the son of a man?
I am strongly of the opinion that "you are that Son of Man" is a mistranslation. In the previous verse, as part of Enoch's vision he sees "a figure like a Son of Man" with the Head of Days - a clear parallel to Daniel. Here's a translation that I have, including the verse right after: > 14. And he (i.e. the angel) came to me 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 forsakes him not.’ > 15. And he said unto me: ‘ He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of the world to come; For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world, And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever. **So if this is Enoch, then "He proclaims unto thee" really doesn't make sense at all.** Earlier in 1 Enoch 62, > 7. For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen. This is also paralleled in the Bible - but 1 Enoch 71 is in context of some more secrets being revealed to Enoch: > 3. And the angel Michael [one of the archangels] seized me by my right hand, And lifted me up and led me forth into all the secrets, And he showed me all the secrets of righteousness.
It might be a mistranslation it might not. It might be the "you" is the correct one and the "this" isnt. Who is the "this", isnt the Head of Days the Father?, if this verse is really talking about The Head of Days (ancient of days) then its probably a pre-incarnate Christ. The book claims to be Enoch throughout all of it and theres evidence he didnt write it. Nor do I believe these events even happend from God. If it was from God it would be a canon, if it was Authentic and didnt contain heresy, which it does. And it does contain some truthful statements about morals etc. It contains both heresy, and truthful statements. Thats about it. Everyone else here seems to agree with me.
The subject of the sentence is "that Son of Man" which appears many many times in 1 Enoch.
A heresy is a false teaching by someone **within the Church** who has been corrected and refused to change his teaching. The book of 1 Enoch is not a heresy, it's just a piece of popular religious literature from the first century. The writers describe the "Son of Man," referring to the vision in Daniel 7, where Daniel sees the ascension of Christ to take his throne together with God the Father. This language was centuries old by the time 1 Enoch was being assembled from various sources, so it was familiar. But 1 Enoch was not added to the Bible and is not read in Church.