Great list of questions rocka. I think Enoch is just too damning for the wisdom of men. The cosmology is a big one, especially if you haven't truly gone through that study. It completely blows the "sethite theory" out of the water. It's the only book that gives a complete beginning to end timeline until time itself ends. The list goes on. Unless people have woken up to other big deceptions, Enoch just has too many truths that upend too many tightly held fake narratives.
Late to this article, but you nailed it. It's damning, for the hidden ones who want to stay hidden. If all the details about giants gets around then more will look to Christ over that alone when evolution is shot down and dinosaurs come into question. The Genesis 6 topic is not Church friendly because they don't want people taking the giants literally even when there is plenty of evidence. Only insiders get to know.
And that might make people actually wake up to the Xstein Files monsters -- especially since many are in churches, synagogues and mosques besides Luciferians, Satanists, Freemasons -- worshipping the old gods under everyone's noses. That's another they don't want as common knowledge since their perverted kind are mentioned Biblically.
They want to keep doing what they do to children for Baal, and who they're doing it for want every single human soul going to the same Lake they are out of spite when the Time comes. We can be forgiven, they can't. They asked Enoch to intercede and God said no, so you can count their children like Baal as abominations and going along. They utterly destroyed His creation in about every way by playing gods. They chose separation from the Most High. Enoch holds clues to that.
But what really incensed the titan gods (in spirit) is they were the only sons of the gods to most all cultures for a very long time, the origin of sun worship and ancestor shamanism (house gods), and the true God sent his only real begotten Son to make a statement to them as much as us. That's the one aspect of His sacrifice I've never heard anyone mention. But that's why the demons deferred to Him. The end of human sacrifice to those beings was an aspect of his coming, the only sacrifice God would accept from then on. So the demons keep tricking people over it.
Enoch is too much of a key to understanding to be allowed in Western consciousness. Book of Giants too, even Jasher and Jubilees to a degree. It shows their worldview at least. The real story destroys the mind trap they've worked so hard to build for us.
I don't think it can survive answering the questions. It seems to me that the institutions of western Christianity are more worried about their own survival (economically and socially) than about the survival of Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong, but having submitted to modern culture, they will collapse along with our crumbling culture.
You’re not wrong. You just said the quiet part out loud. The patient died a long time ago. We’re just watching the institutions twitch. The ones who see the corpse for what it is and prepare instead of clinging to it will reap.
Just subscribed to your truth bomb. Actually, a few months ago, I created a 'midrashic' type paraphrase of 1 Enoch and linked it to an apocalyptic 'zine' that I placed in 10 Little Free Libraries around town. I still stand by the 'zine, minus some over-enthusiastic errors. I realize now that my paraphrase of 1 Enoch was erroneous in multiple ways (I was burning but lacked discernment). Thank God only about 20 people downloaded it. I got banned from YouTube for sharing the link in the comments section of Symbolic World (Comments for a video about 1 Enoch) a few months back. The Qumran-Galilee-Ethiopia arc is one I've explored myself. I think what you're doing is holy work. Keep exposing Babylon.
This piece depends on a series of false dilemmas and category mistakes about canon, prophecy, and authority. Once you clear those up, the “Enoch problem” mostly disappears.
Start with the basic distinction that Western Christianity has always made, and that the article never really engages: you can have a non-canonical text that preserves genuine prophecy, accurate history, or useful theological reflection, without that text being part of the inspired, normative canon of Scripture. That is not a dodge; it is exactly how Scripture itself behaves. The Old Testament repeatedly refers to lost books (the Book of Jasher, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Samuel’s writings, and others). No one imagines those never contained true prophecy or revelation; we simply acknowledge that God, in His providence, did not preserve them as part of the canon given to the Church.
On that foundation, most of the “10 questions” are variations of the same error: “if something is treated with respect, quoted, or used as background by biblical authors, then the entire work must be canonical Scripture.” That leap does not follow.
Take the first question about Jude’s “prophetic formula.” Jude can say that “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied” and quote a line preserved in the Enochic tradition, and under inspiration he can affirm that this saying truly expresses divine judgment. That does not canonize every line, vision, and speculation that later writers attached to the name of Enoch. The New Testament freely recognizes true prophecy and true statements outside the canonical corpus. Paul quotes pagan poets; the Gospels report Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy; John uses the language of contemporary Jewish apocalyptic. None of this turns Greek poems, high priestly speeches, or the whole apocalyptic genre into inspired Scripture.
The Qumran evidence proves far less than the article demands of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls community copied many texts that no Christian tradition has ever treated as canonical: Jubilees, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, various sectarian rule books. They clearly valued these writings, shaped their community by them, and invested effort in preserving them. Yet no one suggests that the War Scroll should therefore be added to everyone’s Bible. Heavy copying in one sectarian community tells you that group loved a text; it does not tell you that all Israel or the apostles regarded it as Scripture in the strict sense.
The appeal to Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 as “proving” an Enochic canon confuses framework with canon. Yes, those passages reflect an interpretive tradition about sinning angels and their punishment that closely parallels 1 Enoch. That shows that the Enochic story was part of the conceptual background for some New Testament authors. It does not show that they regarded the book itself as inspired and binding. First-century Jews shared many such frameworks, some biblically grounded, some speculative. The apostles, under inspiration, could correct, clarify, and selectively appropriate these traditions without giving blanket approval to every source that echoed them.
Calling Enoch “a prophet” does not change this. In Scripture, there are prophets whose words we do not possess in canonical form (Elijah and Elisha did not leave us books; Agabus in Acts speaks prophecy that is not part of a separate “Book of Agabus”). Prophetic status belongs to the person and to particular acts of speech; canonical status belongs to specific writings that the apostolic Church received as inspired and read in the liturgy. Jude’s affirmation that Enoch prophesied, and his use of one such prophecy, does not imply that a later composite work attributed to Enoch, written centuries after his life, in its entirety, shares the same status as Isaiah or the Psalms.
The appeal to the Ethiopian canon misunderstands the nature of ecclesial authority. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is ancient and venerable, but it is not the measuring rod by which all other Christian traditions must be judged. Different ancient churches inherited different local lists and practices. Over time, the Catholic Church, in communion with both Western and Eastern Fathers, discerned and defined a canon. That process happened long before the Enlightenment, long before modern “institutional politics” of the kind the article invokes. To say that the canon was shaped within the Church is not to say it was invented by power plays; it is to say what the Church has always claimed: that the same apostolic authority that preached Christ and celebrated the sacraments also recognized which writings bore Christ’s voice in a unique, inspired way.
For Catholics in particular, rabbinic decisions after A.D. 70 are not the basis of the Old Testament canon. The Church did not ask Jamnia’s opinion and then conform to it. The Church received the Scriptures she was already reading in her liturgy, in Greek and Hebrew, and bore witness to them. Jewish suspicion of Enoch in later centuries might be historically interesting, but it neither establishes nor undermines the Christian canon.
The claim about early Fathers “treating Enoch as Scripture for three centuries” also needs more nuance. Some Fathers speak of Enoch in very positive terms. Tertullian, for example, calls it “Scripture” at points, but he also acknowledges that many Christians reject it and that the Jews do not receive it. Other Fathers cite it as useful or illustrative rather than as canonical. Patristic usage is often looser in language than modern technical distinctions, which is exactly why the Church gradually clarified the canon: to distinguish edifying but non-inspired texts from those that are divinely inspired and normatively binding. That’s not “collapse”; that is doctrinal maturation.
On Genesis 6 and the Watchers, the article sets up another false choice: either we canonize Enoch or we abandon the “sons of God as angels” interpretation as pagan mythology. In fact, the Catholic Church has never dogmatized a single reading of Genesis 6. Many Fathers and medieval theologians did indeed see “sons of God” as angelic beings; others saw them as the line of Seth. Both positions are allowed. One can fully acknowledge that the angelic interpretation was widespread in Second Temple Judaism and among early Christians, that 1 Enoch is an important witness to it, and still maintain that Enoch’s literary elaboration goes far beyond what God has bound consciences to believe.
The cosmology question simply attacks a straw man. The main reason Western Christianity has not canonized 1 Enoch is not because it speaks in phenomenological or pre-modern cosmological language. As the article itself notes, canonical Scripture does that too. The real issues are pseudepigraphal authorship, the composite nature of the text, its uneven doctrinal content, and, above all, the lack of universal reception in the churches founded by the apostles. If cosmology disqualified a text, Job and Psalms would indeed be in trouble. But that is not the criterion the Church has ever used, so this “problem” misses the real point.
Finally, the last question asks “by what authority” modern Christians say that God did not reveal 1 Enoch as canonical Scripture. For Catholics, the answer is straightforward: by the authority of Christ, exercised through His apostles and handed down in the Church. The canon is not a modern academic judgment but an ecclesial one, articulated in the worship and teaching of the Church and formalized in councils. To say that 1 Enoch is not canonical does not mean “God revealed nothing through it.” It means that, whatever true elements it contains, God did not give it to the Church as part of the unique, inspired rule of faith that binds all Christians.
In short, these ten questions only appear devastating if you ignore the basic Catholic distinction between inspired canon and valuable, non-canonical tradition; if you treat isolated patristic appreciations as equivalent to universal reception; and if you conflate the natural historical development of the canon with a simplistic story of “post-apostolic institutional politics.” Once you restore those distinctions, the “Enoch problem” ceases to be a problem. The apostles can know and selectively use Enochic material; some early Christians can value the book highly; one ancient church can include it in a broader local canon; and the universal Church can nonetheless be right, under the Spirit’s guidance, not to place it alongside the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Letters as inspired Scripture.
You write that "God," in his infinite wisdom, did not preserve Enoch or other unrecognized books as part of canonical doctrine, yet through whom does God work and who are we to interpret to whom that authority is given? You mention the "lack of universal reception in the churches founded by the apostles" yet herein lies the problem, hierarchies being established in early churches then in Rome itself, was prone to debate, as one can see in churches today and among current denominations, though not often overtly, and within that debate, who is the great arbiter of the final truth, should not all recognized and non-recognized texts written with some authority be given its due diligence without the overriding edicts by Councils and independent Papal decisions which is often used to censor some stories and elevate others, all to advance a personal or specific group's agenda, could all texts not have some degree of wisdom therein, much like other literature discussed and used in secular circles? Is not the end result of all the various texts, books, oral or written, to be used as a guidepost for living our lives and treating fellow human beings, not the relatively unimportant issue of from whence they came or who approved of them or who didn't?
Bernard, thank you for writing with seriousness and charity. Your questions deserve a careful response, because they touch the heart of what the Church means by revelation, authority, and the discernment of Scripture. I will answer plainly, with the clarity the topic requires.
You ask through whom God works and who decides which writings belong to the canon. For Catholics, this is not guesswork or institutional ambition. Christ Himself established the structure. He did not leave His revelation floating in a marketplace of competing texts. He entrusted His teaching to apostles, and He gave them real authority: “He who hears you hears Me.” They, in turn, appointed bishops and laid hands on successors. This is not bureaucracy. This is apostolic continuity, the same continuity that delivered the Gospel before a single New Testament book was written.
Because the canon concerns which writings bear Christ’s voice in a unique, inspired way, only the community charged with guarding apostolic teaching can make that discernment. Scripture is the Church’s book, not the other way around. Individual brilliance, private inspiration, or democratic consensus cannot create a canon. The canon emerges from the lived faith of the apostolic community: what the churches read in the liturgy, preserved, copied, and recognized as the voice of the Shepherd.
You raise the worry that early hierarchies were prone to debate and that councils or popes might suppress texts to advance an agenda. Historically, that picture does not hold. The debates existed, yes, but the pattern is consistent across the Christian world: writings that were apostolic in origin and universally received by the churches remained; writings that were late, composite, pseudonymous, or confined to one region never gained universal acceptance. This is why the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, and the core prophetic books appear in every ancient canon — Roman, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian alike. These texts were not chosen because Rome said so. Rome said so because the entire Church was already living from them.
Councils did not censor books the way a modern political body censors dissent. They named what the faithful had been reading for centuries. Their role was not imperial control but doctrinal clarity. When a community is trying to preserve the voice of Christ, it must eventually say, “These writings are inspired; these others are edifying but not inspired.” That is not oppression. It is fidelity.
Your suggestion that all texts with some authority or wisdom should be treated as equal guideposts misunderstands what Christians mean by revelation. Wisdom literature outside the canon can indeed be valuable — Christians have always read it for insight. But canonical Scripture is not merely “wise.” It is inspired: God-breathed, uniquely normative, and binding on conscience. To flatten all texts into a common pool of inspirational writings is to lose the very possibility of authoritative revelation at all.
If we took your proposal seriously — that all texts should simply be read as helpful guides regardless of origin — Christianity would collapse into something like a philosophical anthology. The Gospel would become one voice among many. Christ’s concrete acts of revelation in history would dissolve into the general human search for meaning. That is exactly what the early Church guarded against. They believed, and we believe, that God spoke definitively in His Son, and that the apostolic writings preserve that revelation without error.
You ask whether the origin or approval of texts is “relatively unimportant.” In moral philosophy or literature, perhaps. But in revelation? It is decisive. If God has given a specific, inspired witness to His saving work, then knowing which texts carry that divine authority is not a trivial concern. It is the foundation upon which Christians build doctrine, worship, and spiritual life.
The canon is not about controlling information; it is about ensuring that the people of God receive the true, apostolic testimony rather than the many imaginative, pious, or speculative writings that circulated in antiquity. Those writings often contain beauty, insight, and even flashes of genuine tradition. But inspiration is something different, and the early Christians — East and West — knew that distinction long before councils gave it definition.
You are right to sense that all human wisdom can have value. The Church has never denied that. But revelation is not the sum of human wisdom. It is God speaking. And because God speaks authoritatively, He also provides the means — through the apostles and their successors — to recognize His voice amidst the many that echo around it.
In the end, the canon is an act of stewardship, not control. It preserves the deposit of faith so that Christians do not have to guess at which writings carry divine authority. Without that stewardship, we are left not with freedom, but with confusion.
And confusion, not authority, is the real enemy of human dignity and spiritual growth.
Your reply avoids every substantive point I raised. If anything I wrote is incorrect, specify where. I’m willing to engage your argument directly, but I cannot respond to broad assertions about motives or “systems.” Ideas stand or fall on evidence, not on assumptions about who benefits from them.
You presented a series of claims about canon formation, prophecy, apostolic usage, and early Church reception. I responded by addressing those claims historically and theologically. If my reasoning is flawed, show where. If not, then the accusation that I’m defending a “collapsing system” is simply a way of not dealing with the argument.
I’m here for genuine examination of the issues. When you’re ready to discuss the claims themselves rather than questioning the intentions of anyone who disagrees with you, I’m willing to continue.
You didn’t answer the questions, you’re dodging with word salad.
You say Jude can call Enoch a prophet without canonizing the work ok, then explain why Jude uses prophetic formula language for Enoch but Paul never uses that language for pagan poets. What's the categorical distinction in apostolic citation practice?
You say early fathers had “loose language” about Enoch. Show me where Tertullian, Irenaeus, or Origen used that same “loose language” for texts they definitively rejected as non-canonical. If they reserved Scripture language for Enoch, that's not loose that's specific.
You say the Church in communion with East and West decided the canon. But the Ethiopian Orthodox Church unbroken Eastern continuity includes Enoch. So which “East” are you referring to, and why does Western post-Reformation consensus override their continuity?
You list pseudepigraphal authorship as disqualifying. Apply that standard to Daniel, Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter. Do you reject those too? If not, why does the standard apply to Enoch but not to them?
Thank you for actually putting concrete questions on the table. That makes it possible to talk about substance instead of motives. Let me take your four points in order and be as precise as I can.
First, Jude and the prophetic formula.
You’re right that Jude’s language (“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying…”) is not the same as Paul’s “as some of your own poets have said.” The difference in wording is real. But what follows from that? In the New Testament you have three distinct things that often get conflated:
1. A person being a prophet.
2. A particular saying being a true prophecy.
3. A written book being part of the inspired canon.
Jude clearly affirms (1) and (2) for Enoch and for that saying. He does not explicitly assert (3) about the composite work we call 1 Enoch, which was written long after the historical Enoch. Jude also does not use the usual “it is written” / “the Scripture says” formula he uses when citing canonical texts; he attributes the oracle to the person, not to a book. Under Catholic understanding, the Holy Spirit guarantees that Jude’s quotation is a true prophecy. That does not automatically extend inspiration to every later vision, narrative, and speculation collected under Enoch’s name, any more than Caiaphas’ real prophecy in John 11 or Agabus’ prophecies in Acts turn everything they ever said or everything later written in their name into canonical Scripture.
Second, the Fathers and “loose” language about Scripture.
The point is not that the Fathers were careless, but that before the canon was fully clarified, the vocabulary of “Scripture” and “inspired” was used more broadly than later technical usage. You asked for examples of similar language applied to texts later excluded. We have several:
• The Shepherd of Hermas was read in some churches and is called “Scripture” or “inspired” by writers like Irenaeus and Origen. Yet it was eventually classified as useful but non-canonical and is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox canon.
• 1 Clement was read publicly in Corinth “for many years” after the apostles and is treated with great reverence by early Fathers, sometimes cited almost on a par with apostolic writings. Yet it, too, was later placed among the “ecclesiastical” but non-canonical books.
• The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache are treated by some Fathers as authoritative and edifying, sometimes even grouped with “Scriptures,” before the canon lists consistently distinguish them.
Tertullian’s enthusiasm for Enoch belongs in that same pre-clarification context. When he calls it “Scripture,” he immediately admits that “the Jews reject it” and that “it is not admitted into the Jewish canon” (De Cultu Feminarum 1.3), which already signals that its status is disputed. The later, more precise distinction between “canonical Scripture” and “ecclesiastical writings” is precisely what the Church had to work out over time. So appealing to early exalted language for Enoch proves that some Fathers valued it greatly, which I already acknowledge; it does not prove that the Church as a whole ever recognized it as canonical in the technical sense she later defined.
Third, “the East” and Ethiopia.
When I refer to East and West in the process of canon discernment, I’m talking about the major apostolic churches: the Greek-speaking churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), the Syriac and Coptic traditions, as well as the Latin West. If you look at Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39, Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures, Gregory Nazianzen’s lists, the councils of Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage, and later Eastern reception, you see a very strong convergence on the same New Testament and essentially the same Old Testament core. 1 Enoch is absent from those lists and from the liturgical canon of the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian churches.
Ethiopia is indeed an ancient Eastern church, but it is also a significant outlier on the canon. Its 81-book collection reflects its own particular history and isolation. That is exactly my point: the “East” is not monolithic, and Ethiopia does not function as the canonical norm against which all other apostolic churches must be judged. The broad East–West consensus on the canon predates the Reformation by more than a thousand years and does not include Enoch. So this is not “Western post-Reformation consensus overriding Ethiopia”; it is Ethiopia preserving a local tradition that never became universal.
Fourth, pseudepigraphy and standards.
I did not say “pseudepigraphal” in the technical modern-critical sense is, by itself, a knock-out criterion. The Church has never bound herself to every conclusion of 19th–20th century higher criticism; she continues to affirm, for example, the essentially Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the Davidic core of the Psalms, even while allowing for redaction and development. Likewise with Daniel, the Pastorals, and 2 Peter: whatever scholarly hypotheses exist about composition history, the Church receives them as apostolic or prophetic in a way Enoch never was.
There is also a categorical difference between a Second Temple Jewish apocalypse transparently written millennia after the patriarch whose name it bears, and New Testament writings that were received from the beginning in the churches founded by the apostles themselves. 1 Enoch makes no claim within the Jewish community to be part of the Tanakh; it was never universally read as Scripture in Judaism, nor in Christianity. Daniel, by contrast, is in the Jewish canon. The Pastorals and 2 Peter, whatever one thinks of individual critical arguments, have always been part of the core New Testament corpus used in the liturgy across all major apostolic churches. That is why the Church treats them differently.
So the standard is not “modern scholars suspect pseudepigraphy, therefore exclude.” The standard is: is this writing apostolic or prophetic as received by the universal Church, and has it been consistently read in the Church’s worship as inspired Scripture? On that test, Enoch fails, regardless of how many true or useful elements it contains.
Stepping back, the central distinctions remain the same:
• A text can contain true prophecy without its whole corpus being canonical.
• Early Fathers could speak highly, even loosely, about such texts before the canon was fully clarified.
• One ancient church adopting a wider canon does not retroactively invalidate the broad East–West convergence that actually occurred.
• And the Church’s discernment of the canon rests on apostolic reception and universal liturgical use, not on a single criterion like “no pseudepigraphy.”
If you want to argue that Enoch should have been canonized, that’s a different debate. But the “10 questions” only seem unanswerable if you assume from the start that any strong use, quote, or tradition of respect automatically implies canonical status. I’m saying that assumption is false, and the actual history of how the Church handled Enoch and other revered non-canonical writings bears that out.
This is excellent. It is thoughtfully constructed, and the questions being raised are exactly the right ones.
Another factor that makes this difficult for modern society to accept is that the Book of Enoch directly challenges the modern faith placed in scientism, as promoted by institutions such as NASA and others. In some cases, translations have even been adjusted to better align with prevailing scientific assumptions. It is disheartening to see trust placed in secular institutions rather than in biblical cosmology.
Thank you for this post. Enoch also lays out the calendar which I would like to research further. When do you think Enoch was written and if it was actually pre-flood?
Great question. The earliest manuscripts we have are from 200-100 BC (Dead Sea Scrolls) but those are copies of older material.
The text itself claims to be Enoch's pre-Flood prophecy. Jude quotes it that way, he doesn't say "a book about Enoch" he says "Enoch prophesied" whether the content goes back to Enoch himself transmitted through Noah or was written later preserving oral tradition is debated.
Ethiopian church says it's genuinely pre-Flood, preserved through generations. Western scholars date the written text to 300 BC based on manuscript evidence.
On the calendar: Enoch 72-82 lays out a 364-day solar calendar (four perfect 91-day seasons) this is what Israel was supposed to use before adopting foreign calendars. The Qumran community used it. Ethiopia still does.
Read Enoch 72-82 and the Book of Jubilees for the calendar framework. I'll be doing a deep dive on Rome's calendar warfare soon.
Thank you for your insights. Yes, I agree the Dead Sea Scrolls were copies of older material. I also agree that Jude's use of "prophesied" by Enoch is significant based upon his understanding. The pre-Flood origin of the prophecies of Enoch is very feasible when mapping out the ages from Enoch to Methuselah and Noah. One can calculate overlaps where Enoch and Methuselah both lived at the same time for ~187 years. And Methuselah and Noah overlapped ~500 years. Thus, the prophecies could have been passed down.
I will look forward to the 364-day year analysis in Enoch and will review Enoch 72 to 82.
I have been looking at the 360-day Prophetic Year and 30-day Prophetic month that can be analyzed in the story of Noah's Flood. Using these numbers, one can then determine that the 1260 days in Revelation 12 is 3.5 Prophetic years or time, times, and half a time. This seems significant in light of the times we live in.
Also. Jesus called Enoch scripture when the Apostles asked him who would have the woman in heaven who had been married to one brother after another. Jesus' answer was. "You err. You do not know scripture. There is no marrying in Heaven. "
“The book of Enoch was written at least 2,000 years ago and contains references to historical groups such as the Parthians and Medes, indicating it was composed during or after their existence, which places its writing around the period when these peoples were known, rather than in the ancient time of Enoch himself. The current form of the book was compiled from older separate texts and only appeared as one complete manuscript in the 17th century.”
This Gnostic slop is spreading faster than I imagined, and it’s deceiving people precisely because it sounds spiritual while severing them from obedience, incarnation, and the actual gospel.
Read them for the insightful but fallible books they are, containing both truth and human error, but preserving the invaluable thoughts and experiences of the earliest worshippers of God. If you're arguing about which books to include and exclude, you're already wrong.
I’ve read Enoch - I am a bit suspicious of it. Early on, I would say the tale of the Watchers is true. It smacks of truth and it ties up a lot of basically background story to the Nephilim and Genesis 6. However, it doesn’t feel quite right, as if there is truth mixed with error and the fact that there is no consensus on it would tend to me to point to the fact that the Spirit really did not push for its inclusion.
I’m pretty sure the Chaldean and Syromalabar Church didn’t experience the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, or Enlightenment disruptions that reshaped Western Christianity. They have apostolic succession. St. Thomas taught the Christians of the Syromalabar Church.
So, what exactly is the problem the west has? What problem does missing Enoch present to us?
You won't answer, because there is no problem. The west misses a book. And we have done ten times more, spreading the Gospel and building the kingdom that Ethiopia ever did.
The West deleted Enoch but spread the Gospel ten times more than Ethiopia. So what's the problem?
The problem is what you call "spreading the Gospel"
Western Christianity "spread" through:
Constantine making it state religion (313 AD)
Charlemagne's "convert or die" campaigns (800s)
Crusades (1095-1291)
Colonial conquest (1492-1900s)
Atlantic slave trade
Native American genocide
Forced conversion at gunpoint
Ethiopia received the Gospel freely (Acts 8), never built empire, never forced conversion, resisted colonization, and maintained the war manual for 2,000 years.
You're right, the West did ten times more.
They built Christendom.
Ethiopia maintained covenant.
Your "success" required deleting the book that would have shown you the difference.
False, This is not spreading the Gospel. This is Satan using his human slaves to build the New World Order Kingdom of the Anti-Christ. Christians did none of these things. The Luciferian controlled Catholic church and royalty did it.
The demons and people behind the scenes today, who run the show today, are the ones who did all of that.
They used religion, money and power as a tool for it, just like they use everything else.
But, the real spreading of the Gospel was done within those Satanic controlled things.
The real believers followed God's Word and saved souls despite the wickedness around them.
The Ethiopians took the Gospel and buried it in the sand. Just like the servant who did nothing with the Lord's money.
Liked your comments Chris Bunton! True Christians wouldn’t hold people at gunpoint to force belief. The only thing is I don’t know that the Ethiopians buried the gospel. Some of the strongest Christians are in Africa, standing up to persecution that Western nations would crumble under.
When Jude quotes Enoch, he uses the phrase “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying...” This is the prophetic formula used throughout Scripture to introduce divine revelation. When Paul quotes pagan poets like Aratus or Epimenides, he says “as your own poets have said” or “one of their own prophets has said” clearly marking them as human wisdom, not divine prophecy. Why do we treat Jude’s citation of Enoch as equivalent to Paul’s casual cultural references when the language Jude uses is categorically different?
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that Jude is quoting the Book of Enoch rather than quoting the historical man Enoch.
The Bible records that Enoch “walked with God” (Genesis 5:24) and “had this testimony, that he pleased God” (Hebrews 11:5). So it should not surprise anyone that a true prophet of God spoke words of judgment.
However, nothing in Jude says or implies that Enoch authored the book today called 1 Enoch. Jude says Enoch prophesied, not Enoch wrote a book. Jude is citing the content of a prophecy, not the authorship of the manuscript where that content was preserved.
The prophetic formula in Jude does not authenticate the Book of Enoch. It authenticates the prophecy of Enoch himself.
So I’m trying to understand your reasoning. Is Jude just treating one verse as authoritative from a book that happens to be the Book of Enoch? Why do you think Ethiopia is holding non-scripture in their canon, and by what authority did you reach that conclusion?
So, I believe that Jude was quoting Enoch but not from the Book of Enoch.
To answer your second question, I do believe Ethiopia is holding non-scriptural books in their canon. This isn't to say that those books can't provide a historical context in some cases, but when you compare scripture with scripture, those extra books contradict each other and the books of the Bible. The authority I've reached this conclusion by, is the Bible itself. I believe the 66 books of the King James Bible are internally consistent with each other, are infallible, and have no errors whatsoever. When you look at Genesis, Ruth, and Luke (just for example), there are no errors between those three books. When you look at the Bible as a whole, there are no errors from Genesis all the way to Revelation. When you consider the book of Enoch, it has contradictions with the rest of the Bible that would make it not inerrant.
Do you believe the Ethiopian Bible is without error?
Great questions. My answer is Yes. Western civilization can survive the answers. The premise of Western Civilization allows for educated minds to change. Western Civilization is based on Jesus. A properly functioning Western Civilization can survive anything.
Enoch is a great book and cannon. You cannot argue with the Word of God…if He saw fit to include references to Enoch’s Book in other books of the Bible that seals any doubts that it is a book we should be reading and talking as seriously as the rest of the Bible. Jasher is another one. Joshua 10:13.
Enoch…In Genesis has two paths…one Enoch, a visible city of power, Cains son, and one Enoch who walked with God, and entered into the Unseen realm…I accept the exploration of this Enoch…& true government!
To me the number of books reduced to 66 in the KJV and the great fire of London in 1666 are examples of confirming leads on the shenanigans of power grabs…in Europe:
Reminds me of
Pieces of eight and the symbols of currency for merchants & the pillars of Hercules and the (then)new world…
Rather like
Francis (pope) Scot (Freemasonry) Key…bridge and collapse of bridge to block Baltimore (great fire of Baal) harbor
This stuff is a predictive ritual humiliation to enact…
Reminds me of the UN symbol of the basket dome entrapment of the known world…Zechariah 5:11
Letter kills but the Spirit is Life
Have we been enchanted by the spells of Mach in nations?
Symbolism talks:
Outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual power (I wouldn’t say grace as many times it is not a true gifting from the Father of Light)
Sift and sift…and sift some more.
Tear down the strongholds and everything that exalts itself above Christ in you!
Question the “current see” oiling the system using the stock exchange…familiar faces…what is behind the Wall? The House? The Door? Chet Beit Dalet: Chabbad…very old dealings…BC
Great list of questions rocka. I think Enoch is just too damning for the wisdom of men. The cosmology is a big one, especially if you haven't truly gone through that study. It completely blows the "sethite theory" out of the water. It's the only book that gives a complete beginning to end timeline until time itself ends. The list goes on. Unless people have woken up to other big deceptions, Enoch just has too many truths that upend too many tightly held fake narratives.
Late to this article, but you nailed it. It's damning, for the hidden ones who want to stay hidden. If all the details about giants gets around then more will look to Christ over that alone when evolution is shot down and dinosaurs come into question. The Genesis 6 topic is not Church friendly because they don't want people taking the giants literally even when there is plenty of evidence. Only insiders get to know.
And that might make people actually wake up to the Xstein Files monsters -- especially since many are in churches, synagogues and mosques besides Luciferians, Satanists, Freemasons -- worshipping the old gods under everyone's noses. That's another they don't want as common knowledge since their perverted kind are mentioned Biblically.
They want to keep doing what they do to children for Baal, and who they're doing it for want every single human soul going to the same Lake they are out of spite when the Time comes. We can be forgiven, they can't. They asked Enoch to intercede and God said no, so you can count their children like Baal as abominations and going along. They utterly destroyed His creation in about every way by playing gods. They chose separation from the Most High. Enoch holds clues to that.
But what really incensed the titan gods (in spirit) is they were the only sons of the gods to most all cultures for a very long time, the origin of sun worship and ancestor shamanism (house gods), and the true God sent his only real begotten Son to make a statement to them as much as us. That's the one aspect of His sacrifice I've never heard anyone mention. But that's why the demons deferred to Him. The end of human sacrifice to those beings was an aspect of his coming, the only sacrifice God would accept from then on. So the demons keep tricking people over it.
Enoch is too much of a key to understanding to be allowed in Western consciousness. Book of Giants too, even Jasher and Jubilees to a degree. It shows their worldview at least. The real story destroys the mind trap they've worked so hard to build for us.
I don't think it can survive answering the questions. It seems to me that the institutions of western Christianity are more worried about their own survival (economically and socially) than about the survival of Christianity. Maybe I'm wrong, but having submitted to modern culture, they will collapse along with our crumbling culture.
You’re not wrong. You just said the quiet part out loud. The patient died a long time ago. We’re just watching the institutions twitch. The ones who see the corpse for what it is and prepare instead of clinging to it will reap.
💯%. Christianity and the Spirit of Christ is alive and well. The institutions have been done.
Just subscribed to your truth bomb. Actually, a few months ago, I created a 'midrashic' type paraphrase of 1 Enoch and linked it to an apocalyptic 'zine' that I placed in 10 Little Free Libraries around town. I still stand by the 'zine, minus some over-enthusiastic errors. I realize now that my paraphrase of 1 Enoch was erroneous in multiple ways (I was burning but lacked discernment). Thank God only about 20 people downloaded it. I got banned from YouTube for sharing the link in the comments section of Symbolic World (Comments for a video about 1 Enoch) a few months back. The Qumran-Galilee-Ethiopia arc is one I've explored myself. I think what you're doing is holy work. Keep exposing Babylon.
This piece depends on a series of false dilemmas and category mistakes about canon, prophecy, and authority. Once you clear those up, the “Enoch problem” mostly disappears.
Start with the basic distinction that Western Christianity has always made, and that the article never really engages: you can have a non-canonical text that preserves genuine prophecy, accurate history, or useful theological reflection, without that text being part of the inspired, normative canon of Scripture. That is not a dodge; it is exactly how Scripture itself behaves. The Old Testament repeatedly refers to lost books (the Book of Jasher, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Samuel’s writings, and others). No one imagines those never contained true prophecy or revelation; we simply acknowledge that God, in His providence, did not preserve them as part of the canon given to the Church.
On that foundation, most of the “10 questions” are variations of the same error: “if something is treated with respect, quoted, or used as background by biblical authors, then the entire work must be canonical Scripture.” That leap does not follow.
Take the first question about Jude’s “prophetic formula.” Jude can say that “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied” and quote a line preserved in the Enochic tradition, and under inspiration he can affirm that this saying truly expresses divine judgment. That does not canonize every line, vision, and speculation that later writers attached to the name of Enoch. The New Testament freely recognizes true prophecy and true statements outside the canonical corpus. Paul quotes pagan poets; the Gospels report Caiaphas’ unwitting prophecy; John uses the language of contemporary Jewish apocalyptic. None of this turns Greek poems, high priestly speeches, or the whole apocalyptic genre into inspired Scripture.
The Qumran evidence proves far less than the article demands of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls community copied many texts that no Christian tradition has ever treated as canonical: Jubilees, the War Scroll, the Temple Scroll, various sectarian rule books. They clearly valued these writings, shaped their community by them, and invested effort in preserving them. Yet no one suggests that the War Scroll should therefore be added to everyone’s Bible. Heavy copying in one sectarian community tells you that group loved a text; it does not tell you that all Israel or the apostles regarded it as Scripture in the strict sense.
The appeal to Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 as “proving” an Enochic canon confuses framework with canon. Yes, those passages reflect an interpretive tradition about sinning angels and their punishment that closely parallels 1 Enoch. That shows that the Enochic story was part of the conceptual background for some New Testament authors. It does not show that they regarded the book itself as inspired and binding. First-century Jews shared many such frameworks, some biblically grounded, some speculative. The apostles, under inspiration, could correct, clarify, and selectively appropriate these traditions without giving blanket approval to every source that echoed them.
Calling Enoch “a prophet” does not change this. In Scripture, there are prophets whose words we do not possess in canonical form (Elijah and Elisha did not leave us books; Agabus in Acts speaks prophecy that is not part of a separate “Book of Agabus”). Prophetic status belongs to the person and to particular acts of speech; canonical status belongs to specific writings that the apostolic Church received as inspired and read in the liturgy. Jude’s affirmation that Enoch prophesied, and his use of one such prophecy, does not imply that a later composite work attributed to Enoch, written centuries after his life, in its entirety, shares the same status as Isaiah or the Psalms.
The appeal to the Ethiopian canon misunderstands the nature of ecclesial authority. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is ancient and venerable, but it is not the measuring rod by which all other Christian traditions must be judged. Different ancient churches inherited different local lists and practices. Over time, the Catholic Church, in communion with both Western and Eastern Fathers, discerned and defined a canon. That process happened long before the Enlightenment, long before modern “institutional politics” of the kind the article invokes. To say that the canon was shaped within the Church is not to say it was invented by power plays; it is to say what the Church has always claimed: that the same apostolic authority that preached Christ and celebrated the sacraments also recognized which writings bore Christ’s voice in a unique, inspired way.
For Catholics in particular, rabbinic decisions after A.D. 70 are not the basis of the Old Testament canon. The Church did not ask Jamnia’s opinion and then conform to it. The Church received the Scriptures she was already reading in her liturgy, in Greek and Hebrew, and bore witness to them. Jewish suspicion of Enoch in later centuries might be historically interesting, but it neither establishes nor undermines the Christian canon.
The claim about early Fathers “treating Enoch as Scripture for three centuries” also needs more nuance. Some Fathers speak of Enoch in very positive terms. Tertullian, for example, calls it “Scripture” at points, but he also acknowledges that many Christians reject it and that the Jews do not receive it. Other Fathers cite it as useful or illustrative rather than as canonical. Patristic usage is often looser in language than modern technical distinctions, which is exactly why the Church gradually clarified the canon: to distinguish edifying but non-inspired texts from those that are divinely inspired and normatively binding. That’s not “collapse”; that is doctrinal maturation.
On Genesis 6 and the Watchers, the article sets up another false choice: either we canonize Enoch or we abandon the “sons of God as angels” interpretation as pagan mythology. In fact, the Catholic Church has never dogmatized a single reading of Genesis 6. Many Fathers and medieval theologians did indeed see “sons of God” as angelic beings; others saw them as the line of Seth. Both positions are allowed. One can fully acknowledge that the angelic interpretation was widespread in Second Temple Judaism and among early Christians, that 1 Enoch is an important witness to it, and still maintain that Enoch’s literary elaboration goes far beyond what God has bound consciences to believe.
The cosmology question simply attacks a straw man. The main reason Western Christianity has not canonized 1 Enoch is not because it speaks in phenomenological or pre-modern cosmological language. As the article itself notes, canonical Scripture does that too. The real issues are pseudepigraphal authorship, the composite nature of the text, its uneven doctrinal content, and, above all, the lack of universal reception in the churches founded by the apostles. If cosmology disqualified a text, Job and Psalms would indeed be in trouble. But that is not the criterion the Church has ever used, so this “problem” misses the real point.
Finally, the last question asks “by what authority” modern Christians say that God did not reveal 1 Enoch as canonical Scripture. For Catholics, the answer is straightforward: by the authority of Christ, exercised through His apostles and handed down in the Church. The canon is not a modern academic judgment but an ecclesial one, articulated in the worship and teaching of the Church and formalized in councils. To say that 1 Enoch is not canonical does not mean “God revealed nothing through it.” It means that, whatever true elements it contains, God did not give it to the Church as part of the unique, inspired rule of faith that binds all Christians.
In short, these ten questions only appear devastating if you ignore the basic Catholic distinction between inspired canon and valuable, non-canonical tradition; if you treat isolated patristic appreciations as equivalent to universal reception; and if you conflate the natural historical development of the canon with a simplistic story of “post-apostolic institutional politics.” Once you restore those distinctions, the “Enoch problem” ceases to be a problem. The apostles can know and selectively use Enochic material; some early Christians can value the book highly; one ancient church can include it in a broader local canon; and the universal Church can nonetheless be right, under the Spirit’s guidance, not to place it alongside the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostolic Letters as inspired Scripture.
You write that "God," in his infinite wisdom, did not preserve Enoch or other unrecognized books as part of canonical doctrine, yet through whom does God work and who are we to interpret to whom that authority is given? You mention the "lack of universal reception in the churches founded by the apostles" yet herein lies the problem, hierarchies being established in early churches then in Rome itself, was prone to debate, as one can see in churches today and among current denominations, though not often overtly, and within that debate, who is the great arbiter of the final truth, should not all recognized and non-recognized texts written with some authority be given its due diligence without the overriding edicts by Councils and independent Papal decisions which is often used to censor some stories and elevate others, all to advance a personal or specific group's agenda, could all texts not have some degree of wisdom therein, much like other literature discussed and used in secular circles? Is not the end result of all the various texts, books, oral or written, to be used as a guidepost for living our lives and treating fellow human beings, not the relatively unimportant issue of from whence they came or who approved of them or who didn't?
Bernard, thank you for writing with seriousness and charity. Your questions deserve a careful response, because they touch the heart of what the Church means by revelation, authority, and the discernment of Scripture. I will answer plainly, with the clarity the topic requires.
You ask through whom God works and who decides which writings belong to the canon. For Catholics, this is not guesswork or institutional ambition. Christ Himself established the structure. He did not leave His revelation floating in a marketplace of competing texts. He entrusted His teaching to apostles, and He gave them real authority: “He who hears you hears Me.” They, in turn, appointed bishops and laid hands on successors. This is not bureaucracy. This is apostolic continuity, the same continuity that delivered the Gospel before a single New Testament book was written.
Because the canon concerns which writings bear Christ’s voice in a unique, inspired way, only the community charged with guarding apostolic teaching can make that discernment. Scripture is the Church’s book, not the other way around. Individual brilliance, private inspiration, or democratic consensus cannot create a canon. The canon emerges from the lived faith of the apostolic community: what the churches read in the liturgy, preserved, copied, and recognized as the voice of the Shepherd.
You raise the worry that early hierarchies were prone to debate and that councils or popes might suppress texts to advance an agenda. Historically, that picture does not hold. The debates existed, yes, but the pattern is consistent across the Christian world: writings that were apostolic in origin and universally received by the churches remained; writings that were late, composite, pseudonymous, or confined to one region never gained universal acceptance. This is why the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Acts, and the core prophetic books appear in every ancient canon — Roman, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian alike. These texts were not chosen because Rome said so. Rome said so because the entire Church was already living from them.
Councils did not censor books the way a modern political body censors dissent. They named what the faithful had been reading for centuries. Their role was not imperial control but doctrinal clarity. When a community is trying to preserve the voice of Christ, it must eventually say, “These writings are inspired; these others are edifying but not inspired.” That is not oppression. It is fidelity.
Your suggestion that all texts with some authority or wisdom should be treated as equal guideposts misunderstands what Christians mean by revelation. Wisdom literature outside the canon can indeed be valuable — Christians have always read it for insight. But canonical Scripture is not merely “wise.” It is inspired: God-breathed, uniquely normative, and binding on conscience. To flatten all texts into a common pool of inspirational writings is to lose the very possibility of authoritative revelation at all.
If we took your proposal seriously — that all texts should simply be read as helpful guides regardless of origin — Christianity would collapse into something like a philosophical anthology. The Gospel would become one voice among many. Christ’s concrete acts of revelation in history would dissolve into the general human search for meaning. That is exactly what the early Church guarded against. They believed, and we believe, that God spoke definitively in His Son, and that the apostolic writings preserve that revelation without error.
You ask whether the origin or approval of texts is “relatively unimportant.” In moral philosophy or literature, perhaps. But in revelation? It is decisive. If God has given a specific, inspired witness to His saving work, then knowing which texts carry that divine authority is not a trivial concern. It is the foundation upon which Christians build doctrine, worship, and spiritual life.
The canon is not about controlling information; it is about ensuring that the people of God receive the true, apostolic testimony rather than the many imaginative, pious, or speculative writings that circulated in antiquity. Those writings often contain beauty, insight, and even flashes of genuine tradition. But inspiration is something different, and the early Christians — East and West — knew that distinction long before councils gave it definition.
You are right to sense that all human wisdom can have value. The Church has never denied that. But revelation is not the sum of human wisdom. It is God speaking. And because God speaks authoritatively, He also provides the means — through the apostles and their successors — to recognize His voice amidst the many that echo around it.
In the end, the canon is an act of stewardship, not control. It preserves the deposit of faith so that Christians do not have to guess at which writings carry divine authority. Without that stewardship, we are left not with freedom, but with confusion.
And confusion, not authority, is the real enemy of human dignity and spiritual growth.
Stop copy pasting AI answers. You don’t think for yourself because truth isn’t your pursuit, protecting your status inside a collapsing system is.
Your reply avoids every substantive point I raised. If anything I wrote is incorrect, specify where. I’m willing to engage your argument directly, but I cannot respond to broad assertions about motives or “systems.” Ideas stand or fall on evidence, not on assumptions about who benefits from them.
You presented a series of claims about canon formation, prophecy, apostolic usage, and early Church reception. I responded by addressing those claims historically and theologically. If my reasoning is flawed, show where. If not, then the accusation that I’m defending a “collapsing system” is simply a way of not dealing with the argument.
I’m here for genuine examination of the issues. When you’re ready to discuss the claims themselves rather than questioning the intentions of anyone who disagrees with you, I’m willing to continue.
You didn’t answer the questions, you’re dodging with word salad.
You say Jude can call Enoch a prophet without canonizing the work ok, then explain why Jude uses prophetic formula language for Enoch but Paul never uses that language for pagan poets. What's the categorical distinction in apostolic citation practice?
You say early fathers had “loose language” about Enoch. Show me where Tertullian, Irenaeus, or Origen used that same “loose language” for texts they definitively rejected as non-canonical. If they reserved Scripture language for Enoch, that's not loose that's specific.
You say the Church in communion with East and West decided the canon. But the Ethiopian Orthodox Church unbroken Eastern continuity includes Enoch. So which “East” are you referring to, and why does Western post-Reformation consensus override their continuity?
You list pseudepigraphal authorship as disqualifying. Apply that standard to Daniel, Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter. Do you reject those too? If not, why does the standard apply to Enoch but not to them?
Thank you for actually putting concrete questions on the table. That makes it possible to talk about substance instead of motives. Let me take your four points in order and be as precise as I can.
First, Jude and the prophetic formula.
You’re right that Jude’s language (“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying…”) is not the same as Paul’s “as some of your own poets have said.” The difference in wording is real. But what follows from that? In the New Testament you have three distinct things that often get conflated:
1. A person being a prophet.
2. A particular saying being a true prophecy.
3. A written book being part of the inspired canon.
Jude clearly affirms (1) and (2) for Enoch and for that saying. He does not explicitly assert (3) about the composite work we call 1 Enoch, which was written long after the historical Enoch. Jude also does not use the usual “it is written” / “the Scripture says” formula he uses when citing canonical texts; he attributes the oracle to the person, not to a book. Under Catholic understanding, the Holy Spirit guarantees that Jude’s quotation is a true prophecy. That does not automatically extend inspiration to every later vision, narrative, and speculation collected under Enoch’s name, any more than Caiaphas’ real prophecy in John 11 or Agabus’ prophecies in Acts turn everything they ever said or everything later written in their name into canonical Scripture.
Second, the Fathers and “loose” language about Scripture.
The point is not that the Fathers were careless, but that before the canon was fully clarified, the vocabulary of “Scripture” and “inspired” was used more broadly than later technical usage. You asked for examples of similar language applied to texts later excluded. We have several:
• The Shepherd of Hermas was read in some churches and is called “Scripture” or “inspired” by writers like Irenaeus and Origen. Yet it was eventually classified as useful but non-canonical and is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox canon.
• 1 Clement was read publicly in Corinth “for many years” after the apostles and is treated with great reverence by early Fathers, sometimes cited almost on a par with apostolic writings. Yet it, too, was later placed among the “ecclesiastical” but non-canonical books.
• The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache are treated by some Fathers as authoritative and edifying, sometimes even grouped with “Scriptures,” before the canon lists consistently distinguish them.
Tertullian’s enthusiasm for Enoch belongs in that same pre-clarification context. When he calls it “Scripture,” he immediately admits that “the Jews reject it” and that “it is not admitted into the Jewish canon” (De Cultu Feminarum 1.3), which already signals that its status is disputed. The later, more precise distinction between “canonical Scripture” and “ecclesiastical writings” is precisely what the Church had to work out over time. So appealing to early exalted language for Enoch proves that some Fathers valued it greatly, which I already acknowledge; it does not prove that the Church as a whole ever recognized it as canonical in the technical sense she later defined.
Third, “the East” and Ethiopia.
When I refer to East and West in the process of canon discernment, I’m talking about the major apostolic churches: the Greek-speaking churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), the Syriac and Coptic traditions, as well as the Latin West. If you look at Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39, Cyril of Jerusalem’s catechetical lectures, Gregory Nazianzen’s lists, the councils of Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage, and later Eastern reception, you see a very strong convergence on the same New Testament and essentially the same Old Testament core. 1 Enoch is absent from those lists and from the liturgical canon of the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian churches.
Ethiopia is indeed an ancient Eastern church, but it is also a significant outlier on the canon. Its 81-book collection reflects its own particular history and isolation. That is exactly my point: the “East” is not monolithic, and Ethiopia does not function as the canonical norm against which all other apostolic churches must be judged. The broad East–West consensus on the canon predates the Reformation by more than a thousand years and does not include Enoch. So this is not “Western post-Reformation consensus overriding Ethiopia”; it is Ethiopia preserving a local tradition that never became universal.
Fourth, pseudepigraphy and standards.
I did not say “pseudepigraphal” in the technical modern-critical sense is, by itself, a knock-out criterion. The Church has never bound herself to every conclusion of 19th–20th century higher criticism; she continues to affirm, for example, the essentially Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the Davidic core of the Psalms, even while allowing for redaction and development. Likewise with Daniel, the Pastorals, and 2 Peter: whatever scholarly hypotheses exist about composition history, the Church receives them as apostolic or prophetic in a way Enoch never was.
There is also a categorical difference between a Second Temple Jewish apocalypse transparently written millennia after the patriarch whose name it bears, and New Testament writings that were received from the beginning in the churches founded by the apostles themselves. 1 Enoch makes no claim within the Jewish community to be part of the Tanakh; it was never universally read as Scripture in Judaism, nor in Christianity. Daniel, by contrast, is in the Jewish canon. The Pastorals and 2 Peter, whatever one thinks of individual critical arguments, have always been part of the core New Testament corpus used in the liturgy across all major apostolic churches. That is why the Church treats them differently.
So the standard is not “modern scholars suspect pseudepigraphy, therefore exclude.” The standard is: is this writing apostolic or prophetic as received by the universal Church, and has it been consistently read in the Church’s worship as inspired Scripture? On that test, Enoch fails, regardless of how many true or useful elements it contains.
Stepping back, the central distinctions remain the same:
• A text can contain true prophecy without its whole corpus being canonical.
• Early Fathers could speak highly, even loosely, about such texts before the canon was fully clarified.
• One ancient church adopting a wider canon does not retroactively invalidate the broad East–West convergence that actually occurred.
• And the Church’s discernment of the canon rests on apostolic reception and universal liturgical use, not on a single criterion like “no pseudepigraphy.”
If you want to argue that Enoch should have been canonized, that’s a different debate. But the “10 questions” only seem unanswerable if you assume from the start that any strong use, quote, or tradition of respect automatically implies canonical status. I’m saying that assumption is false, and the actual history of how the Church handled Enoch and other revered non-canonical writings bears that out.
This is excellent. It is thoughtfully constructed, and the questions being raised are exactly the right ones.
Another factor that makes this difficult for modern society to accept is that the Book of Enoch directly challenges the modern faith placed in scientism, as promoted by institutions such as NASA and others. In some cases, translations have even been adjusted to better align with prevailing scientific assumptions. It is disheartening to see trust placed in secular institutions rather than in biblical cosmology.
Thank you for this post. Enoch also lays out the calendar which I would like to research further. When do you think Enoch was written and if it was actually pre-flood?
Great question. The earliest manuscripts we have are from 200-100 BC (Dead Sea Scrolls) but those are copies of older material.
The text itself claims to be Enoch's pre-Flood prophecy. Jude quotes it that way, he doesn't say "a book about Enoch" he says "Enoch prophesied" whether the content goes back to Enoch himself transmitted through Noah or was written later preserving oral tradition is debated.
Ethiopian church says it's genuinely pre-Flood, preserved through generations. Western scholars date the written text to 300 BC based on manuscript evidence.
On the calendar: Enoch 72-82 lays out a 364-day solar calendar (four perfect 91-day seasons) this is what Israel was supposed to use before adopting foreign calendars. The Qumran community used it. Ethiopia still does.
Read Enoch 72-82 and the Book of Jubilees for the calendar framework. I'll be doing a deep dive on Rome's calendar warfare soon.
Thank you for your insights. Yes, I agree the Dead Sea Scrolls were copies of older material. I also agree that Jude's use of "prophesied" by Enoch is significant based upon his understanding. The pre-Flood origin of the prophecies of Enoch is very feasible when mapping out the ages from Enoch to Methuselah and Noah. One can calculate overlaps where Enoch and Methuselah both lived at the same time for ~187 years. And Methuselah and Noah overlapped ~500 years. Thus, the prophecies could have been passed down.
I will look forward to the 364-day year analysis in Enoch and will review Enoch 72 to 82.
I have been looking at the 360-day Prophetic Year and 30-day Prophetic month that can be analyzed in the story of Noah's Flood. Using these numbers, one can then determine that the 1260 days in Revelation 12 is 3.5 Prophetic years or time, times, and half a time. This seems significant in light of the times we live in.
Also. Jesus called Enoch scripture when the Apostles asked him who would have the woman in heaven who had been married to one brother after another. Jesus' answer was. "You err. You do not know scripture. There is no marrying in Heaven. "
Rocka, where do we find the extended Daniel?
What I quoted @5:07 is almost a quote of what you and Ender said, as far as the Chronology. You will have to deal with Monotheisation eventually.
“The book of Enoch was written at least 2,000 years ago and contains references to historical groups such as the Parthians and Medes, indicating it was composed during or after their existence, which places its writing around the period when these peoples were known, rather than in the ancient time of Enoch himself. The current form of the book was compiled from older separate texts and only appeared as one complete manuscript in the 17th century.”
https://archaix.streamlit.app
You will not find a more thorough Chronologist than Archaix.com .
This Gnostic slop is spreading faster than I imagined, and it’s deceiving people precisely because it sounds spiritual while severing them from obedience, incarnation, and the actual gospel.
Read them for the insightful but fallible books they are, containing both truth and human error, but preserving the invaluable thoughts and experiences of the earliest worshippers of God. If you're arguing about which books to include and exclude, you're already wrong.
I’ve read Enoch - I am a bit suspicious of it. Early on, I would say the tale of the Watchers is true. It smacks of truth and it ties up a lot of basically background story to the Nephilim and Genesis 6. However, it doesn’t feel quite right, as if there is truth mixed with error and the fact that there is no consensus on it would tend to me to point to the fact that the Spirit really did not push for its inclusion.
I’m pretty sure the Chaldean and Syromalabar Church didn’t experience the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, or Enlightenment disruptions that reshaped Western Christianity. They have apostolic succession. St. Thomas taught the Christians of the Syromalabar Church.
So, what exactly is the problem the west has? What problem does missing Enoch present to us?
You won't answer, because there is no problem. The west misses a book. And we have done ten times more, spreading the Gospel and building the kingdom that Ethiopia ever did.
So, what exactly is our problem?
The West deleted Enoch but spread the Gospel ten times more than Ethiopia. So what's the problem?
The problem is what you call "spreading the Gospel"
Western Christianity "spread" through:
Constantine making it state religion (313 AD)
Charlemagne's "convert or die" campaigns (800s)
Crusades (1095-1291)
Colonial conquest (1492-1900s)
Atlantic slave trade
Native American genocide
Forced conversion at gunpoint
Ethiopia received the Gospel freely (Acts 8), never built empire, never forced conversion, resisted colonization, and maintained the war manual for 2,000 years.
You're right, the West did ten times more.
They built Christendom.
Ethiopia maintained covenant.
Your "success" required deleting the book that would have shown you the difference.
That's the problem.
False, This is not spreading the Gospel. This is Satan using his human slaves to build the New World Order Kingdom of the Anti-Christ. Christians did none of these things. The Luciferian controlled Catholic church and royalty did it.
The demons and people behind the scenes today, who run the show today, are the ones who did all of that.
They used religion, money and power as a tool for it, just like they use everything else.
But, the real spreading of the Gospel was done within those Satanic controlled things.
The real believers followed God's Word and saved souls despite the wickedness around them.
The Ethiopians took the Gospel and buried it in the sand. Just like the servant who did nothing with the Lord's money.
Liked your comments Chris Bunton! True Christians wouldn’t hold people at gunpoint to force belief. The only thing is I don’t know that the Ethiopians buried the gospel. Some of the strongest Christians are in Africa, standing up to persecution that Western nations would crumble under.
I agree. But, the OP acts like Ethiopia is where all things holy exists, so I’m busting on him.
Question 1: The Prophetic Formula
When Jude quotes Enoch, he uses the phrase “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying...” This is the prophetic formula used throughout Scripture to introduce divine revelation. When Paul quotes pagan poets like Aratus or Epimenides, he says “as your own poets have said” or “one of their own prophets has said” clearly marking them as human wisdom, not divine prophecy. Why do we treat Jude’s citation of Enoch as equivalent to Paul’s casual cultural references when the language Jude uses is categorically different?
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that Jude is quoting the Book of Enoch rather than quoting the historical man Enoch.
The Bible records that Enoch “walked with God” (Genesis 5:24) and “had this testimony, that he pleased God” (Hebrews 11:5). So it should not surprise anyone that a true prophet of God spoke words of judgment.
However, nothing in Jude says or implies that Enoch authored the book today called 1 Enoch. Jude says Enoch prophesied, not Enoch wrote a book. Jude is citing the content of a prophecy, not the authorship of the manuscript where that content was preserved.
The prophetic formula in Jude does not authenticate the Book of Enoch. It authenticates the prophecy of Enoch himself.
So I’m trying to understand your reasoning. Is Jude just treating one verse as authoritative from a book that happens to be the Book of Enoch? Why do you think Ethiopia is holding non-scripture in their canon, and by what authority did you reach that conclusion?
So, I believe that Jude was quoting Enoch but not from the Book of Enoch.
To answer your second question, I do believe Ethiopia is holding non-scriptural books in their canon. This isn't to say that those books can't provide a historical context in some cases, but when you compare scripture with scripture, those extra books contradict each other and the books of the Bible. The authority I've reached this conclusion by, is the Bible itself. I believe the 66 books of the King James Bible are internally consistent with each other, are infallible, and have no errors whatsoever. When you look at Genesis, Ruth, and Luke (just for example), there are no errors between those three books. When you look at the Bible as a whole, there are no errors from Genesis all the way to Revelation. When you consider the book of Enoch, it has contradictions with the rest of the Bible that would make it not inerrant.
Do you believe the Ethiopian Bible is without error?
I found the biblical interpretive analysis of Paul Wallis's Eden series interesting reading, fwiw.
Great questions. My answer is Yes. Western civilization can survive the answers. The premise of Western Civilization allows for educated minds to change. Western Civilization is based on Jesus. A properly functioning Western Civilization can survive anything.
In waiting for the answers.
🤣what else can we do?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_2ad8d076-3e9c-45fa-9ffc-8917ba9b5445
Enoch is a great book and cannon. You cannot argue with the Word of God…if He saw fit to include references to Enoch’s Book in other books of the Bible that seals any doubts that it is a book we should be reading and talking as seriously as the rest of the Bible. Jasher is another one. Joshua 10:13.
Enoch…In Genesis has two paths…one Enoch, a visible city of power, Cains son, and one Enoch who walked with God, and entered into the Unseen realm…I accept the exploration of this Enoch…& true government!
To me the number of books reduced to 66 in the KJV and the great fire of London in 1666 are examples of confirming leads on the shenanigans of power grabs…in Europe:
Reminds me of
Pieces of eight and the symbols of currency for merchants & the pillars of Hercules and the (then)new world…
Rather like
Francis (pope) Scot (Freemasonry) Key…bridge and collapse of bridge to block Baltimore (great fire of Baal) harbor
This stuff is a predictive ritual humiliation to enact…
Reminds me of the UN symbol of the basket dome entrapment of the known world…Zechariah 5:11
Letter kills but the Spirit is Life
Have we been enchanted by the spells of Mach in nations?
Symbolism talks:
Outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual power (I wouldn’t say grace as many times it is not a true gifting from the Father of Light)
Sift and sift…and sift some more.
Tear down the strongholds and everything that exalts itself above Christ in you!
Question the “current see” oiling the system using the stock exchange…familiar faces…what is behind the Wall? The House? The Door? Chet Beit Dalet: Chabbad…very old dealings…BC