The Book of Enoch

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
I have long believed, even before I became Orthodox, that the book of Enoch is scripture. If you have not read the book of Enoch or are not familiar with it this might not be the post for you. I know HH Pope Shenouda's stance on it, but I disagree respectfully. The book of Enoch is riddled with references to Christ but the reason many reject it is because it elaborates on that strange part of Genesis that talks about the Sons of God coming unto the daughters of men, having sex with them and they bore giants.

Now the interpretation of Sons of God is said to be the line of seth, but going deeper into the Hebrew the word "Sons of God" is only ever used to refer to non human beings. (This is from a friend of mine Michael Heiser PhD who is a hebrew and greek scholar). There were many early church fathers who agreed and many that didnt, same as the Apocalypse of St John.

I also find it odd that one of the main arguments is that angelic beings cannot have intercourse, yet they can eat? So they have a digestive system but not a reproductive system? In the book of Enoch he refers to these angels who left heaven as "watchers", as if they are a distinct category of angels. So whats the big deal?

I am not sure why this book is rejected. Jude quotes from it verbatim, so that little parapgraph is accepted scripture but the rest of it is horribly wrong. Clearly St Jude believed the book to be holy, yet we reject it.

Also the Ethiopian Orthodox church has this very book in their canon, this was the only surviving copy. This leads me to believe it was a jewish book brought to Ethiopia with the Ethiopian jews, making it a legitimate book. This is atleast the story given to me by the Ethiopian monks.

I am hoping to shed more light on this with those who are aware of this book. Again this book does not affect our salvation therefore I dont stress to people that u must believe in this book. I do believe that one can have belief in this book without contradicting the church or their salvation, as demonstrated by the Ethiopian Church.

on a side note if we are still here when Enoch and Elijah come back, we could then just ask Enoch: "hey man, how are ya, umm yea did u write this book?"


  • Disagree  with Pope Shenouda huh? hmmm. I think HH and the Holy Synod are much more wiser then you or I Ioannes and are guided by the Holy Spirit, I think any decision they decide we should accept with humility and not continually try to challenge their authority and decisions.
    Angles having intercourse is just the silliest thing i have ever heard? They are not human, they do not have body's so therefore will not have ANY urge to reproduce, they are spirits....
    If, for arguments sake, they do have a digestive system, why must it be necessary for them to also have a reproductive system as well? The digestive system is totally unrelated to the reproductive one....?????
    What do u mean by angles eating? Can you make reference please
    thanks mate
  • Ioannes,

    Out of curiosity, is the Dr. Michael Heiser that you reference an adherent of Kabalah?
  • [quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=9472.msg116770#msg116770 date=1279505629]
    Disagree  with Pope Shenouda huh? hmmm. I think HH and the Holy Synod are much more wiser then you or I Zoxasi and are guided by the Holy Spirit, I think any decision they decide we should accept with humility and not continually try to challenge their authority and decisions.
    Angles having intercourse is just the most moronic thing i have ever heard? They are not human, they do not have body's so therefore will not have ANY urge to reproduce, they are spirits....
    If, for arguments sake, they do have a digestive system, why must it be necessary for them to also have a reproductive system as well? The digestive system is totally unrelated to the reproductive one....?????
    What do u mean by angles eating? Can you make reference please
    thanks mate

    Hi guys!

    I do have a great respect and love for Pope Shenuda, but I also have an even greater love and respect for those Ethiopian Holy fathers who included the Book of Enoch into the original Ethiopian Bible. I think all Christians will soon apreciate and value these fathers for keeping this amazing book for all humanity.
  • It is not Pope Shenouda that kept the Book of Enoch out of the Canonical Bible.  It was the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the function of the (true) Ecumenical gatherings of centuries past.
  • A booklet of HH Pope Shenouda III about angels "The Angels":

    Since angels are spiritual beings made of light they most probably do not have a biological digestive system, though from the Bible they sometimes appeared in a temporary human form. Their food could be made of spiritual light provided by God's Grace?

    Also I read angels do not marry nor are given in marriage...

    This link of a page for recognized Scripture books adopted by Churches; from the table, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Ethiopian Orthodox accept more books than other Orthodox Churches. I think these choices have not produced a problem between the Coptic and the Ethiopian Orthodox sister Churches.

  • Michael Heiser is a methodist or something LOL not a kabbalist. I knew that I would get this sort of response. Look with all due respect I am not attacking HH Pope Shenouda. This book as been debated over just as much as the Apocalypse of St John, by believing in that book as scripture are we then denying the Church Fathers who disagreed with it? Again St Jude is scriptural, he quotes directly from the book of Enoch, why is that scripture but the rest not? If we deny that book are we not denying a holy person such as St Jude who obviously believed in this book?

    There was a comment about angels having intercourse and how absurd that is, well the angels can surely eat. And the hebrew speaks for itself, Bene Ha Elohim, which is used in that verse in Genesis refers ONLY to heavenly beings or non human beings, Bene Elohim, is used to refer to humans. Both are translated into english as "Sons of God" but there is no differentiation between the two.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with anyone. If it is done in a respectful manner why am I not allowed to disagree HH Pope Shenouda? This is not a doctrinal issue like the nature of Christ, we do not believe in infallibility. Keep in mind how St Athanasius spoke to Bishops and Priests when he was a deacon. I have all the love and respect for our Bishops and HH Pope Shenouda, disagreeing on this issue is not the worst thing in the world, as I said before early church fathers debated this. Tertullian believed in it, Blessed Augustine sort of believed it, and others downright rejected it. But they rejected on the basis of its mysterious and unknown origin, NOT its content.

    Oddly enough the only surviving copy was found in Ethiopia and probably came there with the Jews. This book is riddled with references and prophecies of Christ. But please do not mistake my stance on this issue as attacking HH Pope Shenouda, I love our Patriarch dearly and I do understand the reasons for which he has rejected this book and the account in Genesis, which when read in the correct context with the hebrew meaning clearly shows an inarguable view that yes indeed these angels that Enoch calls the watchers came unto women, and they bore their children. I dont expect anyone to agree with this, it does not directly affect our salvation. But I do feel it is important in understanding our history as well as our future.

  • Ioannes,

    I didn't think you were attacking His Holiness at all.  My thought was that of trust in the Fathers of the Church over the centuries in their review of books and their thought for inclusion in the Holy Bible.  You have a strong founding in the Patristics, and I would lean towards their sagacity.

    Certainly, Gnostic Gospels and writings have been quoted in a whole spectrum of writings, but it does not necessitate any proper inclusion in the Canons of the Holy Bible.  I will also add that the Gospel of St. James is a major source of the details for the life of the Virgin Mary, but it also, is not part of the Canons.
  • Iouannes where did you get that angels could eat. This is from Tobit 12: 19 "I seemed indeed to eat and to drink with you: but I use an invisible meat and drink, which cannot be seen by men."

    This is what the angel Raphael told Tobias when he revealed to him that he in fact was an angel. Also angels are spirits and therefore can't reproduce. This is like saying we can reproduce once we leave our bodies and ascend to heaven.
  • ilovestmark, again with all due respect this is an issue in which we have to capacity to disagree. Many of our church fathers did accept this book and again it was rejected because its origin was not really known. I am surprised that you did not address St Jude quoting, verbatim, from the book of Enoch and that particular passage being considered scripture, while the rest of the book of Enoch is not. I do trust our leaders judgment and decisions, in the way of doctrine and dogma etc. we should not even think of questioning them unless of course they are clearly veering from Orthodoxy, then that is alright, but still in a respectful way.

    I am not going to deny fact because of another person's opinion, albeit a very educated and holy opinion, none the less it still is an opinion. As I showed above the hebrew in Genesis speaks for itself, there can be no other explaination.
  • Ioannes,

    Note that if a meal of holy light would be the food of an angel of light it would not need any digestion to be absorbed.

    the Hebrew meaning clearly shows an inarguable view that yes indeed these angels that Enoch calls the watchers came unto women, and they bore their children

    We all know that angels are spirits so they do not have a material body. There are indeed many kinds of angels but to read that spiritual beings coming from Heaven (i.e. being holy) have known women like men do and these women bore their children is extremely hard to conceive, accept or understand. Also of course this was not an alien visit.

    The term "Sons of God" is applicable to humans who worship the Lord Most High and fear Almighty God, the Bible states that God created man in His image but that the angels are made of light. Plus can we touch light, hold it and feel it physically as a solid body?

    It could be a suggested unlikely idea for a solution to the question of who did the first human generations marry in order to multiply and fill the earth. BUT the Lord answered the Sadducees:

    Mat 22:29-30  Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
    For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    Another obvious point is that the original Hebrew Scripture sources do not include this book.

    Gen 5:24
    And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

    Enoch is known as a great saint but did Moses write about him as he did about other prophets in the first books of the Bible? It also seems logical to think that Moses would have mentioned such unusual angelic activities.

    Ioannes, out of curiosity what are the prophecies about Christ you found in Enoch's book?

  • To address your post John, there are instances in the bible where angels came so someone, most notably, abraham. He did not even realize they were angels at first, he then cooked them food and they ate. There is no scripture to suggest that angels, or a certain kind of angels, cannot take a physical body.

    This verse in Matthew is probably the most common verse used to prove this theory wrong. Can this be suggesting that it is a rule or law given to the angels by God? It does not say angels are physically unable to marry, but suggests they are not allowed to marry. This would explain why God was so upset about this incident. Here is a strange verse I think that illustrates my point 2 Pet 2:4: " For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, on of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;" Notice that this is referring to Noah's time, not the fall of satan. Satan was not cast to hell, nor any of his angels. None of them. However the angels who willingly sinned against God were bound, according to this and Enoch.

    Again we must address the issue of St Jude and his reference to the book, clearly showing he viewed it as scripture, otherwise he would not have quoted it as if it had authority.

    There are several references to Christ in the book of Enoch. In one instance when he is taken and shown heaven he sees something, some being, and asks the angels who replied that it is not for him to know but that He will be a crutch unto the people. Dont quote me exactly. If you would like I can go through and find every single one of them.

    Another interesting thing about the book of Enoch is that it explains many of these mysterious cultures that did things with stone and buildings that we cannot do today. It explains why these cultures were such advanced astronomers and mathematicians as well. Enoch names each of the angels that showed mankind how to work stones, astronomy, mathematics, one angel taught women how to beautify their skin. And of course one angel taught them how to make weapons, and make war.

    Enoch also describes that many of these angels, who were not allowed back into heaven after pleaded with Enoch to speak with God for them, set themselves up as gods. Some of them, Enoch says, made men sacrifice humans to them. This explains paganism, for me anyways.

    As we can all see this is why the book of Enoch has been debated for centuries, there is supporting evidence and there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Another verse from Jude 6 I will leave you with says: " And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, H has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;" This again highlights the angels who left heaven, not satan and his angels who were thrown from heaven. It is very obvious that St Jude did indeed regard the book of Enoch as scripture. Thanks John for you wonderful insight, hopefully we can keep this discussion going.
  • Ioannes claim on Angels possessing human body when he said,"they have a digestive system but not a reproductive system" is not from the book of Tobit as ana bola tried to claim,It is explicitly found during the Hospitality of Abraham  of the Three men (Genesis 18) and again there are two stances of the Three men and it is either the Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ with Two Angels,because the Two Angels are the one that told Lot and His family to leave Sodom (Genesis 19).
    If the Church stance is on the Latter one, It is explicitly written that the Three men ate in Genesis 18:8, " And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, AND THEY DID EAT."

    It should not be surprising that Angels possessing digestive system will not have reproductive system or Should we ask if  it is an illusion that angels possessed a body in Genesis 18:8? 
  • I think, to add to the discussion, and until I get back to my house, since I am away for business, I believe there are obvious points that do not necessarily equate to full meanings expound by the last several posts.


    --Angels transcend physical laws that we abide in as humans.  An angel can appear from no place in sight such as the Archangel Gabriel's visitations of Zachariah, and the Virgin Mary--Mother of God.

    --Just because an angel "ate" of a given food, does not mean or necessitate, that the eating process is inclusive of digestion or even that the food was processed.  The angels are before God and there is no mention that they require any sustenance.

    --The manifestation of the presence of the angels is not equated to an incarnation process.  Our Lord was Incarnate.  Yet, we know that he visited Abraham (as interpreted) in the company of the two angels--despite not having been born of the Virgin Mary.

    --It is of substance and necessity, that Our Lord did take flesh and all of the aspect of bodily function, yet the angels that are cited did not become incarnate.  Their "bodies" and their "beings" are completely different from our human form.

    --Moreover, the Book of Enoch could well be a form of established parallel folklore in the Jewish history that would parallel the Greek Mythology work:  Metamorphoses; which attempted to explain and establish the ranks of the gods and the establishment of certain human wonders and trades.  The Jewish people, specifically the Northern Kingdom, fell into much estrangement from the Lord God, were influenced by pagans, fell into pagan worship, and may well be the source for the Book of Enoch.  The Book itself is not referenced in a particular era or time frame.

    --I will also repeat, that referencing, citing, and making mention of a given source--which may well be direct as in the Epistle of St. Jude--does not make it an absolute source or Canon.  If I make reference of idioms or sayings from:  Confucius, Hinduism, Judaism, or even the Koran, does not mean I take acceptance of their full accords.

    --It may well be that at a time the Book of Enoch was held in accord as accepted Scripture, but later was removed.

    --I will also follow in the comments made by Fr. Peter and Ioannes, that we have to trust implicitly in the sagacity and inspiration of the Fathers.  I believe this to be a theme statement repeated in their posts for which I agree wholeheartedly.

    --In the regard of "prophetic" announcements in the Book as they appertain to the Lord Jesus Christ, this is not unheard since even the Gnostic Gospels have valid points as they relate to the Lord, yet we do not accept them in the Canonical Bible.

    --If the Gospels declare that when the Resurrection comes, we will be given new bodies, then why would we uphold that angels are predicated to have the same bodies as ourselves.  The Scriptures are very clear that the two beings:  human and angel are totally separate and created at totally different times.  In essence there is no evolutionary descendency.

    Just some of my thoughts.
  • One last thought before I head to sleep.

    We have to reflect on certain false interpretations even in the realm of Art, such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling that depicts the creation of Adam.

    Firstly, one cannot conceive or picture the Father, since 'no one has seen the Father, except the Son'.

    Secondly, The Father did not create Adam by the "zap of the finger" since the Scriptures are very specific in their description.

    This was an artistic interpretation, that is not only exceptionally stupid, but also heretical.

    I pose the question:  Just because it is in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, does it become "Gospel Truth"?

    There are many things that are passed down through the ages, that are not necessarily credible, true, or substantiated.

    Good night all.  God is Good.  He has granted us another great day, may He permit a restful night and a good awakening.
  • ilovesaintmark, I love your analogy, however I do not believe it applies here. I understand where u are coming from. I have tried to show that there are many church fathers who agreed with this view, and many that didnt, so it is not exactly wrong of me to choose a side based on the evidence. One of my favorite modern day saints, Blessed Seraphim Rose, not technically a saint, did not believe in this interpretation. Does this mean that I am against Blessed Seraphim Rose? Of course not, and it would be absurd to suggest that with anyone else. As a matter of fact, when the books of the bible were being canonized into the bible, I dont even think the book of Enoch was up for consideration, why? Most likely because there were very few copies in existence anymore, so in all likelihood they may not have even known of this book. The only complete manuscript was found in Ethiopia, and it existed there long before Christianity.

    I hope that you and everyone else atleast take the evidence into consideration, u may say I am misinterpreting what St Peter said, as I stated earlier, but how then do you explain the two passages in St Jude? Or the fact that the Hebrew in the OT is unmistakable, Sons of God is not referring to earthly beings, the line of Seth, but is in fact "Bene ha Elohim" pertaining only to angels, and only ever used in reference to them, NOT "Bene Elohim" which is used to refer to humans. Please dont write me off as some kook who is just randomly making things up, I dont believe things because I want to, I believe it because I have researched it and found that the evidence supports it, making it truth. As I do with anything else.
  • Ioannes,

    I have a lot of regard and respect for you.  I do not discount anything that you post.  I find your posts very well thought out and scholarly in approach.  I also am touched by your road to Orthodoxy.

    My back and forth with you is along the same lines.  I also offered up my own opinion in the framework as I have been taught and in the reverence that I accept it with faith.

    I do not think you are a kook.  If you were, then I would be definitely coo-coo.
  • Thank you Ioannes. But I need also to read HH Pope Shenouda's analysis of the book of Enoch - I can't find it, you mentioned you have many books do you have it? If so please PM me.

    After I read your reply I think that no angels would ever set themselves as gods before humans unless they were in fact fallen angels, more even because some of these "gods" required ungodly cruel human sacrifices.

    John 8:44
    44 You are of your  father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

    I can't accept the situation of a heavenly holy angel who would decide to leave God's Heaven, or if I may say so went for a walk without God's permission?

    We know that all paganism is originally the work of the devil, who hates humanity and eagerly seeks its destruction.

  • John, I believe this was a writing HH did in St Antonys magazine. I want to make it clear again, I love HH very much. By disagreeing with him I mean him no disrespect whatsoever, and do not intend to place myself above him in any way. For instance In his series of books "so many years with the problems of people" he claims the apostasy has not happened, I disagree. And I do not mean it in any sort of disrespectful way either. We both reviewed the evidence and both came to different conclusions, thats all.

    I think many people here have not read the book of Enoch, and that is fine since it is not considered scriptural. Many early church fathers did hold this book in very high regard, two of my fav's are Origen of Alexandria and Tertullian, and of course St Jude. I think if people actually read it, as opposed to making assumptions based on what they think it says, they will understand that Enoch refers to these angels as being distinctly different from those of the Seraphim, Cherubum, Archangels etc. The angels did eat in the company of Abraham, this does not mean they NEEDED to eat, but the food had to go somewhere which clearly suggests that they had a fully functioning digestive system. Same concept applied to this Enoch situation, they dont need to procreate, but maybe they can.

    And again in Genesis when they talk about this incident the Hebrew does not fit with the conclusion that many have come to. Not only that, why would women give birth to giants if the "Sons of God" were humans from the line of Seth? That is a leap in logic, a very big leap in logic. For genes to change that quickly so that women could give birth to giants, and clearly not just one woman giving birth to a giant, but all women who were with these "Sons of God" gave birth to giants. It doesnt make sense.

    Again if we look at the Hebrew words used in that verse it is "Bene Ha Elohim" which is ONLY ever used in reference to angels. This is going literally by scripture and not speculation. It is very difficult to get around that, the verse in Peter, and the multiple references in Jude.

    ilovesaintmark, let me ask you. If this were true, what effect would this have on your faith. It seems that there is some very strong evidence to support my claim, but nobody seems to want to even entertain this idea. So if it were true, how would it affect you?
  • Ioannes,

    I was away for the weekend,  and really did not have much time to log-in.

    In regard to your comments, I would say that your thought about eating, and it necessitating a digestive process, is not true for angels; God-worshipping or fallen.  Since they do not have the same bodies as us in any form.  They transcend the physical boundaries.  So I would say that they are not bound to the same physical movments or translation in time.  The angel may appear to eat, but there is not necessarily a digestive process. 

    If I can recall a whimsical anecdote in my interaction with my niece as she was first getting into eating and chewing food.  Everyone was happy with her eating, but in reality, she would quietly slide the food out of her mouth and hide it to the side; no digestion occurred in this scenario.

    I would say that your premise is where I do not agree and for which I cannot follow on the deductions leading to your conclusion.

    If they had a digestive ability, then the angel would have been burned in the fire with the Three Youths.  In another situation, the Archangel Gabriel made his presence with a descent from the Heavens, and was able to stir the waters for the ill to enter and be healed, yet there is no mention of a rod.  I believe there are plenty of examples, and a mile long of stories in th Bible.

    There is also another thought:  demonic possession.  This thought can carry itself relative to physical indulgences of food or even sexual interaction.  If a demon (fallen angel) were to possess someone, it in essence, would allow the demon the appearance of eating or carrying out a sexual act.  Yet, this would not constitute an "incarnation", but rather a being coverage.

    Hence, where I would say I disagree with your comments and it would negate all of the deductions is the fact that the "eaten" food could easily been morphed or sent to another place.  I would say that this is a more plausible explanation that is within line of the definition of the being of an angel.

    As for my faith, it relies on God's Revelations to me in the form of my upbringing, my Church and Her Father's, the reading in the Scriptures, and living in the Sacramental life--to the best of my abilities.

    With that as a preface, I do not think that there is a need to answer the last portion of your posting, because it does not exist in the reality that has been given to my personal being.  There is no reason to ponder a different course, because for me, it does not exist as a possibility.  The proof, with heavy preponderance, is to the contrary.  If that can of worms is opened, then we would all best to sign on to Scientology or Kabalah.  I cannot say I have any mastery in Hebrew, so I cannot thoughtfully comment on  the other portion of your statements.
  • Dear Ioannes,

    I could not find the mag you mentioned, but I've read an article of HH comparing between official Scripture, and Tradition. HH stated that many good sayings could be handled to subsequent generations (like to the Apostles). Legacy sayings like these reach us too via the continuum of Tradition (e.g. the sayings of the Orthodox fathers), these are not exactly Scripture books (Canon, Apocrypha etc.) though they are indeed genuine, deeply spiritual and usefully quoted in the Church teaching and agreed upon by most Churches.

    In his book "Comparative Theology" HH mentioned the verses of Enoch found in St Jude's were quoted from Holy Tradition.

    As example speaking about the Church's Tradition:

    (1) It should not be incompatible with the Holy Bible (Gal 1:8 )
    (2) It should not contradict other Church traditions
    (3) The Churches should accept it

    It is known that in every generation, new matters arise which had not existed in the previous generations. The point of view of Religion about such matters is sought so as not to perplex people's thoughts or make them confused between right and wrong, because not all people know the rules of Religion or what is written in the Holy Bible.
    Hence the Church, through her teaching and legislative authority, presents the opinion of Religion in such matters, because the Holy Bible says that the Law is sought from the mouth of the priest. Through the succession of generations the Church teachings have become Tradition to be inherited by all generations.
    The Apostles commanded that Tradition be preserved St. Paul the Apostle said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle"  (2Thess.2: 15).
    He also said: "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2Thess.3: 6), He also said to  the Corinthians: "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you" (1Cor. 11: 2).

    We regret to say that our brethren the Protestants, in their translation of the Holy Bible (Beirut Arabic Translation), substituted "Traditions" with "Teachings", in matters which  confirm the teaching of Tradition. But kept 'tradition' for  incidents relating to repugnant traditions, obviously rejected by the Holy Church.

    Anyhow, although our Protestant brethren deny Tradition,  they themselves instituted their own traditions. They maintain their own rituals although they deny rituals. They have recited prayers and fixed readings on ordinations, matrimony, baptism and funerals although they do not acknowledge recited prayers.  They keep their own tradition but deny any tradition that does not agree with theirs.
    It goes without saying that Tradition is a precious heritage and it would be great loss for any Church to be devoid of it, such becomes a Church without history and without any rules to protect against people interpreting or teaching things according to their own preferences.

  • I almost forgot.

    Biologically, for a male genetic information to be transferred and be added to female ones to start the formation of an viable compatible for life embryo, they must be of exactly of the same kind (i.e. the same species) otherwise they are not compatible, so it's not easy to consider it likely on scientific basis too.

    About the angels mentioned eating food and drinking they actually "seemed indeed to eat and to drink" (ref. Tobit).

  • John, they do eat with Abraham. Again, I would like someone to discredit the book of Enoch without discrediting St. Jude. Why would St. Jude quote from a book that is "heretical" when he could have easily quoted any number of verses of Christ? Can I quote from the book of Thomas here without getting trounced on? Of course not, it is heretical. So if the book of Enoch is heretical, then what are we to make of St. Jude in his direct quotation of Enoch?
  • Just noticed you're here  :)

    I did not say it is 'heretical' but I said that it is most probably Tradition like HH explained in his serious book "Comparative Theology". So may be the book of Enoch was not actually a finished full book but collected much later and not by Moses. It could have suffered some additions made to it.

  • I do see your point John. But much like we do with our church history, in establishing ourselves as the true church, we must find its origins. This is why Augustine rejected the book, not for its contents but for the simple fact, he had no idea where it came from.

    The only surviving copy was found in Ethiopia. This is very important because the Ethiopian church is the only Orthodox church converted from Christianity. There are two forms of Judaism still practiced in Ethiopia, Quement and Falasha. Quement practices the most ancient form of Judaism to date. This proves that at some point Jews came to Ethiopia, as tradition and the Kebra Negast state, they came with all the holy books as well as the Ark. Again this is important because they have had the book of Enoch for a very long time, which shows that Jews indeed regarded this as a holy text. For some reason it disappeared, even though Jews and early Christians alike studied it.

    I dont want people to think I believe it is necessary to believe this, I am just asking them to look at the evidence that clearly supports it. I am currently going through the church fathers to find which ones believed that angels came unto women. St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Clement of Rome both believed this happened. Right now I am going through St. Basil's writings, namely "On the human condition".
  • Ioannes,

    Out of curiosity, because I cannot make out your picture too well on my screen, is that Coptic or Amharic writing?  I've been meaning to ask you for a while.

    [Actually I put this in the wrong thread.  I meant to put it in the one on Facial Tattoos.]
  • It is Ge'Ez, a version of Amharic. I read a book written by a Nibur Id, or Arch Bishop, I think thats the proper translation. And it was that word that just made it all click. It means the nature of Christ. And when the Nibur Id explained it so gracefully, I began to weep. I read it over and over, and from that point on I knew I wanted to be Orthodox. So I felt obligated to stamp it on me permanently and it gives me an opprotunity to talk about Christ with people constantly because nobody can read it, everyone asks. You see, tats are good, or can be anyways.
  • [quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=9472.msg116770#msg116770 date=1279505629]
    Disagree  with Pope Shenouda huh? hmmm. I think HH and the Holy Synod are much more wiser then you or I Ioannes and are guided by the Holy Spirit, I think any decision they decide we should accept with humility and not continually try to challenge their authority and decisions.
    Angles having intercourse is just the silliest thing i have ever heard? They are not human, they do not have body's so therefore will not have ANY urge to reproduce, they are spirits....
    If, for arguments sake, they do have a digestive system, why must it be necessary for them to also have a reproductive system as well? The digestive system is totally unrelated to the reproductive one....?????
    What do u mean by angles eating? Can you make reference please
    thanks mate

    It is really sad to see where we have come as an educated people.
    We need to dig deep into the bible before we post information for all to read.
    Genesis 19:1-3 Talks about the 2 angels that came to Sodom and saw Lot sitting at the gate.  Genesis 19:3 KJV "And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, AND THEY DID EAT."
    This tells us that angels, YES ANGELS, can take on human form.
        I believe that H.H. is a great and holy man, but he is a man. Please do not do like the Catholics and make the pope infallible, he is not. Remember when they wanted to move the mountain, it was not the wished from the heavens to have the Pope move it, it was that simple man who was asked. There is nothing wrong with respectfully disagreeing with authority, it is when we live in blind ignorance that we fail.
  • who was eating with ABRAHAM angels or God?
    IN  russian orthodox it was God.Also the very famous russian icon"The Trinity" depicts this moment.
  • Even though the book of Enoch is not accepted as canonical by the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is accepted by her sister Holy Orthodox Church, the Church of Ethiopia. With that said, can it be read for spiritual edification even though it is not considered inspired Scripture in our Church? Saint Athanasius said that Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were not inspired, though he did recommend catechumens read them for spiritual benefit (he actually argued the same regarding the book of Esther, btw, which was only later accepted by the Church). Can we extend the same courtesy to the book of Enoch and other books accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox, but not accepted by the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria?
  • I was wondering how many books the Coptic canon has? In the Ethiopian canon it is 81 books.
Sign In or Register to comment.