Replies

But because Enoch lived about 3300 B.C. - if the book of Enoch is authentic - it would predate Moses, the Pentateuch. IMHO, that leaves only one other avenue for Spiritual authentication which is the Word Himself... Of course, for the natural man, mentally discerning spirits is perilous; but those of us who have the indwelling of the Spirit and trust and follow Him, will be lead into the Truth:

So, you do have a "personal canon" -- namely whatever it is you believe the Holy Spirit is telling you. Now, we agree that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Scriptures and through those who are applying the Scriptures to you personally. But, you're saying that He will additionally provide private "spiritual authentication" of the Book of Enoch. That way of thinking concerns me, because it certainly does lead to a type of gnosticism.

When Paul is talking in 1 Corinthians about the "natural man not receiving the things of the Spirit" vs. the "spiritual man" who does, he is not referring to the ability to "tune in" to esoteric teachings or Bible codes. He is indeed referring to the "the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory" (1 Cor. 2:7). But, he speaks elsewhere about this mystery (and he says the same sort of thing throughout his writings):

Ephesians 3:3-7 ...by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

Paul's point is that the natural man does not believe ("does not receive") the plain message of the Scriptures, whereas the spiritual man does. The natural man is confused about the Scriptures ("not able to understand them"), whereas the spiritual man does understand them. Now, as I said earlier, the message of the Scriptures is centered on Jesus and the Gospel. The spiritual man is able to see and believe this, but the natural man is not able to see this and refuses to believe the Scriptures.

The Scriptures were not given to satisfy our natural curiosities about antediluvian characters and angels (which is what the Book of Enoch is mostly about). Rather, they were given to "make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15). If you see "echoes" of Enoch in the NT, that's fine. But, that doesn't imply that we should therefore buy into the whole book or consider it "inspired."

I do understand what you are saying and I very much appreciate your concern! I will nevertheless continue to explore ancient manuscripts.

In my walk with the Lord, He has spoken to me in ways with magnify what is written in the Bible. I cannot describe the sensation of a thing ringing true to my Spirit. But I know it when it happens.

Sometimes it is provoked by a thought; sometimes a thing heard – and sometimes a thing read. But however it comes, I take the ringing true to my Spirit quite seriously and with much gratitude. But of course I cannot say that anyone else ought have the same reaction to the same thing.

As an example, one of the ancient manuscripts in the Pseudepigrapha is a story about why Abraham left his father and followed the Lord. It rang true to my Spirit. The manuscript, however, would never qualify for a canon nor would I expect anyone else to receive the story as true. But it magnified the Bible and thus, satisfied me.

Personally, I think many people get too caught up worshipping "The Canon". It's easy to believe in "The Canon" because it was decided by a committee a long time ago. Kind of like the Jews believing in the dead Prophets but not being able to accept Jesus, of whom all the Prophets testified.

The fact is, Enoch was considered canonical by many and had a lot of influence on the New Testament. I can't say I believe any version of Enoch has survived perfectly but I do think there's probably a lot of worth in there.