How do Christians cope with the fact that their holy scripture quotes from the book of Enoch with the implication that he actually wrote it, yet almost all denominations exclude it from their canon?
Put this through your thick skull:Christianity = following Christ's teachings and putting them into practice in your daily life so you can become one with God just like Jesus did. UNITYdenominations/separations = not Christianity
>>17989129the old testament also quotes the persian royal annals and the book of chronicles quotes several books that are now lostReally the old testament isnt ment ot be theologically formative beyond some philosophical matters and the prophets, most of the deranged larpers you see online try to apply jewish law and jewish warfare into the modern day
>>17989158>>17989163The real answer, as exemplified by these posts, is that most Christians could give a single fuck about their theology - they only identify with Christianity because they want to feel saved. Most Christians I know have never actually read the Bible for themselves and never plan to.
>>17989163Yeah, but the thing is that Jude implies Enoch himself did say those things, i.e that it was authentic.Nobody disputes that the authors of I and II Kings had (atleast somewhat) authoritative sources at hand, wheras most christians dispute that Enoch I is authentic.
>>17989179This was a problem for me that I recognized, so I decided to read it. It's a long book and thankfully my Catholic priest makes time to provide the correct context.
>>17989190>provide the correct context"Exegesis" is pure Catholic headcanon
>>17989193
Some Enochic material was just too heterodox, especially regarding angels and cosmology.
>>17989610Well yeah, but some of the people who wrote their holy book clearly thought it was authentic. What does that make of biblical inerrancy?
