The 66 books of the Bible are the ones without historical inaccuracies and don’t contradict doctrine from known biblical writers. Also, the authors of many of the apocryphal books are known to be liars or frauds. Some of the books do contain useful information but it is NOT to be counted as the inspired Word of God.
The catholic Bible uses many of these apocryphal books to justify pergatory, praying to saints, and almsgiving. None of these things are mentioned by Jesus. Also, the members of the early church did not rely on the apocryphal books, and we don’t have the same breadth of copies to attest that what is being produced is what was written. With the 66 books, they have all undergone extensive authentication and are consistently confirmed by historical discoveries, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and other papyrus found in jars in the region.
I don’t know about you, but I trust the things Jesus said directly and don’t need anything else.
“If anyone preaches any other gospel… let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8
Well done! Good and faithful! Think of it, paying for a mass to get someone out of purgatory! This is in direct contrast to the word of God, God says "Without the shedding of innocent blood (there is no remission) of sins"(Hebrews 9:22) only Christ's blood was innocent for He never sinned, and only his blood can wash away sin. If you could redeem a sinner from purgatory, by simply paying for a mass, what would you need Jesus for, you would only need money, that's why God warned us in (Psalms 49:8) saying," THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WHOLE EARTH TO RANSOM ONE MAN'S SOUL" (Praying to Mary) Mary was not sinless, as proven by the scriptures, for Mary herself said, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR"(Luke 1:46) Mary called God her savior, someone who has not sinned does not need a savior, Praying to Mary is in direct contrast to the word of God, Jesus himself said, "if anyone tries to come to the Father, any other way,then by me, he is a thief and a robber"(John 10:1, John 14:6) It's clear, If Mary could deliver us what would we need Christ for? Satan is always trying to get us to depend on something other than Christ. This is the reason these things and many more were left out of the 66 books. Everything for our mental, physical and spiritual, needs in this life as described in 3John 1:2, are contained in the promises found in the 66 books, God left nothing out. The Holy Spirit our teacher, helps us to rightly divide, understand and receive what is written, we lack nothing. I write these things as a second witness to confirm what you have written. "Out of the month of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established"(2 Corinthians 13:1) 🙏
The Book of Enoch is cited in the New Testament, specifically in the Epistle of Jude (Jude 1:14-15), where it references a prophecy attributed to Enoch. This connection indicates that the authors of the New Testament were familiar with its content, although the book itself is not considered canonical by most Christian and Jewish traditions.
themes of the book referenced in 2 Peter 2:1. Also, the first 36 chapters have been considered Scripture in the Ethiopic Coptic Church (a church who ascribes their founder as the Apostle John).
Jesus referred to The Book of Enoch; “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Mat 5:5) pulled from “The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})”
All this noted, I would tend to suspect that it’s not inspired scripture, without some very good work done and a confirmation from the Holy Spirit.
For all the Schofield talk below, it’s not in the Catholic Bible, either.
I’m not aware of any salvific differences with Enoch, which would mean it’s a debate over historical truth, yes? If so, is it worth the division, when it can’t truly be confirmed?
It seems like a nice story to hold in the “maybe” narrative paths to me, at best, assuming it’s not partially false.
Historians put the book of Enoch’s composition date sometime between 300 and 200 B.C. This places it as being written between the Old and New Testaments (The KJV Study Bible, Barbour Publishing 2011). The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the book is a collection of many pieces, so some parts are older than others. There is much speculation about who authored the book—since it has many pieces, it probably has many authors. Regardless, there is no factual evidence that Enoch was the actual author. The fact that the book was written only a couple hundred years before Jesus was born makes it extremely unlikely that anything in it could be from the real Enoch.
The thing is, just because the book of Enoch is not in the Bible. Does it mean that people still can’t read it and gather knowledge from it. It’s just not to be confused with the actual word of God. I think there are many books throughout the ages of people can gain knowledge from that point to God and Christ.
I don’t disagree with that statement, and take that stance on other works that a lot of people here don’t appreciate. Just be careful to keep them all in question, where some parts are good, some bad, none authoritative, and weigh all conclusions against scripture being sure to check the original words used in the original language, because while scripture is accurate, many translations are not.
So Christian's got it wrong for 1,500 years until Martin Luther came around, broke his vows, married a Nun & removed books (that 1st Century Christ-Killing Jews also wanted gone) and Luther simply added words to justify his new Theology?
The original 66 books were the only books until the early Catholic Church started to meet and need justification for their doctrines. If you actually look at the early church in Acts they only reference the original writings from Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, James, and Paul.
Apocrypha, the collection of Jewish writings composed during the time between the Old and New Testaments (400 BC to the first century AD). These books were accepted by the early Christian Church (composed of the Jewish Apostles) & these books were only protested after early Christians began to use it & protested by (Christ killing) Jews in 90 AD, sixty-six years after the same Jews killed Christ.
The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon...
Catholics & Orthodox follow what the early Church believed. Protestants side with the people who killed Christ. Basically, Protestants are Jews who eat pork.
Yet Pauls gospel is different from Jesus. Throughout Galatians and elsewhere in his letters Paul attacks the law, says it is over and of no use. Yet frequently quotes it! Doubleminded!
Jesus however says - Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Did you read it '... till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled' since many prophesies remain to be filled time of Jacobs trouble, Gog of Mago Ezk 38/39 invasion and much more, - even Jesus return not yet fulfilled - so then all is not fulfilled and by Jesus words is not done away with.
Even Paul himself continued to live under the law! Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Paul demonstrates he walks orderly according to the law.
The New Covenant we read of in Hebrews 8 is repeated verbatim from Jeremiah 31:33 and following "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" - what law was in view? Mosaic law! What changes - the Covenant from Sinai is conditional required Israel to obey God's commandments, the New Covenant is the same but is unconditional on mans performance God/Christ does it all!
Some people (even some here) ignore those plain and direct words of God / Jesus. They are so embedded in the TRADITIONS of men that they’ll deny the law.
PS. And they’ll cry and whine when confronted with these facts because they are deceived by their so called “preachers” / “priests”. Sad but true.
PSS. I don’t claim to know all or be better than anyone (quite the opposite), but the word is the word … and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Paul was raised as a Pharisee and so yes, of course he talks about the old law, but it was fulfilled. That’s the whole point of acts 26. Paul also went out of his way to appease both Gentiles and Jews. Not sure what you’re trying to prove here?
Appease is indeed a relevant word here - what it actually means is 'I don't care what God says ...' Is He the God of Confusion (appeasement) Certainly Not! Appeasement is a fraud on the people! Paul lived his life fully observant of Torah Acts 21:24 as indeed did Jesus and at no time did He teach differently - who died for you?
Absolutely nowhere does Jesus say the Old Covenant has passed away, indeed only Paul says it, Hebrews says to the contrary:
Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
So at the time of writing Hebrews the writer makes very clear the Old Covenant had not passed away it was growing old etc so either the Old Covenant passed away at Christ's resurrection or it did not as indeed Jesus made clear in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:17-20.
If you are not sure then I suggest you actually read and understand what Jesus said!
Jesus did say he did not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:16). We are fully under both laws but the new covenant that Jesus outlines in the Sermon on the Mount concerns your heart and not just your actions. Still not sure what your point is, are you trying to say Paul writes contrary to what Jesus taught?
The 66 books of the Bible are the ones without historical inaccuracies and don’t contradict doctrine from known biblical writers. Also, the authors of many of the apocryphal books are known to be liars or frauds. Some of the books do contain useful information but it is NOT to be counted as the inspired Word of God.
The catholic Bible uses many of these apocryphal books to justify pergatory, praying to saints, and almsgiving. None of these things are mentioned by Jesus. Also, the members of the early church did not rely on the apocryphal books, and we don’t have the same breadth of copies to attest that what is being produced is what was written. With the 66 books, they have all undergone extensive authentication and are consistently confirmed by historical discoveries, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and other papyrus found in jars in the region.
I don’t know about you, but I trust the things Jesus said directly and don’t need anything else.
“If anyone preaches any other gospel… let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8
Well done! Good and faithful! Think of it, paying for a mass to get someone out of purgatory! This is in direct contrast to the word of God, God says "Without the shedding of innocent blood (there is no remission) of sins"(Hebrews 9:22) only Christ's blood was innocent for He never sinned, and only his blood can wash away sin. If you could redeem a sinner from purgatory, by simply paying for a mass, what would you need Jesus for, you would only need money, that's why God warned us in (Psalms 49:8) saying," THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WHOLE EARTH TO RANSOM ONE MAN'S SOUL" (Praying to Mary) Mary was not sinless, as proven by the scriptures, for Mary herself said, "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR"(Luke 1:46) Mary called God her savior, someone who has not sinned does not need a savior, Praying to Mary is in direct contrast to the word of God, Jesus himself said, "if anyone tries to come to the Father, any other way,then by me, he is a thief and a robber"(John 10:1, John 14:6) It's clear, If Mary could deliver us what would we need Christ for? Satan is always trying to get us to depend on something other than Christ. This is the reason these things and many more were left out of the 66 books. Everything for our mental, physical and spiritual, needs in this life as described in 3John 1:2, are contained in the promises found in the 66 books, God left nothing out. The Holy Spirit our teacher, helps us to rightly divide, understand and receive what is written, we lack nothing. I write these things as a second witness to confirm what you have written. "Out of the month of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established"(2 Corinthians 13:1) 🙏
https://web.archive.org/web/20250512023440/https://blog.nes.edu/the_book_of_enoch_and_its_importance_to_anyone_interested_in_biblical_history
All this noted, I would tend to suspect that it’s not inspired scripture, without some very good work done and a confirmation from the Holy Spirit.
For all the Schofield talk below, it’s not in the Catholic Bible, either.
I’m not aware of any salvific differences with Enoch, which would mean it’s a debate over historical truth, yes? If so, is it worth the division, when it can’t truly be confirmed?
It seems like a nice story to hold in the “maybe” narrative paths to me, at best, assuming it’s not partially false.
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-is-the-book-of-enoch-and-should-it-be-in-the-bible.html
The thing is, just because the book of Enoch is not in the Bible. Does it mean that people still can’t read it and gather knowledge from it. It’s just not to be confused with the actual word of God. I think there are many books throughout the ages of people can gain knowledge from that point to God and Christ.
I don’t disagree with that statement, and take that stance on other works that a lot of people here don’t appreciate. Just be careful to keep them all in question, where some parts are good, some bad, none authoritative, and weigh all conclusions against scripture being sure to check the original words used in the original language, because while scripture is accurate, many translations are not.
So Christian's got it wrong for 1,500 years until Martin Luther came around, broke his vows, married a Nun & removed books (that 1st Century Christ-Killing Jews also wanted gone) and Luther simply added words to justify his new Theology?
Is that what you really think? Yikes!
The original 66 books were the only books until the early Catholic Church started to meet and need justification for their doctrines. If you actually look at the early church in Acts they only reference the original writings from Luke, John, Matthew, Mark, James, and Paul.
Apocrypha, the collection of Jewish writings composed during the time between the Old and New Testaments (400 BC to the first century AD). These books were accepted by the early Christian Church (composed of the Jewish Apostles) & these books were only protested after early Christians began to use it & protested by (Christ killing) Jews in 90 AD, sixty-six years after the same Jews killed Christ.
The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon...
Catholics & Orthodox follow what the early Church believed. Protestants side with the people who killed Christ. Basically, Protestants are Jews who eat pork.
Yet Pauls gospel is different from Jesus. Throughout Galatians and elsewhere in his letters Paul attacks the law, says it is over and of no use. Yet frequently quotes it! Doubleminded!
Jesus however says - Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Did you read it '... till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled' since many prophesies remain to be filled time of Jacobs trouble, Gog of Mago Ezk 38/39 invasion and much more, - even Jesus return not yet fulfilled - so then all is not fulfilled and by Jesus words is not done away with.
Even Paul himself continued to live under the law! Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Paul demonstrates he walks orderly according to the law.
The New Covenant we read of in Hebrews 8 is repeated verbatim from Jeremiah 31:33 and following "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" - what law was in view? Mosaic law! What changes - the Covenant from Sinai is conditional required Israel to obey God's commandments, the New Covenant is the same but is unconditional on mans performance God/Christ does it all!
Some people (even some here) ignore those plain and direct words of God / Jesus. They are so embedded in the TRADITIONS of men that they’ll deny the law.
PS. And they’ll cry and whine when confronted with these facts because they are deceived by their so called “preachers” / “priests”. Sad but true.
PSS. I don’t claim to know all or be better than anyone (quite the opposite), but the word is the word … and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Paul was raised as a Pharisee and so yes, of course he talks about the old law, but it was fulfilled. That’s the whole point of acts 26. Paul also went out of his way to appease both Gentiles and Jews. Not sure what you’re trying to prove here?
Appease is indeed a relevant word here - what it actually means is 'I don't care what God says ...' Is He the God of Confusion (appeasement) Certainly Not! Appeasement is a fraud on the people! Paul lived his life fully observant of Torah Acts 21:24 as indeed did Jesus and at no time did He teach differently - who died for you?
Absolutely nowhere does Jesus say the Old Covenant has passed away, indeed only Paul says it, Hebrews says to the contrary:
Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
So at the time of writing Hebrews the writer makes very clear the Old Covenant had not passed away it was growing old etc so either the Old Covenant passed away at Christ's resurrection or it did not as indeed Jesus made clear in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:17-20.
If you are not sure then I suggest you actually read and understand what Jesus said!
Jesus did say he did not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:16). We are fully under both laws but the new covenant that Jesus outlines in the Sermon on the Mount concerns your heart and not just your actions. Still not sure what your point is, are you trying to say Paul writes contrary to what Jesus taught?
Very well said.
This information is very important, in this day of itching ears. People believing anything they read, no matter the source or veracity.