I know Christian commentators like L.A. Marzulli and Steve Quayle are completely enamored with the Book of Enoch because it supposedly sheds more light on the antediluvian world.

I finished it in about two days and found it to be rather 'meh'--not at all inspired as far as I'm concerned.

I can see why it was left out of the canon of scripture.

Ditto

Interesting.

You can "see why it was left out", just as you can "see" why Martin Luther took out the 7 books that were canonized?

If "I can see" is all it takes to determine Divine Inspiration, then can you also "see" why Martin Luther wanted to remove the books of Hebrews, James, and Revelations as well?

I don't believe the Book of Enoch is Sacred Scripture, but I leave that to the ones given authority by God, and not my "see" or "feels".

It's subjective, but I can sense the Holy Spirit leading me when I read the canonical books. I got no such leading with Enoch. You probably won't accept that but I can't explain it any better.

Luther was wrong, and not just because of the books he wanted to remove. I do not think he was inspired by God.

Yes, it is very subjective, and that "same" Holy Spirit is also leading others to read the same passages in the same Bible and arrive at drastically different conclusions, doctrines, etc.

So either the HS likes to lead people astray, you should reconsider the method you believe God had in mind to denote legitimacy of divine scripture. Hint; it can't be SS.

Then explain. My perspective is that some people are better at recognizing the leading of the Holy Spirit than others. That's why people often speak out of their own thoughts and tbink it's from God. It is a problem.

Don't you have an active thread here where you claim you have what you call "one" of your many "supernatural" abilities from God to recognize evil in a location?

And you don't see any ironic correlation in that and the above quoted post?

For someone who doesn't like the idea of trusting "man", you sure tend to give Divine credence to your own subjectivity quite a lot.

The 'Scriptures' that Jesus referenced is found in Enoch.

If Enoch was referenced as a prophet in the New Testament and Jesus, Himself, inferred that his book as Scripture; then, it does have some standing.
I've got a pdf copy and have read it. So, am familiar with it.
Please continue on with the normal sectarian squabbles.

Not at all. Discernment is very different from "hearing" the Holy Spirit. Two different phenomena entirely. I don't always "hear" what He's trying to tell me, but I never fail to know if evil is present. Glory to God. I'm not trying to claim super powers or anything. The discernment is a gift that's been 100%. Hearing the Holy Spirit is learned and I can't always shut off my thoughts and LISTEN.

Friend, I see your passion for your faith and concern for neglect for the apocrypha, and concern for how people pick and choose scripture, but you come with a spirit of jousting, which I myself have often carried.  Let's be sure to set the lance down today, and say what we mean and feel without it

I quickly recognize Enoch as being connected to the understanding of the world and history of the people of Jesus time.  We see this in the quotation of it, the presence of portions of the text we have today in the dead see scrolls, and even in scripture where the covering of the head of the woman is against the attention of the angels described as going in and taking human women as wives in Genesis (this also in accord with Jubilees).

It provides context, but it can also be hard for us to account for.  Particularly as it speaks of treasuries of snow and windows through which wind blows, we are led to ask how much is poetry and imagination and how much is revelation.  Certainly it speaks of things we have no basis for understanding.  Some say it describes in one place Enoch being shown a black hole, where there is terrible chaos and fire with mountains snared, and columns of fire rising and descending beyond sight, and a terrible void.  Or do we imagine we understand what we read?

As we read it should we say we are led astray without it?  It doesn't seem so.  It seems to echo what we can already discern from scripture.  It does tend to magnify and expand what we have read already, but is it all truth particularly where it speaks beyond the other scriptures we have?  We are in a poor position to judge, and in such a position we are probably wise to defer to the Septuagint which embodied the scripture that would have been recognized at the time of Jesus, and the books of the new testament which proclaim and clarify the gospel.

It's an interesting book which like Jubilees helps us understand what the people of that time thought and understood.  It doesn't appear to take away from Christ and indeed seems to afirm his coming, but I would still read or quote with careful regard to footing, seeing that we judge it in context of the more sure ground of the word already passed to us.

I doubt Enoch actually wrote the book, that it survived the Flood, or that Moses, Daniel, Ezekiel, And the rest would have mentioned it more. He was only mentioned 3 times in the New Testament. Interesting book but I wouldn’t put much stock in it.