Red

Where did I go wrong? What is the LDS teaching on the Nature of God? As I understand it at this point: God the Father is a man with flesh and bones, he is perfected and glorified, and his name is Elohim. I'm getting that from GOSPEL PRINCIPLES chapter 1. Joseph Smith even teaches as fact that he dwelt on an earth just like us. In the words "perfected" and "glorified" are the implication that Elohim was not perfect or glorious at one time, which is in harmony with Smith's earlier teaching. The big difference is that the Trinitarian God always was, is and will be the way He is: infinitely perfect and glorious. Also, He is non-material. What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative? -Red

GB-UK, Outshined, I think you misunderstood me. First of all, who is anyone to question anyone's sincerity? I don't question yours. But here's the misunderstanding: by "praying to the God I hadn't known" I meant that I prayed to the LDS idea if God, namely an exalted man named Elohim, and not to my own idea of Him. Really, the LDS God and the Trinitarian God are opposites in many ways, and therefore only one could be true. Now imagine if I were praying to demons, or a fire-hydrant, or my cat, would the true God hear my prayer? No! So if I have been praying to the false eternal trinitarian God about the book of Mormon, then I might as well be praying to an idol if the LDS exalted God were true. And if I pray to an idol then my prayers go unheard--God never listened to the prayers Israel ever gave to foreign gods. So there in lies the sincerity of my seeking, I went to the brink and looked over the edge for a good long time. -Red

I agree with traveler, that those believers living 3 1/2 before His coming will know, possibly down to the day, because the countdown will start when the Anti-christ enters the Rebuilt Temple and declares himself God. But also we will probably have a good idea even seven years before-hand when the Antichrist enforces a treaty with Israel. So when some great European leader comes to power and promises to protect Israel, then mark your calenders. But on the other hand, if we Pre-mils are reading things right, the Rapture will happen some time before that, it truly will come like a thief in the night...hopefully not my wedding night. For us, the next big thing to watch for would be if Iran, Russia, Turkey and other Arab nations try to invade Israel and are destroyed by an act of God (earthquake, fire and brimstone scenario). This needs to happen at a time when Israel let's its guard down and feels at peace, so some argue that this only happen after anti-christ signs the treaty. Israel is definitely not at peace right now, in fact they are very disolusioned, but I haven't heard of many suicide bombings lately, and who knows what the near future may hold. Perhaps this disolusionment could lead to apathy and a false sense of security--if it can happen in the U.S. after 9/11 it can happen anywhere! I read an article saying that the Jews feel like they've run out of options, that no matter what they do, their neighbors will always want to kill them. Perhaps they are more ready for their messiah than ever before. -Red

I knew where I was, I just didn't know where this thread went! My other thread was deleted for obvious reasons, so i thought this one was too, until I checked out the general discussion. L.H., I hear you with the more social approach. I will take your advice in the future, but also know that I come here not quite so much to challenge your beliefs but really to challenge mine. I do hope that perhaps someone will be persuaded, but I don't expect it. I post here, and other places to be better prepared when I meet a person face to face. If there is a balance between being confrontational and social while posting then I am the last person to have found it! I think I do better with people face to face, not that I convert them by the dozen, but they tend to trust me easier and have never said that I was demon controlled--tempers don't flare as easily in person, at least in my experience. Dr. T, So why should you believe my claims over the LDS claims? I won't go into specifics yet, (even if we'll be allowed to) but I"ll tell you of the first time I came contact with Mormonism: Growing up EV/non-denom I knew virtually nothing about LDS. My dad had actually been a Mormon in highschool but not a typical one: His dad was an abusive agnostic/catholic and his step mother was a Navajo Shaman and a Mormon...how that worked, I don't know. After a failed marriage and two estranged kids he came to know the Lord in the 70's, and He has been blessed ever since. He told me his memories of learning LDS doctrine about how Adam came to earth from some place named Kolob with one of his many wives and then ascended to be God (now the LDS church today does not teach this, but it should be noted that they apparently did in the 50's-60's while my dad went to their seminary classes during highschool). He also remebered them teaching that men could become gods. I remember one of the Junior high pastors doing a series on cults, and saying that in Mormonism Jesus and Satan are brothers. So, of course, to my young Bible-thumping ears none of this sounded "kosher" at all. And then came a missions trip to Salt Lake, Utah where we (10 or so college kids, I had just graduated high school) brought the Gospel to the front gates of the Temple and went door to door for a week. I suddenly found myself up to my neck in mormonism, I had never even shared my faith before let alone defend it! When confronted with the teachings of LDS Scriptures and prophets at this time, I noticed in me several reaction stages: 1) Laughing: "I can't believe they'd swallow this!" 2) Anger: "Why would they say that about my Jesus and lead others astrayay?" 3) Sadness/conviction: "they are doomed, my God we cannot leave them to fend for themselves, we must reach them." And amid all that was the terrifying thought: "what if I'm the one who's one the wrong side of the fence?" I felt like I was standing on the edge of a cliff contemplating whether or not to jump off into the sea of Mormonism, and I almost did because I knew that above all, my commitment was to the truth as God sees it. But as I stepped back from both my faith and theirs and subjected both to the same tests and standards, it was the faith my father had chosen in the 70's that won out in the end. So why should you believe a Bible thumper over a Mormon? Because the Bible can back up its claims (and I imagine I'll be backing that statement up for some time now ). And for you LDS: I prayed the prayer from Moroni 10 more than once. I asked repeatedly whether or not I was on the wrong side. The answer was always silence. The last time I prayed over this, two LDS missionaries challenged me to pray with them in their church and settle this thing once and for all, so I did. I realized that all along I had been praying to my trinitarian idea of God and not the LDS one. So I addressed "the God I hadn't prayed to" and asked him about the truth--for a half or more hour I actually turned away from my God and sought yours! The answer was silence again. Then slowly and softly an answer came from my old Friend upstairs, to the effect of: "oh you of little faith, he has no authority over you." And I was free. Sincerly, Red.

Thank-you for the congrats! I never actually went to Point Loma though. We met at Palomar Community College in San Marcos, and I am now at San Diego Christian College in El Cajon, on the same campus as Shadow Mountain Community Church. If you have ever heard of Dr. David Jeremiah, he's the pastor and the interum president for the school. So yes, my school is non-denom. but with a Baptist backround. I feel most at home in non-denom churches, though I have attended others (even LDS wards on a regular basis, if you'd believe that!). But anyway Dr. T, enough about me, you're keeping this idiot in supense! What question would you like to start with? -Red

There is no such thing as a nice tattoo. I know, just kidding Dr. T, Where would you like to begin? What claim would you like me to back-up? Ask and I'll answer.

Dr. T, As far as education goes, I am but a wee babe! I did two years of general education at a community college (where I met, Jenna, my bride to be), and I am now a senior at a private Christian College. They have a good system here for the Bible department. A Bible Major like myself can get a BA degree in one of three specialty areas: Missions, Pastoral and Exposition. It am going down the Pastoral track because it is where I feel lead, so I am taking a blend of courses in Bible, Theology, Hermeneutics, Homiletics, Counseling and Leadership. I plan to graduate, find a job in the minstry, and get married this summer. After that I will hold off on seminary until Jenna finishes her teaching credential. As I said, I am non-denomiational, which translated really means: I'm a of a conservative, evangelical/baptist persuasion! Though I am currently serving at a Wesleyan Church in the youth group and worship band, I will probably be ordained as baptist minister at some baptist institution. I can't really see that far ahead right now though. One quirk with me though, while most EVs believe that the gifts of prophecy and tongues have ceased, I do not find any Biblical reason to justify their cessation, so I actually do believe that these gifts are active today. One note, no reasonable baptist would say that these gifts could never come back, and when I am confronted with any kind prophecy, vision, or claim to speak in a tongue I ask: "Is it Biblical?" For example, a prophesy or vision must first be in line with (confirm and/or compliment) God's Word, and second, it must also come true. These tests come out of Deuteronomy. As for speaking in tongues, the NT defines it as speaking an earthly language which you did not know, and lays out guidelines for using it in an orderly manner. When a whole congregation simply explodes into talking gibberish, or says that you must speak in a tongue to be saved, then it is far from being Biblical. So perhaps I could simply be called a "Christian Bible Thumper!!!" I wonder if that would make a nice tattoo?... -Roger

Don't worry, I'm totally comfortable with telling you as much as I know about what I trust in and explaining those beliefs. Just know that I've only been alive for 22 years, so I'm still young and dumb, in case it wasn't obvious. I was mostly curious about your religious background, or lack thereof. It would give me a better idea of who you are and how to relate to you. As for me: I grew up in a Christian home. White, mid-class, living in the San Diego area. I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was five years old. I probably heard the Gospel in Sunday School. I still remember little songs like: "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong They are weak but He is strong..." and: "Red and Yellow, Black and White they are precious in His sight Jesus loves all the children of the world..." All of that must have sounded pretty good to five year old me. So one night when I couldn't sleep, I got up and asked my Mom if I could be a Christian. She said yes and lead me as I prayed, asking Jesus to forgive me of my sins and save me--acknowledging that He died and rose again for me. Spiritually, I died that night and rose again. Hence, I am born again, I am a new creation, I am one spirit with the Lord-literally, my spirit that was dead to God is now alive, being meshed with God's very nature. My condition is irreversible doc!!! hallelujah!!! Then, after that I was able to go to sleep, and so the Lord has always been my rest and peace. As I grew up, and through high school, I found that my greatest joy was to see people repent like I had. Often, when someone would preach the Gospel, at the end of the message they would invite the kids to accept Jesus, and so everyone would bow their heads and close their eye to pray--except me, because I wanted to see who stood up, raised their hand or went forward to show that they had believed! I loved to see it!!! Once I was an usher at a Billy Graham crusade. Nothing flashy, he just gave the Gospel to a stadium full of people, and those who had believed poured out onto the baseball diamond and filled up the outfield...I remember feeling God's power in that place, it was like an invisible atomic bomb going off in slow motion--if that makes any sense. So all this developed into a passion for evangelism and ministry. I am studying to be a pastor right now. Now all that's a pretty warm and fuzzy picture, but I hope you have a good idea of what the lense is like through which I see the world. I started with a child's unquestioning faith, but it has matured as it has been challenged. So If I could say in a sentence why I believe, it is because the faith that I started out with has been confirmed continuously through showing itself to be in harmony with and even explaing our common reality. -Red

What is your backround? Also if we are to be true seekers of truth (as I still am in many areas) we must also be willing to settle on it when we find it, and not treat God like a museum exibit--not that you do but I have met those who do. -Red

Traveler: Yes, calling on God has merit solely in the fact that God decreed this as the only way to be "saved." Only through our faith in the work of Jesus, by the mercy of God can we be given Eternal Life. But in another sense, there is no merit whatsoever in our calling on God to save us from His wrath, which we so completely deserve. Imagine you cheated on your wife and beat your children. Would you be going above and beyond the call of duty to ask her forgiveness? No! calling on God to refrain from smiting you, or asking your wife to not press charges is hardly "meritorious." Not that you have done any of that to your wife but this is an example of what we do to God everyday, in many ways. But what God did for us is just like this: imagine your wife sent herself to jail in your stead. All she asks of you is to love her in return (the only condition to be met is faith). Now if you repent, (turn away from your old ways) deciding that you love her, she has the power to not prosecute you, and she won't. But if you give her the finger and leave, thinking she did a real stupid thing by thowing herself in prison like that, then the long arm of the Law will have its way with you. Do you (and puska also) see how this works? Jesus, against whom we sin daily, has purchased forgiveness for the whole world--every single person who ever has or will live. But they must accept the gift of reconciliation/Eternal Life that God holds out in front of our faces. It is a sad reality that everyone who goes to hell is actually "forgiven" but they have not turned to God. They gave Him the finger, so God had no choice but to condemn them. -Red One a side note (or in conclusion?): here is why "calling on God" (repenting, believing, etc.) is not a work: does it burn any calories?

That first paragraph feels like something out of Harry Potter: "you know who did you know what," but I'm not sure I do know...elaborate please. As for the Epistle of Christ you mentioned, I actually did track that one down too. Is this it?... "ABGARUS, king of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who appears at Jerusalem, greeting. 2 I have been informed concerning you and your cures, which are performed without the use of medicines and herbs, 3 For it is reported, that you cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, do both cleanse lepers, and cast out unclean spirits and devils, and restore them to health who have been long diseased, and raisest up the dead; 4 All which when I heard, I was persuaded of one of these two, viz: either that you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God. 5 On this account therefore I have wrote to you, earnestly to desire you would take the trouble of a journey hither, and cure a disease which I am under. 6 For I hear the Jews ridicule you, and intend you mischief. 7 My city is indeed small, but neat, and large enough for us both. (The answer of Jesus by Ananias the footman to Abgarus the king, 3 declining to visit Edessa.) ABGARUS, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed on me, whom ye have not seen. 2 For it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live. 3 As to that part of your letter, which relates to my giving you a visit, I must inform you, that I must fulfil all the ends of my mission in this country, and after that be received up again to him who sent me. 4 But after my ascension I will send one of my disciples, who will cure your disease, and give life to you, and all that are with you. " At a glance it seems to be good. But as a sheep, I am not hearing my Sheppard here. Off hand I can see why this may have been rejected as a fraud for several reasons: 1. The phrase "you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God" seems to draw a non-biblical distinction between God and the son of God, as if they were two separate beings...but we know that "Jesus is the image of the invisible God," "to see the Son is to see the Father," and so on. Jesus never addresses this in the letter, so I can see the potrential for deriving a heresy similar to Aryanism, Nestorianism, or maybe even Gnosticism from this text. 2. Another problem arises with: "it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me [Jesus] should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live." Obviously, there were many who did see, did believe in Jesus and did recieve eternal life. For example: Thomas and the 500 disciples who saw Him ascend. Rather it is those who have not seen who merely recieve a greater blessing. This verse seems to be a sloppy allusion to the prophesy: "having eyes they do not see, having ears they do not hear," which was fulfilled by Jesus' speaking parrables, not being physically seen. The letter offers no teaching that can't be found more clearly in the Gospels, but also opens the door for heresy. As I understand, it was Eusebius who found this in the archives of Edessa in the 300's A.D. Whether he endorsed it as Holy Scripture I didn't see, but wasn't it the Nestorians who pushed this as scripture? Consider the source: the Nestorians were heretics who believed that Jesus was two persons; the man Jesus and the son of God; that the Son basically indewlt the man. But we know that Jesus the man and Jesus the Son are both one person; two natures in one person: fully man, fully God. We can understand this in terms of the verse: "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." Now yes, I'm throwing around Trinitarian language which the LDS churdch does not buy into, but I know for sure that it does not accept the Nestorian veiw either. And if the LDS leadership is commissioned by God why haven't they sought out all His words like you do, and why haven't they canonized it? Do you know more about what ought to be God's word than they do? Or if you don't, who are you to exceed the limits of what they recognize?

You misrepresent our position by saying that "the councils" were "divinley commisioned" and "inspired." No, these councils, namely the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., merely officially recognized what had always been recognized. To my knowledge, the Apostolic Fathers, guys like Polycarp and Clement of Rome, quoted the entire NT in their combined writings except 2 about verses. This shows that our present NT was recognized by Christians at large by the early A.D. 100's. (Tertullian who came later, 155-230 A.D., actually called the Book of Enoch scripture, but he's the only one I know of--he also got wrapped in that Montanist movement, so...). Also, Jesus never expressly condoned the book of Enoch, or any "sacred' writing outside the OT: "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." This a way of declaring the entire OT as authoritative because it is the OT that records all this bloodshed (though Malachi is last in our OT, Zechariah was actually the last to prophesy). If the OT were not authoritative then how could anyone be held accountable to it? I think that the underlying issue in the passage, the issue that drives the whole context, is the lawyers and Pharisees had in effect rejected the word of God--the very thing they claimed to be holy. Now does Jesus ever say anything like this about Enoch? I go with PC on this that if God whats to use the wording of some other writer to express His truth then He can do that, but it does not make the source inspired. Dare I borrow your wording?...sure: I am "appalled" at the tendency of so many to resort to conspiracy theories when it comes to doctrine and canon issues. Really, the argument is based on lack of evidence and that's no argument at all, continually claiming that things were left out when those things cannot be produced except by what you consider to be modern revelation. And I'll echo PC again, your church, who as far as I know claim to have the authority of God on earth condone the 66 books of the bible!!! Wouldn't it be fair to say that your church leaders actually do approve of the bible and consider themselves to be divinely commissioned? Then why don't you? I do not recall you ever owning up to this inconsistency.

oink! c'mon PC let's get out of our chairs and shake those curly-cue's. How about a joke with the phrase "by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin"...mmmm, nah, nothin' came to me. Anyhoo....swine, wow... I suddemly feel safer knowing that I'm not kosher (sp?), i.e. that there's about 11 or so million LESS people out there would like to fry my bacon. Yes, Jesus did say that that knowing God the Father = eternal life. He also said that to know Jesus = knowing God the Father, not by a pursuit of truth. Don't confuse the creation with the creator--even truth itself. If you are seeking knowledge in order to know God and gain eternal life then you are not following what Jesus instructed, and dancing with something like a works/salvation doctrine.

I sorrow and regret that the Bible has resulted in this kind of thinking - Why then does G-d allow a cannon as a means that sincere people be deceived? Let us look at Ecclesiastes 1:9-10: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.” I submit that the doctrine of cannon which allows man to determine what is scripture and what is not acceptable scripture is a doctrine that began with the Pharisees in the days of Jesus. The Traveler Traveler is reading way deep into this passage from John 7. Consider v.46, "The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." i.e. that Jesus spoke with authority, not that he spoke with anyone else's, let alone Enoch's. Also, read v.49, "But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." Notice that it does NOT say: "But this people who knoweth not the law, but are obsessed with that dang Enoch book, are cursed." Traveler said: "The Pharisees clearly believed the law was their cannon and Jesus taught and quoted from their non-cannon." No, Jesus clearly did have the Pharisee's canon in mind as He spoke. Really, what good would it have done to go quoted from some source that wasn't seen as canonicle to the ruling authorities? Jesus, especially in Matthew, appears as a "stick it to the man" type when it comes to the Pharisees, but deriving His authority from a book like Enoch would not have convicted them like a refernce to Moses, Daniel or the Psalms. "I submit..." (geez, next time I use that phrase I should wear a tie...) that whaile the word "canon" is used nowhere in the Bible that I know of, the doctrine itself is implicit throughout: 1. God's word is true and pure. 2. Not everything is written from God, so it is necesarry to recognize was is and what is not His word. 3. God does not contradict Himself, so any so-called scripture that contradict what God has previously said cannot be from God. 4. God apoints and guides leaders to sheppard His people--part of shepparding is knowing which writings are good for doctrine, reproof, etc... All these principles I see at work in the Bible. Lastly, the verses have been quoted already, or the y will be quoted real soon, so I won't here, but Jesus only ever explicitly stated that the OT was authoritative. He never said anything like that about any other writings. Should we exceed what the Lord taught?

As he said, Traveler is aparrently at large somewhere else in the world right now, but did I some digging in response his claims here. Now that I'm on Spring break I have some time... Just because a New Testament writer says something that sounds a lot like something else my fictional aunt Josephine wrote last week, does not automatically mean that they are quoting her or that her words are scripture. Now when Jesus says something that sounds a lot like something the writer of Enoch said, how can we can that both Jesus and the Book of Enoch weren't refering to the same OT source? This is what I will show in this post (now that I've read everything up to this point and got my pithy comments out of my system) that Jesus was quoting or alluding to the OT in the above passages from Matthew, not Enoch. However this discussion is hampered by one thing: traveler showed us a bunch of verses from Matthew but never pointed us to any place in Enoch. I recently downloaded a copy of the book of Enoch but what good will that do me? So if it does turn out that Jesus actually did "quote" Enoch, then this post will still show that the the writer of Enoch also barrowed from the OT Matt 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” ...quote from Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Matt 13:43 “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” ...allusion to Daniel 12:3: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." (these "wise" who lead others to righteousness must themsleves be righteous). Matt 19:28 (not 14:28) “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” ...no similar phrase was found in the OT, and of course we can't see where these words are supposed to be in Enoch. But even if these words are found in Enoch, the context in Matthew seems to have nothing to do with quoting any source, but Jesus giving a promise to His 12 apostles. Matt 26:24 “Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.” ...fulfillment of Psalm 41:9: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (again, whether Jesus quoted Enoch or not, He's definitely forshadowing Judas' fate which fits well with the rest of the narrative. Yes, not being born would be a lot better than hanging myself and having my guts spill out). Matt 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." ...allusion to Haggai 2:22: "And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother." (warfare has a funny way of begetting famines and pestilence. I don't know where OT prophets might speak of earthquakes in the end times). Matt 24:21-22 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." ...allusion to Isaiah 65:8-9: "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." Matt 24:29-30 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." ...allusion to Daniel 7:11 and quote from Daniel 7:13-14: "I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame...I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Matt 25:31-32 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" ...allusion to Ezekiel 20:38: "And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." Matt 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" ...perhaps Jesus quoted Himself fropm Mattew 7:23 "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." and this traces back to Psalm 6:8, "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping." So can we tiumphantly declare that Jesus thought the Book of Enoch was authoratative scripture? No, we cannot.