The bible is a collection of books accepted by the Romans

google and verify for yourself
that what I said about augustine is 100% true...

I see a lot of assumptions about scripture. You might want to do some research before you fall into the trap of believing everything you think you know. The RCC wasn’t the first to collect books and letters in a collection of works known as the NT. The fact is the RCC was not heard of or exist before 325AD. The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.Apr 23, 201. www.history.com/topics/religion/bible

The deciding matter as it pertains to the canon of scripture is not whether truth exists in various writing. The deciding factor is whole truth, not partial truth. One of the chief reasons the excluded material was excluded is because the whole it does not wholly reconcile with whole of the content we know to be inspired. For example, we know the epistles of Paul have integrity because Luke and Peter (and by extension James) bear witness to that fact. Therefore, anything that does not bear complete consistency with the whole of the Pauline content is necessarily to be excluded. This is not rocket science. If Paul says, "X," and Enoch says, "Y," then because of the witness of two or more Enoch gets discarded and Paul gets kept. 

This is not an easy process. The Bible is a collection of 66 writings from at least 40 authors written over the span of some 14-1500 years, and all of them part of a contiguous whole. There's no other book like this. There are some seeming disparities in the Bible, but those disparities are only what seems to be the case because it can and does all fit together cohesively when correctly understood. This is one of the ways we know, or can recognize, when we've erred in our reading and understanding. It is not easy, but neither is it brain surgery. 

It should also be understood the Reformation has had a profound influence on the canon, even though the canon was decided many centuries beforehand. Protestants are not Roman Catholics. We have no allegiance to Rome. There's a reason the Apocrypha is apocryphal, and there are reasons Protestantism rejects the apocryphal writings as canonical. Useful for understanding certain aspect of Judaism, Christianity, and scripture, but not themselves inspired as scripture. Protestantism has examined the canon and agreed with 4th and 5th century councils. Protestants are not Roman. In point of fact the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) wasn't very Roman in the 4th and 5th centuries, in comparison to what it looks like today. If Clement or Augustine were to look at the RCC today there are dozens of places where they might be enraged and dissent. The problem with "Romanism," stems a great deal from the Reformation. The Reformation was not specifically an apocalyptic movement, but there was almost uniform agreement the RCC was the antichrist. Most of the early Reformers used the term rhetorically, not theologically. It's best to understand the Reformation indictments of the RCC as an antichrist, not the antichrist. Sadly, because of the Protestent scapegoating of the RCC the belief the RCC is the antichrist persists in many segments of Protestantism. 

And as a consequence......., the canon of scripture is called into question . 


It does not help - it makes things worse - that there is nowadays a large swath of Christendom raised with an apocalyptic orientation. Books like Enoch have an appeal they never previously had in Christian history simply because there's a bunch of people actively looking forward to things like, 

"The Holy Great One will come forth from His dwelling, and the eternal God will tread upon the earth, (even) on Mount Sinai, and appear from His camp, and appear in the strength of His might from the heaven of heavens. And all shall be smitten with fear and the Watchers shall quake, and great fear and trembling shall seize them unto the ends of the earth. And the high mountains shall be shaken, and the high hills shall be made low, and shall melt like wax before the flame and the earth shall be wholly rent in sunder, and all that is upon the earth shall perish, and there shall be a judgement upon all men." 

Sounds like something we might read in any of the apocalyptic texts of the Bible. 


But it is not scripture.



The book of Enoch says Enoch went to Tartarus. Scripture says he was "translated" and did not see death. Not only is Tartarus not Jewish (it's pagan Greek mythology), but that portion of the book is not a vision (like that of the prophets or John's Revelation). Enoch is there. The man who didn't see death went to the land of the dead. According to Enoch it was a fallen angel, Azazel, who taught humans metallurgy and the making of "swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them," along with cosmetics and self-beautification. According to Genesis 4:2 Tubal-Cain was the first worker of metals (bronze and iron). If the dating of Enoch is correct, then it is part of a large swath of writings authored during the Hellenistic period and the Hellenistic influence on Judaism was repudiated by New Testament authors like John. Even if Enoch isn't considered a Gnostic tome (and Gnosticism is also repudiated in the Bible), it's Hellenism disqualifies it as inspired scripture. Thew Jews did not consider Enoch canon, and neither did the Christians.

We're not sure who wrote the book(s) of Enoch, or when it was written, and there's plenty of evidence it is pseudepigraphic. The book of [1] Enoch, for example, is thought to have been written sometime around 100-200 BC, but Enoch lived thousands of years before then! If the Enoch of the Book of Enoch is the Enoch of the Pentateuch, then he lived before the invention of writing. Enoch lived before the Flood, so the question is begged how a book written prior to the flood could survive the flood, especially since the first books of the Bible were written by Moses, several generations later. Even if the book was a record of oral tradition how was it penned so late in Jewish history? 



It's not rocket surgery .



And for the record, there are a lot of writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls that aren't in the Bible or considered the canon of Christian scripture. Lots of rabbinical writings of the Essenes are not canon. Enoch just happens to be one of the many. Neat book to read, but not scripture.